Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 01202009 Meeting Sheet IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII 104971 Box: 33 Folder: PL PACKETS 2005-2011 Document: PL PACKET 01202009 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA TUESDAYf JANUARY 20j, 2009 REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER. II. ROLL CALL. III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA. V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 16,r 2008 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS. VII. 1. Administrative Lot Split N 3055 Old US Highway 8 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS. NONE IX. OTHER BUSINESS. X. REPORTS FROM STAFF. XI. COMMUNITY FORUM. Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the regular agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, sign their name and address on the form at the podium, state their name and address for the Clerk's record, and limit their remarks to five minutes The Planning Commission may refer the matter to staff for a future report or direct the matter to be scheduled on an upcoming agenda. XII. INFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. XIII.ADJOURNMENT. F:\P1anning\PC Agendas\2009\01202009 pc agenda.doc 1 1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 2 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 DECEMBER 16, 2008 6 7:00 p.m. 7 8 9 I. CALL TO ORDER. 10 11 Chair Stromgren called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 12 13 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 14 15 Chair Stromgren invited the Commission and the audience to join him in the Pledge of Allegiance. 16 17 III. ROLL CALL. 18 19 Commissioners Present: Chairperson Stromgren; Commissioners Heinis, Jenson, Crone, and 20 Chaput. 21 Absent: Commissioners Jensen and Goodwin. 22 Also Present: Assistant City Manager Kim Moore-Sykes. 23 24 IV. APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA. 25 26 Motion by Commissioner Crone, second by Commissioner Jenson, to approve the Planning 27 Commission Meeting Agenda of December 16, 2008. 28 29 Motion carried unanimously. 30 31 V. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES 32 33 V.I. NOVEMBER 18, 2008 34 35 The following corrections were requested to the November 18, 2008 meeting minutes: