HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKETS 05181999 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
101496
BOX: 20
Folder: PL PACKETS 1999
Document: PL PACKETS 05181999
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 18, 1999
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER.
II. ROLL CALL.
III. APPROVAL OF MAY 18, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA.
IV. APPROVAL OF MARCH 16, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES.
V. PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE MAY 25, 1999 CITY COUNCIL
VI. PUBLIC HEARING.
A. 99-02 SUNSET MEMORIAL CEMETERY, SIDEYARD VARIANCE FOR SIDEWALK
AROUND MAUSOLEUM.
B. 99-03 DAVE SPERRY, 4XXX FORDHAM DRIVE LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA
VARIANCE REQUESTS.
C. 99-05 COPPO PARTNERS, 2837 ANTHONY LANE SOUTH, REAR YARD
VARIANCE
VII. CONCEPT REVIEW - NONE.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS.
1. REPORT FROM THE COUNCIL LIAISON.
2. REPORT FROM THE PARKS COMMISSION.
3. DISCUSSION OF A SPECIAL PROJECT.
IX. COMMENTS.
X. ADJOURNMENT.
1 CITY OF ST.ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4 MARCH 16, 1999
5
6
7 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
8 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair
9 Bergstrom.
10
11 U. ROLL CALL.
12 Commissioners present: Chair Bergstrom; Commissioners Hanson, Gondorchin, Kaczor,
13 Makowske, Stille and Horst.
14 Commissioners absent: None.
15 Also present: Kim Moore-Sykes,Management Assistant.
16
17
18 III. APPROVAL OF MARCH 19, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA.
19 Motion by Gondorchin, second by Bergstrom to approve the March 19, 1999 Planning
20 Commission Meeting Agenda as presented.
21
22 Motion carried unanimously.
23
24 IV. APPROVAL OF FEBRUARY 16, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
25 MINUTES.
26 Motion by Bergstrom, second by Horst to approve the February 16, 1999 Planning Commission
27 Meeting Minutes with the following changes:
28
29 Page 4, line 20, change"Ms. Moore-Sykes"to"Gondorchin"
30 Page 5, line 5, change"Bergstrom"to"Gondorchin"
31 Page 6, line 21, change "Carpola"to"Karkulla"
32
33 Motion carried unanimously.
34
35 V. DESIGNATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE CITY
36 _ COUNCIL.
37 Kaczor agreed to attend the March 23, 1999 City Council meeting.
38
39 VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
40 A. James Bona, Sideyard Variance for Storage Addition, St. Anthony Mobil,2801 Kenzie
41 Terrace.
42 Bergstrom opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M.
43
44 Ms. Moore-Sykes reviewed the petition for variance submitted by James R. Bona, also known as
45 Roger Bona and owner of the St. Anthony Mobil Station located at 2801 Kenzie Terrace,
46 requesting a 10 foot variance to the sideyard setback on the west side of the existing building that
47 houses auto service and repair bays. Mr. Bona is seeking this variance in order to construct a
1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1999
Page 2
1 cold storage addition so that he will be able to store equipment that is used on a daily basis and to
2. supportan inventory of items necessary for the conduct of his repair business. He also proposes
3 to store used tires in this proposed addition until there is a sufficient number.for disposal.
4
5 Mr. Bona is requesting a 10-foot variance similar to the one that was granted two years ago for
6 the building where he plans to construct the proposed addition. Strict enforcement of the
7 sideyard setback would cause an undue hardship because of fire code restrictions limiting the
8 types of storage units that can be used for potentially flammable items. Due to the nature of his
9 business and that he intends to store used tires,business-related inventory, and snow removal
10 equipment,the fire code prevents him from purchasing a pre-manufactured storage unit. Because
11 of the"moveability"of pre-constructed units, such a unit could be placed within the setbacks of
12 this property but they are not rated to contain a fire or restrict its spreading.
13
14 The storage of used tires and equipment outside of the building is also not conducive to the
15 City's revitalization andbeautification efforts, especially since Mr. Bona's business operates
16 next to a residential area. As he states in his letter for petition for variance, Mr. Bona reiterates
17 that while his business exists in a commercial zone,he is aware of the residential aspect of the
18 neighborhood and works hard to conform to that standard so that the business can blend in rather
19 than stand out. Leaving equipment and used tires outside does not blend in with the character of
20 the neighborhood nor does erecting a tin storage shed that can be placed within the setbacks of
21 the property.
22
23 Staff has visited the Mobil Station and talked with Mr. Bona about this project. Of concern to
24 Staff was the potential loss of parking spaces in order to construct this proposed addition. Mr.
25 Bona indicated that he would lose an area equivalent to two sparking spaces, which he was
26 already using for storage of equipment and used tires. In reviewing past requests, Staff found
27 that Mr. Bona was required as part of his conditional use permit for the construction of the repair
28 bays,to add 19 more spaces. He added 21 spaces on site and another 14 parking spaces on the
29 property he owns adjacent to the repair bays building.
30
31 Bergstrom invited a representative of Roger's St. Anthony Mobil to address the Commission.
32 John Ludwig,New View Construction,presented architectural drawings depicting the proposed
33 construction. He stated the building addition will be designed with a residential look to fit in
34 with the houses around it with a brick and stucco exterior.
35
36 Hanson asked for clarification with regard to the direction which the main opening of the
37 structure would face. Mr. Ludwig stated the building will be accessible from the east on Kenzie
38 Terrace similar to the doors on both existing buildings.
39
40 Ms. Moore-Sykes presented a letter written by Gary and Cary Zahrbock, 2704 -27th Avenue
'
41 NE, ui support of St. Anthony Mobil's request for a side yard variance to allow construction of
42 a storage addition to the north side of the service and repair bays building.
43
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1999
Page 3
1 As neighbors of Roger's St. Anthony Mobil,we have found them to be a tremendous asset to our
2 community! The building developments Roger has made have been tasteful and an
3 improvement.
4
5 We appreciate not only his excellent service and wonderful staff, but his commitment to the
6 positive image of St. Anthony."
7
8 Bergstrom closed the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M.
9
10 Stille asked where the Zahrbock's home is situated. Mr. Bona stated the Zahrbock's home is 4
11 houses from the Mobil station.
12
13 Bergstrom stated the variance request seems to be an extension of variances granted in the past,
14 and similar to some cold storage installed at a site at 33rd Avenue and Stinson Boulevard.
15
16 Gondorchin asked if there were any options or alternatives Mr. Bona might have other than
17 constructing the proposed building. Mr. Bona stated there are no other options due to the
18 triangular shape of the lot and the need for minimum exposure for storage of unsightly items.
19 Gondorchin asked whether there was storage space within the existing structure. Mr. Bona stated
20 there is not.
21
22 Motion by Makowske, second by Hanson to approve recommendation to the City Council of a
23 10-foot sideyard variance request for Roger's St. Anthony Mobil Station, 2801 Kenzie Terrace.
24
25 Motion carried unanimously.
26
27 Bergstrom stated the variance request will be presented to the City Council for approval at their
28 March 23, 1999 regular meeting, and encouraged Mr. Bona to attend that meeting. He expressed
29 his appreciation to Mr. Bona for all his efforts within the community.
30
31 VII. CONCEPT REVIEW.
32 A. Sunset Memorial Cemetery, Sideyard Variance for Sidewalk around Mausoleum.
33 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that representatives from Sunset Memorial Park were present for a
34 concept review in preparation for a public hearing on a petition for a variance at the April 20,
35 1999 Planning Commission meeting. She added they are requesting to be allowed to construct a
36 5-foot wide sidewalk.in the setbacks on the.northeast and northwest sides of the recently
37 constructed mausoleum, and have agreed to a concept review so that the Planning Commission
38 can review their proposal and discuss options and suggestions.
39
40 Bergstrom asked whether the sidewalk is a requirement or an option.of the owner. Ms. Moore-
41 Sykes stated she assumes it is an option as the building inspector had been to the site and nothing
42 was mentioned to Staff.
43
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1999
Page 4
1 Horst asked for clarification with regard to the variance request. Ms. Moore-Sykes confirmed
2 that proposed sidewalk will be situated 5 feet within the setback. She invited representatives of
3 Sunset Memorial Park to address the Commission.
4
5 Mr. Ted Dirkman presented overhead views of the property in question, adding that 20 feet of the
6 90-foot proposed sidewalk would be within the setback, and the variance of 5 feet is the width of
7 the proposed sidewalk.
8
9 Bergstrom asked for clarification with regard to the purpose of the proposed sidewalk. Mr.
10 Dirkman stated the sidewalk is necessary for families to visit crypts without walking on the lawn
11 which is not appropriate for wheelchairs,the elderly or high heels. Horst stated these points will
12 be helpful toward demonstrating a hardship.
13
14 Bergstrom asked whether the Park is under any industry rules or regulations which,require the
15 sidewalk. Mr. Dirkman stated the sidewalk is not required but is necessary to make visiting
16 crypts easier for families. Makowske stated that in addition to access,there could be some safety
17 issues as well. Dirkman confirmed this, stating the sidewalk will be ploughed in the wintertime,
18 and staff will use it for operational purposes, so there are safety issues for staff as well.
19
20 Makowske stated he believes the safety issue will be key in requesting a variance with regard to
21 hardship. He stated the Planning Commission is under obligation to fulfill 3 conditions: 1)the
22 hardship must not be caused by the cemetery; 2)there must be unusual circumstances not
23 applicable to other lots; and 3)the hardship must be caused by City ordinance. He added that
24 whatever Mr. Dirkman could provide to help the Commission determine that these conditions are
25 met will be helpful in presenting the case to the City Council for final approval.
26
27 Bergstrom stated he believes the issue is very straightforward and there are no other options to
28 meet the Park's needs. He added the request will be brought before the Commission for a Public
29 Hearing and presented to the City Council in April.
30
31 VIII. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
32 A. Variance Request Sunset Memorial Cemetery.Public Hearing 4/20/99.
33 Ms. Moore-Sykes reminded the Commission that a public hearing would be held for Sunset
34 Memorial Cemetery's variance request at their April 20, 1999 meeting.
35
36 B. Variance Request, 4008 Fordham Drive,Public Hearing 4/20/99
37 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated that a lot split and variances for lot width and area for 4008 Fordham
38 Drive was approved by the City Council 12 years ago..She added that the lot's owners, the
39 Johnson's, never had a plat survey filed and the variances expired after 12 months.
40
41 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated the Johnson's now wish to request the variances again and their buyers
42 have drawn up architectural plans for a house for the nonconforming lot. She added she received
43 notice from Johnson's in November 1998 that they had filed the plat survey with Ramsey County
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1999
Page 5
1 based on the Council meeting minutes from 12 years ago and it was accepted. She stated she had
2 requested a letter from the County to this effect but has not received it to date.
3
4 Bergstrom stated that if Ramsey County proceeds with this,they will plat nonconforming lots.
5 Ms: Moore-Sykes agreed, stating the City ordinance specifies the expiration of a variance,but
6 nota subdivision. She added the Johnson's had given her a depiction of the proposed home to be
7 constructed on the nonconforming lot, and it meets the 35% lot coverage requirement.
8
9 Gondorchin stated a resident on that block had expressed concern with regard to water issues if a
10 home is built on that lot and had suggested-there was a moratorium on building on that block due
11 to the storm water problems which had existed for some time. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated she was
12 not familiar with that but would look into it.
13
14 Bergstrom asked whether Ms. Moore-Sykes had recommended that the Johnson's have a concept
15 review with the Planning Commission. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated they had been to the Planning
16 Commission in November 1998 and she had given them an application but they did not submit
17 the necessary fee. Horst stated he had spoken to the Johnson's and suggested a concept review,
18 but they seemed anxious to get on with the process.
19
20 IX. OTHER BUSINESS.
21 1. - Report from the Parks Commission.
22 Bergstrom welcomed Parks Commissioner Doug Koehntop and invited him to address the
23 Commission. Mr. Koehntop stated the Parks Commission has been focusing mainly on the
24 development of the Water Tower Park play area and have arrived at final plans for a 9,000 square
25 feet multi-age interactive play with a timber surface which is cost effective and handicapped
26 accessible. He added a half basketball court will be situated behind the water treatment plant,
27 and excessive landscaping will be done along 33rd Avenue.
28
29 Mr. Koehntop stated the Commission intends to present the site plan to the City Council at their
30 March 23, 1999 meeting and hopefully have bids out by the beginning of April.
31
32 Bergstrom asked what parking is available for users of the play area. 'Mr. Koehntop stated a path
33 will link the existing parking near the tennis courts and community center to the play area.
34
35 Bergstrom asked about plans for a restroom. Mr. Koehntop stated a portable handicapped
36 accessible restroom unit with water fountain will be situated near the water treatment plant. He
37 added there are restrooms in the warming houses.
38
39 Horst asked for clarification with regard to plans for a basketball court. Mr. Koehntop stated the
40 Commission had originally hoped for 2 half basketball courts or 1 full court, but the architects
41 decided it was not possible due to grade and space constraints.
42
43 Bergstrom asked what amount of usage is anticipated. Mr. Koehntop stated that particular
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1999
Page 6
1 question has not been addressed,but the Commission believes that people using the park for
2 other purposes will spend time at the play area.
3
4 Stille asked for a construction timeframe: Mr. Koehntop stated that if the final plans are
5 approved by the City Council next week,bids will be put out in April for construction to
6 commence in May and the park to open in July.
7
8 Kaczor stated he lives on 33rd Avenue across from the proposed play area, and parking is a
9 problem along that street especially as parking regulations are confusing. Mr. Koehntop stated
10 the Commission plans to do extensive, attractive landscaping along 33rd Avenue.
11
12 2. Discussion.of Goals for 1999.
13 Bergstrom stated he believed the joint worksession with the City Council on March 9., 1999 was
14 an open and frank discussion at which the Council expressed their support for the Commission's
15 desire to take on a larger role.
16
17 Makowske stated the Commission should act quickly to produce results in the near term so the
18 Council will see that.they are determined to take a more active role in City planning.
19
20 Bergstrom stated that the Apache Plaza/Opus issue has not gained momentum, and the Mayor
21 had discussed potential new owners of the St. Anthony Shopping Center. Horst stated the new
22 owners had met with the Council previously, and he met them and was favorably impressed with
23 their plans for the shopping center. He added they are interested in other sites around the
24 shopping center and they have rejuvenated several other shopping centers in the area.
25
26 Bergstrom asked whether the sale has closed. Horst stated the potential new owners have signed
27 a purchase agreement and expect to close within 60 days. Bergstrom stated the City Council has
28 hired Mr. Dick Krier to do additional planning for the shopping center, and questioned how that
29 will dovetail in with this acquisition.
30
31 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated Mr. Krier's plan takes the whole area into consideration_and not just the
32 shopping center. Horst stated he questions the value of Mr. Krier's input at this point since the.
33 new owners will do whatever they want with the property. Bergstrom reiterated that Mr. Krier is
34 reviewing the entire area.
35
36 Kaczor stated that discussions at the joint worksession seemed to indicate that St. Anthony
37 shopping center is more viable than Apache Plaza. Bergstrom stated he and Ms. Moore-Sykes
38 plan to meet with City Manager Mike Momson on March 29, 1999 at 12:00 P.M. with regard to
39 the joint worksession, and invited interested Commissioners to attend.
40
41 Makowske asked what the Commission's next step might be with regard to the priorities
42 discussed and decided upon at the February 16, 1999 meeting. Bergstrom stated the Mayor was
43 supportive of the Commission's proposal for the hiring of an economic development specialist
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1999
Page 7
1 for the City,but that would ultimately be the decision of Mr. Mornson who is responsible for
2 staffing issues.
3
. . 4 An audience member asked whether the shopping center's new owners are interested in
5 developing sites around the center and if so,will they be residential/rental or retail, and whether
6 the sale of the property is contingent upon the upgrading of sewer and amenities.
7
8 Bergstrom stated the Commission does not have answers to these questions and has not been
9 involved in discussions with regard to the sale of the property. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated it is
10 early in the process. The audience member stated that his home is near the shopping center and
11 he is concerned that his home might be taken. Ms: Moore-Sykes stated she is unaware that the
12 shopping center's new owners plan to take any property and in any case it would be purchased.
13
14 The audience member asked if there was anything in writing to this effect. Ms. Moore-Sykes
15 stated the information is not public as the sale is between two private parties. Horst stated the
16 new owners have been very open to date. Bergstrom stated the City Manager might be able to
17 assist in answering the audience member's questions.
18
19 X. COMMENTS.
20 Hanson expressed concern, after last week's joint worksession with the City Council, over how
21 much authority the Commission will have for accomplishing its goals for 1999, and questioned
22 whether the Commission might focus on different goals. He suggested there may be some items
23 on the original long list of goals over which the Commission might have more control. He stated
24 he felt that the Council became less comfortable as the meeting progressed with the ideas
25 presented by the Commission.
26
27 Bergstrom stated the 5 issues discussed are long-term, large issues and an economic development
28 specialist is definitely something the Commission can push for.
29
30 Hanson asked whether a Councilmember would be attending the Commission's meetings in
31 future. He added he believes this arrangement would greatly increase communication between
32 the Council and the Commission. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated Councilmember Faust was interested
33 in starting the process,but apparently the Council is still debating the issue as there is some
34 desire to have a formal policy in place.
35
36 Bergstrom stated that a Council representative would be welcome at any time at the
37 Commission's meetings. Hanson reiterated the Commission's support of such an arrangement.
38 Ms. Moore-Sykes stated the Council is generally supportive of this kind of open communications
39 and plans to adopt a similar process for the Parks Commission.
40
41 Hanson stated he is pleased with developments at the shopping center, and stated his clients,
42 many of whom are from northeast Minneapolis,have expressed their sense of encouragement
43 and intention to spend their money at the rejuvenated center.
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1999
Page 8
1
2 Gondorchin stated he is also pleased to hear about developments at the shopping center. He
3 asked for an update-with regard to the theater complex at Apache Plaza. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated
4 the developers are still working with Herberger's but are committed to moving ahead with the
5 project.
6
7 Gondorchin stated he is submitting his resignation from the Commission due to work conflicts as
8 a result of a new position he has taken. He added that tonight's meeting will be his last. He.
9 thanked the Commission for their encouragement and support.
10
11 Kaczor apologized for his absence at the Commission's last 2 meetings which was due to water
12 problems at his home. He stated he is sorry to see Gondorchin go, and welcomed the
13 Commission's 2 new members.
14
15 Kaczor stated that volunteers are needed for VillageFest, as noted by Councilmember
16' Cavanaugh, and encouraged participation by interested residents and Commissioners.
17
18 Makowske expressed his pleasure at serving on the Commission with Gondorchin, adding he
19 considered Gondorchin to be his mentor, and he is sorry to see Gondorchin go.
20 -
21 Makowske stated that he had abstained from a vote a few years ago with regard to Roger's St.
22 Anthony Mobil due to business interests with Mr. Bona which might represent a conflict. He
23 added the business relationship ended over 2 years ago, and although the past relationship did
24 exist,the current issue is a clear one.
25
26 Makowske stated a concert will be held Sunday,March 21, 1999 at 4:00 P.M. in the community
27 center.
28
29 Stille asked for clarification with regard to Herberger's in Apache Plaza and issues surrounding
30 the new theater complex. Ms. Moore-Sykes stated Herberger's is concerned with their visibility,
3.1 and she has heard they plan to close the Apache location by the end of the year.
32
33 Horst stated that Gondorchin's resignation was unexpected and his insightful comments and
34 wisdom will be sorely missed by the Commission.
35
36 Bergstrom expressed his sadness at Gondorchin's resignation, adding,that the Commission will
37 be diminished. He stated that he appreciated Gondorchin's service,both as an individual and as
38 Chair,and wished Gondorchin well in his job change,adding he expects Gondorchin to reapply
39 for the Commission at his earliest opportunity.
40
41 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
42 Motion by Horst, second by Stille to adjourn the meeting at 8:21 P.M.
43
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
March 16, 1999
Page 9
t
2 Respectfully submitted,
3
4 Mary Mullen
5 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
6
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
From: Kin Moore-Sykes,Management Assistant
Date: April 20, 1999
Subject: 99-02 Sunset Memorial Park Variance Request for Five-Foot Sidewalk
BACKGROUND:
Representatives from Sunset Memorial Park, Ted Dirkman and Dennis Bridges, are requesting a
five-foot variance to allow Sunset to construct a five-foot wide sidewalk in the setbacks on the
northeast and northwest sides of the recently constructed mausoleum. Staff had noted the lack
of sidewalks when the original plans were reviewed with the architect and construction company
representatives. At the time, the representatives indicated that sidewalks would not be necessary
because the grounds of the mausoleum were going to be sodded..
As Mr. Dirkman stated in his application letter, he was under the impression that these sidewalks
had been planned for and approved at the original approval process. In meeting with Staff, he
was surprised to learn that sidewalks had not been planned for all around the building. Mr.
Dirkman states in his application letter that having no sidewalks makes it very difficult to clear
the area of snow and ice in the winter, it can be muddy in the spring or after a rain, and it
becomes a safety issue for employees interring caskets into exterior vaults located higher up in
the mausoleum. i
ANALYSIS:
This variance request would not alter the essential character of the area and strict enforcement
would cause undue hardship to employees in the performance of their job and to those people-
visiting the mausoleum As such, this property could not be put to a reasonable use without the
variance because the nature of a mausoleum requires most visitors to be outside. Economic
considerations do not appear to be an issue with this variance application.
Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes
Saint Anthony Village
3301 Silver Lake Road
Saint Anthony,MN 55418-1699
Dear Ms. Sykes:
The purpose of this letter is to apply for a variance to construct a sidewalk around an existing
mausoleum at Sunset Memorial Park in the city of Saint Anthony.
At the time of the planning of this development it was my belief that the general contractor had
secured approval to construct this building with the intent that a sidewalk would be constructed
around the entire building. It was just recently brought to my attention that we have two
locations that this was not'approved during the original approval process. This is crucial to the
families that we serve and the loved ones they come to visit during the time of grieving.
Our industry is primarily based around the grieving process of the family members, at the time
that they lose a loved one. It's our duty to make this grieving process as comfortable as possible
for burial, which includes above ground burial (mausoleum burial). Memorialization is one of the
single most important parts of the immediate grieving process. There is generally an ongoing
visitation,which can be an extension of the grieving process.
At Sunset Memorial Park,the current situation would not allow for the families to visit a family
member that has passed, in the comfortable manner in which other family members will be able,
due to the lack of a sidewalk. It is this sidewalk that will allow the family member to stand on a
solid surface, which can be shoveled free of snow in the winter and keep them from standing in
mud in the spring and fall seasons. Visiting loved ones that have passed, is a very important part
of letting a loved one go, and doing this without further complications to their visitation is the
goal of all cemeteries that are concerned for their families. Although the cemetery industry is a
business'like most other businesses, it does stand alone in the fact that we are responsible for the
family members, left to us by their loved ones.
On behalf of Sunset Memorial Park,we look forward to your response regarding the dilemma that
we face. Should you have any questions regarding this or any other concerns you may have,
please feel free to contact me directly. I will await your response, until then I remain;
I
Area Manager
Sunset Memorial Park
March 2, 1999
Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes
Saint Anthony Village
3301 Silver Lake Road
Saint Anthony MN 55418-1699
Dear Kim,
This is just a follow up on why the location for the mausoleum was picked. I was told that years
ago there was an old amphitheater located on that spot. There were people from that cemetery
that told our company that promises were made years ago to preserve that building and the area
around where the new mausoleum was.built. We took the pillars from the old amphitheater and
had them refurbished and cut and incorporated them into the-new building. The space we had
was limited so the building was put just on the end, off the set backs. As I understand it only part
of the building can have sidewalks. I would like to apply for a variance so we can have
sidewalks all the way around our building. I am sending you a site plan that shows set backs and
where we would like the sidewalks. I highlighted them in green. The sidewalks would be five
feet wide. Kim, my understanding from our conversation is that sidewalks need to be included in
the twenty five foot set back. If this is so, would you please put us on your agenda for your April
meeting. I would also like to attend your plan commission meeting in March.
I hope this clears up some of the questions. I hope to hear from you soon. If you have any
questions please call me at 920-683-7904. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Ted Dirkman
Manager of Maintenance and Construction
P.O. Box 815 • Manitowoc, WI 54221-0815 Phone.920-683-7904 Fax 920-683-7907
FEB-03-99 WED 09:39 AM COLD SPRING GRANITE FAX NO. 320 685 5008 P. 02
/i
�a \ /
/f qi
INY`
00
21 c
i \ (. x
P
b. 1
16
o
1 Y
\, y4l �r S
g
• '4 `"1 •
L t
4-1, \ _
STAFF REPORT
.To: Planning Commission
From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant
Date: April 20, 1999
Subject: 99-03 Lot Width and Lot Area Variance Requests for 4004 Fordham Drive, David
Sperry, Buyer
BACKGROUND:
Arvid and Eleanor Johnson, owners of 4008 Fordham Drive, recently filed a lot split and replat
with Ramsey County that had been approved by the City Council twelve years ago. They had
delayed this filing because they felt they would be adversely affected by property taxes and they
were not ready to sell the resultant vacant parcel. Staff called the property offices in Ramsey
County and verified that they had recorded the lot split and replat.
Mr. and Mrs. David Sperry, currently residing in New Brighton, have a tentative purchase
agreement with the Johnsons,to purchase the lot that was resultant from the split of 4008
Fordham Drive. Mr. and Mrs. Sperry would like to build a $130,000 home for themselves on
this vacant lot but would like to have the variances approved before they close on this property.
Staff has advised them that they also need to be aware of the setbacks and lot coverage
restrictions for this zoning district. As their letter indicates,they are aware of the need to
address those issues without requesting additional variances.
ANALYSIS:
The lot in question is 60 feet wide and its area is 7,985 square feet and as such, not considered a
buildable residential lot according to City Ordinance. The Ordinance states that a residential lot
in the R-1 Zoning District must be at minimum 75 feet wide and an interior lot must not be less
than 9,000 square feet. The Spenys are asking for a lot width variance of 15 feet and a lot area
variance of 1,015 square feet.
In granting a variance, the essential character of the neighborhood would not be altered and
would be in the keeping with the intention and spirit of the Zoning Code. It is also possible that
this lot can not be put to reasonable use without these variances.
Mr. and Mrs. Sperry contend that there is a hardship in that the owner did not create this
situation and that the Council had approved this lot split in September 1985.
{
Date: March 119 1999
Fee: $60. 00
RMl . . . . . . $ 60.00
Other . . . . $100.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
Petition for Variance
Applicant: David and Paulletta Sperry Phone: (651) 636-4269
Address: 121 - 20th Ave. S .W. New Brighton, MN 55112
Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Lessee, etc.): Buyer
Legal Description of property proposed for variance: E x W 16 3.0 7 f t • S 15 f t o f L o t 4 B 1 k 5
Street Address: 4004 Fordham Dr iv Ex W 163 . 07. ft ; N 45ft of Lot 5
Presently Zoned: R=1
Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied
for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if
necessary.
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of
the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly
enforced.
The current Zoning Code does not permit a single family home to
be built on this 60 foot lot unless a variance be granted, in
which case the lot can be put to its best and greatest use .
2. The purpose of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary
circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the
vicinity or zoning district. -Jok
Granting the variance would correct the extraordinary circ- _ _
stance that the lot has no adjoining land that can be adde- -.
it to meet current Code requirements, meaning that without--.
variance the new owner is unable to use it for building a h
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by the City_Ordinance and has not been "�.-__
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land. =--
Prior to the passage of the current Zoning Code , many homes -in
St. Anthony Village were built:,on lots less than 15 feet in
width and 9000 in square feet, ` d since pas ge of current Codej
variances have been g,rante
for lots in the viciniy -
smaller than current Ski ture of pplicant
Code specifications .
Note : We are petitioning only for variances on lot width and square feet .
Code regulations .regarding setbacks and the 35% proportion of lot
allowed for our home and its driveway, walkways and decks will be honored
121 —20th Avenue S.W.
New Brighton,MN 55112
March 12, 1999
Members of the Planning Commission and City Council
St. Anthony Village
3301 Silver Lake Road
St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418
Dear Members:
We are pleased to submit the attached Petition for Variance, the granting of which will
permit us to build a single family home on a vacant lot, the PIN # of which is 31-30-23-
42-0167-8,with a probable address of 4004 Fordham Drive,N.E., St. Anthony, MN.
Our need to apply for a variance arises from the fact that the lot is smaller than required
by the current St. Anthony Zoning Code. The lot measures 60 feet wide.by 133.085 feet
in average depth, leaving it 15 feet less in width (75-60) and 1,015 sq. feet less in square
footage (9000-7985). There is no available adjoining land to add to it. There are several
other lots in the vicinity which are substandard, either because they existed before the
current Zoning Code went into effect or because variances have been granted under the
provision of the current Zoning Code.
We believe this Petition is consistent with the conditions St. Anthony Village has spelled
out for granting a variance (1665.06, Variances), namely by presenting the following
factual evidence (Subd.3. Evidence):
(a) The subject matter of the application is within the scope of this
Subsection.
(b) Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because:
(1) The property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance.
(2) The' circumstances causing the hardship were not created by the
owner.
(3) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the
locality.
(4) Economic considerations alone are not the basis of the hardship.
(c) The circumstances causing the hardship are unique to the individual
property under consideration.
(d) The granting of the variance is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
Zoning Code.
We believe that the variances we are requesting conform to these facts.
We are not petitioning for a variance of the Zoning Code requirements relative to the
setback of a house from property lines (a total.side-yard setback of 15 feet but not less
than 5 feet on one side) and the 35%maximum area of the parcel which can be used for a
house, including its driveways, walkways, decks, etc. We plan to stay within these limits.
We propose that the setback of our home from the curb be 58 feet which is the average of
the setbacks for the two adjoining houses.
Attached is the footprint of the house we plan to build and its proposed location on the
lot. At this time we are unable to make available a full set of drawings. However, it is
our understanding that the final full set of house plans is subject.to Village approval prior
to breaking ground. But we want to assure you that we have enough equity in the home
we currently live in to allow us to build another that will be in stylistic harmony with
homes in the neighborhood as well as being an asset to the Village of St. Anthony.
As a historical note, the matter of this lot was taken up by-the St. Anthony Village
Planning Commission on September 17, 1985 and by the City Council on September 24,
1985. Copies of the minutes of those meetings are attached.
We have signed a Purchase Agreement for this property, contingent on our being granted
this Petition for Variance. We await your favorable response, believing that our Petition
is both reasonable and in harmony with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Code of St.
Anthony.
S' erely yours,
f �GEi.�c-GGt
David and Paulletta Sperry
60.0
4F.0
2,9.01
h I I
14.4
ti
w
E- /2 -j l F-8 — -- - - -- "- 7
m
w
UN
24.0
8.2
0
T
K055 PRaPI_R-fY SPE�'RY P�eOPr",fry ToHNSON PRoN��eTr
7 .o
4OoD I FOR D HA NJ DR l 4 F 4004 4 008
.:
C°/11 fAOI' -7 r7
DMSION NIM
ER
BEGIN DATE :Z•-1•�. .. ..
ASSESS&? YEAR.. . l . l.1. '... ..
PRIOR DIV (A oSq 7 2
%,rav PLS
=—s�=scz=t=z�c_=csaaz=rs-zczaczn=3=zsx=:saszoszo=czsacs�=za=
TAX DESCRIPTION:
PLAT. D`! LOT SIZE. � ----__----
DESC.----------------- ----------- . --- -r - --------------------------- - --
_ -----.-------
----------•---- -----------------------------------
TRAN FFERR LNST DATE. LOQ o�'7 uS INST 'TYPE. L� TRNSFR DATE. I L�
----
FEE OWNER . . .. . _f'11_'�� --- ---J v hl so
u-------------------
-----------------
--------------------------
��' _
-s�szss===rte s=s:=:azzas—'=az=as==ssa=ss=s=ac=�r=cz3z==ssasaasz
TAXPAYER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - ----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------• ---
------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------ -- ------
RONALD F. MEYER
IA= SURVEYOR
LANo SuiwgnNo Sumolvl/IOM 08410H
TSLsrNoNs 771-4586
OBS JUSSIs ST. ST. PAUL, MINN. 55101
I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me and that I am a duly
Registered Land Surveyor under.the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Dh..•Y Reg. No. 9051 Date: aril 27 1986
Ccrracfca% Lo %t" %men sro. //I-e'1�-y8
Noi <i /'ne Lo71 33
• 34,5 I
.Z rkS,VAC.
o ? qt
R
v
O
u ^ yyg r
K •0
i:: .Ho vs e
n l
4f .B 0 N
10 �
/33.08
6 ,.
S. //= Lof¢
N. /,'.,e_ Lo f S
� � O
t,� V 0 q
v /is O9 O
3 I 33
0 = Iron found
0 = Iron placed marked RIS 9051
A. All of Lot four (4) except the•North thirty-four and five-tenths
(N. 34.5) feet thereof, 'except the-South fifteen (S. 15) feet thereof, and
except the West one hundred, sixty-three and seven hundredths (W. 163.G7)
feet thereof, in Block five (5) in Mounds View Acres Second Addition.
B. The South fifteen (S- 15) feet of Lot four (4) excet the West one
hundred sixty-three and seven'hundredths (W. 1631073 feet thereof;
the North fourty-five (N. 45) feet of Lot five (5) lying East of the
West one hundred sixty-three and six hundredths .(W. 163.06) feet,
all in Block five (5) in Mounds View Acres Second Addition.
Scales 1" =30'
c
tA 0446 8
'A[L
`� 35_7' R
♦..•t .r./•1. �� t• •�r•
fire �! j;a' 4o t9 2 0 30 � 1-1-O 2q sl 1;5.14 3333
1 I a9.ZI O
(11 O1nO - 5 (110) H c
3 o' u./vis
29 cr o _ s rs.t�.16
JIrt n' 136.18 i a � °o'� aI ;,s1 1 lol (00.T.• u•/t
QV
Un4 ra. o41)t
9 (IGS) 88} U21)
19n
2/j s
P ZeOl(3g) I- ' �� W of 42ac. 89 39 J 2�9 2 ��
fie^ (38 m T 0169) 190 Za �/ /
1 ( )I
_15.S7
1g6f0Il q�5 M••.49q.16•
•II �Q2t91 I 20
31
(j1
a 3 22y 0 .
R.u. I �Gj�' •:� 0 18� ° - b3.o1 (4h� s 9J 10 IS
265'' N o;3 (177)
7) H 159.15' 219. 4 1oq.g1 05 195.81° 144 I
t OOQ•,�i/� , 9) :.. (178) 2 Iw IG
TO 0 rOv� 'r - 17 (6l) 8 -G 5 13 IS
1. V i ll°go Or St.AnfhP � 6- ) I (11SG� Cly)
\P2 �Irt ao t 79 SFoL DEMO r
I s 133.°7 3i.o 1 i - 195.86 s f _
\� (�) zb •Is N - 1(°30 133.ob' I 1:1 �,CIG2 127 16
PO 3 ) a (GG) - o °m (48) ') - . - P 1 1249) (21�) _ ry(�L. 8
`� w '6 J 133. 1 Z ' e(Z22, 1 4��23 ►�•
o _
-19910 m q o IC`a ~ la - 130 -. ,} 144) O`C� cl sea /
4 ..� $_ 6 m I � 63�N O.L. G g 11 Cl 1� 24� (5)
t. 4.s Cr 15 2(11)G N5 4 ,� u.. cz39� �(zso)°A a Cl L3 H
I, 134. ♦ts =
1-m
. f I K• !�\.7� _M I `. r V 0244 /�
o e 0 /�' \ u
4 74td to zu+.os a"-Cd(6s) G13.o�'O 63,1 1 s, A i 13;Ir.�) 4243 a o
H t1 . Alia' 0.L, L bb I .75
iqa la4.e6
14 7(so) (st) 0 �_ A (u
K29 .07 n (161) c�13 .yc ` \ CV
5 I �)n 130. N 133 , � L
- (94 - `Z' a41T a�.fiJ (G) sIB1
L... Cl8) 1 2 4•°+. 135.06. 1(3Z) I a.� P In 114--- 7 /� 11 / b Q• U
1A >D PO ( 4 I `VIN Q in
N
13(69) N ,l(33) O „ (35) 1 '^ (?43 3
T6 1(79) .; rr••' '�}-- �° 02 " 4 U73� d ti0
( r4.ee v l 21 .04 _ Al.o 9- --^ / Z 7• Z
• h a' .R-f 2 7.21
n n CGI) !33.04..:4 133 Y�
► , v
Ic) 1(�)4 00• n (�� (s9)� � 0+_(53)(soos •° �,�. so•/ � v
I t 1h+� 134 2 90 13502 _ �133.os 133(9109
3 o B1�oa,r--9o-- �.sa
vo
rt (1) 2 AQD•� A I((? °d;w ` o ~o v -�1 r
(5G)
p a ,� �'` 3 = °Pv,• a '�. at\. „� n a
I i �6 J 1.21 I 49.381 n c9) 3 1 ``C -
•70.3Et• 31 30 O 86 ' 70 J J
3-1111 n 276 n 7
9.0 947 1 oe.9• Z9 110 1 17.7 17 8.25 .
9•i.b M 021 9b.lo' o c ^ Or.) in 5� °� , 2 ` t1.2A (� o n CZa'I J 1.0�
Irt P1 1 O r .mss-a 7 0l t (3 (ZO)
� I`f 1.03.1• - moi
to p3)-" z I ) %'•`' �e F,
- (37) 148.99 Off"! 177.06-
O.
11-4
'' 1 90 g, mol'1 O�l 01y �i' JGs . c 1
L?B2.g6 Ig Nt111 i..... `/i II ; is P O`. ��r1.II10 aL• _O +.�(2.S)
j_j
N
135
(w) Q� 0 i) I T
oat ; ; O� J,� y �• n FOSS ROAD .
N Conoo. f)0-Z26 N 19 e
�o°y \� l� �� V 5 I /0•-.(42-17)
�fB`9+ '-1• 1.1. \�`t`r�ye �Q'` 1�`` r
Pk �,ti 1�ovs - a1+t;e vt110.q� PAT 1 0 HO MES. ry q
? 3
°• 1.1. °p ( w Q• (II) h 1 17
Park Sita (34) 4 ee 0
M w�_ \ aQ`�' !.01st- 01
nl �i I °"
q.
77
;
)
sr
Jl.�L_), $ �''k, �a S r '; i ;t�iY sFr rpt 2.?j° y�''ss •t`j4�ri; y ;7W
"�i..i
4� Nei�hborhbod Approval for Request foi�anand6 at 4004 Fordham Drive j
r.\dt'C. �
•'rY`.' ..
.:fx;. 1 �. r. J" • �. iJ �3��:+3.�i zl."7�'.ti
•_ r Y r .We are requesting a variance for the lot at 4004 Fordham Drive(owned by Arvid
Johnson), between
—hoaes'owned by the Johnson's and Biian 8i Kathy Ross. The'lot`s
ize
'by:code is 75' wide We need a variance to permit us"to build ori a 60':x`133' lot This is
the last available lot on Foidham Drive:"°Please sign below to show that you suppoit
requtst for variance. `
u.• .`7
r
NAME 4. ADDRESS . 4
d66 t
016
'lo
t � S ,A� .
�Gy.�r;�rC "Jca�G�c�br1G+ev4
VIA 3
Ap
UmA
3
v —
f.1.�t "i -,•. �-. r'S lc\ i _ �f•.r q" � :i., Ir°��.i"y� r i �y. �.,I i=�[`.•:i�� -.� --a- z l.•:
]u�J- r a` s 's-• N�R�.:F�'�EY C.1' V> 7'_� [�;.!r.�e{ 3 i. �".1-..�i../- J, ,`J `�' ,:' `...Y3 �['�.I' t •iai
KK7 a5! Neighborliood ApprovAa.l for"R U-6,t for N anance at 4004`FordhamDrive
ti 7. �.+ _.:'j'� .r r .r. ��v.7•k�':,+.. r' �,7 "Yah-_ ,,,.,:.�c�:` ;�4�::_�•:'� ��:- S:' ��t -Ntr�
We are`requesting a vanance for the 1 _ x 1
y of at 4004 Fordham Drive(owned by.Arvid and EllieX 1
ma
a
7ohnson�,between homes ownedrby the Johnson's and Brian&KathyRoss The lot
by code is 75'ande .We need a variance to permit us to.build on a 60':x 133' lot"'This is '
r...-.. ,
the last ava�7616 lot on Fordham Drive.' Please sign below,to show that you support our `
request for y ce.
NAME ` ADDRESS lll�l
y J
Vaolo
/00
LU u
39332� -cG.
�. a�
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
From: Kim Moore-Sykes, Management Assistant
Date: May 18, 1999
Subject: 99-005 Coppo Partners, 2837 Anthony Lane;Rear Yard Variance Request
Mr. Geoffrey Benedict of Vanguard Construction, Inc. and as agent for Coppo Partners, 2837
Anthony Lane, has submitted a request for a rear yard variance in order to construct a proposed
addition. The current principal structure already sits five feet into the rear yard setback. The
proposed addition is planned to be constructed along the same line as the rear of the existing
building and as such requires a 5 foot variance to the City's rear yard setback ordinance for
industrial properties.
The proposed 200 foot by 84 foot addition is will be constructed on the northeast side of the
current principal structure and will provide an additional 16,800 square feet of warehouse. The,
proposed addition will also allow for the construction of four additional loading docks. As the
site plan indicates, the owners intend to also reconfigure the layout of the parking area to allow
for an additional curbcut, drive and parking stalls. If their request for a variance is approved,
they will be required to install additional parking spaces. By ordinance they are required to install
32 parking spaces and the site plan indicates that they will provide 38 parking spaces.
Staff researched the file to determine if a variance was granted for the existing structure and
found that the original building was constructed in 1972,which was before the Zoning Code was
_ codified. With this being the situation,there was no variance required in 1972 because the
building is considered "grandfathered" in.
Staff received no comments regarding this variance request.
Date:
Fee:
R-1 . . . . . . $ 60.00
Other . . . . $.100.00
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY VILLAGE
Petition for Variance
Applicant: C o�/�o /"A�l�e. s Phone:
Address: 3 7
Status of Applicant (Owner, Buyer, Les
Legal Description of property prop a or variance: � LeG
54 ,C 1 �' X, `V
Street Address: 0--f-37 /vim-
Presently Zoned:
Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the following conditions must be satisfied
for approval of this request. Please respond to these conditions using additional sheets if
necessary.
1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographicalconditions of
the parcel or lot, the proposed variance would relieve an undue hardship, as
distinguished from a mere inconvenience, should the applicable ordinance be strictly
enforced.
2. The purpose.of the proposed variance is not based exclusively upon a desire to increase
the value or income potential of the parcel of land, but would correct extraordinary
circumstances applicable to this property but not applicable to other property in the
vicinity or zoning district.
3. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused b the City Ordinance and has not been
created by any persons presently having an interest in the parcel of land.
Signature of Applicant
J
APPLICANTS. PLEASE NOTE:
All.developers or property owners must submit the following information to the City of St.
Anthony Village by the Tuesday that is 30 days prior to the meeting of the Planning
Commission or City Council meeting at which the request will be heard at a public hearing.
L Complete application for specific request and-pay fee.
2. Complete survey and site plans (including measurements), showing building,
driveways, curb cuts, ingress, egress, etc. on the property and in relation to adjacent
sites.
3. Explanation of materials used, and plans for screening, landscaping, fencing and
dumpster enclosures.
4. Drawings of completed buildings, if appropriate to the project, and materials used.
5. Storm water retention and drainage plans. The appropriate water shed district or water
management organization are required to be notified of the project.
6. A letter explaining the reason for the variance or conditional use. In the letter, please
describe that the undue hardship is and have all the questions from the previous side
answered completely. An incomplete application will root be scheduled before the
Planning Commission or City Council.
A-41 e-Y&&,Le� a,
Zvi - - U
�� ��� b
I ��
f;.
1 IOD
2.5 I R 50 i R
------ OOGr9170es1y�?0 25 Doc 4137199 (CO R NNO 94)
(FILED 1-!5-69) - -_-
-- -
-_-__- __- ___----- me 60.!0573.
___ by 1
DOC NO 331065 ppc 6tp 43osn5 '
.
.....
20
Q
J
I _
(p)
71.07•w 0
2 I
r
<.. h....... Q
1
152-67 I E157
LAS S
MY R.,
1 J
171.26 B0 ........................ 270
Ep
y 8 (IB)
I _ (16) - (17) - (5)
15) N ti
ler.
ISO Oe 2,30 N
180.07
3.97 I C E SS I i•
o u 7
m
- sa
F e
-
- (zo)
e
(221 1 7 y9
.0.01 �•;
a•"
'"� ppy50•E ......
.. (6) �f
e. )5'20• � �• ��
,. AI
n 16 p°0"iby.es 9 � F � W I�1 K
�
70 P,4ffr 1 .......... ................
.............................................
..........
-•-•- NB3.54
- 1
01 �
597.17 ......... '
2•2r _
0 CJs
O
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
RESOLUTION 99-033
A RESOLUTION APPOINTING A COUNCILMEMBER TO
SERVE AS COUNCIL LIAISON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of St. Anthony desires to have a Councilmember
serve as liaison to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission desires to have a Councilmember serve as liaison.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by.the City Council of the City of St. Anthony
that Councilmember Jerry Faust is hereby appointed to serve as Council liaison to the Planning
Commission for the remainder of 1999 (April through December).
FURTHER, that thereafter the St. Anthony City Council will appoint one of its members to
serve as liaison to the Planning Commission at the Council's first meeting every January for a
one year term.
Adopted this 13 day of , 1999.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Reviewed by Administration:
City MAager
MEMORANDUM
To: Michael Morrison,City Manager
From: Kim Moore-Sykes,Management Assistant
Date: March 30, 1999
Subject: BNSF Rail Abandonment Meeting on March 9, 1999
Katie Walker of Hennepin County Trails called to meet with Jay and I regarding the City's
potential interest in expanding trails. At the meeting,Ms. Walker reported that Burlington-
Northern Rail Company is interested in abandoning a section a railway that is highlighted on the
map attached to this memo. This section of rail crosses St. Anthony just south of Hwy. 88,
cutting through Sunset Memorial Park and Francis Gross Golf course.
Ms.Walker indicated that Hennepin County is interested in finding out what communities would
support the use of the abandoned tracks as bike/walkway;she said the County is mostly
interested in using them for pedestrian traffic. .- But she also said that the State is interested in*
this property as a transit connection for buses or perhaps, this section of rail may be useful for a
future light.rail system.
Questions were asked about who would be responsible for acquisition;what would the cost be
for those jurisdictions interested;who would pay for/contribute to trail development; what
agency would be responsible for maintenance; and what is the estimated or appraised value? .
The only question that Ms. Walker could answer was that the estimated value of the railway,
property is $200,000, which Ms. Walker felt was low.
Ms.Walker indicated that she would be meeting-in Roseville with several folks from Ramsey
County regarding this site and their interest to participate in acquisition and trail development.
Last week,Ms. Walker contacted me and indicated that Hennepin County will be moving
forward with acquisition of this railway site and trail development. She told me that MN DoT is
not interested in using this section of railway for transit or future light rail development, but
Ramsey County,is also interested in this proposed trail development. She said that she would
fax me a resolution that the City could use if the Council is interested in supporting the idea of
developing this railway into trails that could eventually connect to the Hennepin County trail
system. Ms. Walker indicated that the County will acquire the property and develop the trail.
I haven't received a copy of that resolution from Hennepin County but will give you a copy
when I get it. Also attached to this memo is the agenda from our meeting and a copy of the sign
up sheet from our meeting with Ms.Walker.
1999 GOALS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATION.
1. Planning for Salvation Army, should it be sold.
2. Redevelopment of Apache Plaza.
3. Redevelopment of St. Anthony.Shopping Center.
4. Aggressive planning for large commercial/industrial sites:
5. Current amenities - utilities, streets
6. Look at and recognize existence of small businesses and home businesses.
7. Promoting a City identity.
8. Taylor development efforts to the future; not accommodate past.
9. Create a unique identity for Apache Plaza.
10. Continued enforcement of housing codes.
11. Resolution of water issues.
12. Parks redevelopment.
13. Cosmetic improvement on 37' Avenue.
14. Creation of guidelines for natural habitat on personal property.
15. Tougher regulations of RV's and trailers parked on personal property.
16. Revisit issue of split liquor.
17. Improving housing stock; involve local banks with investing in the community.
18. Formulating a Planning Commission budget as part of the City budget: hiring
consultants and economic development specialist.
19. Increased use of City's Web site.
1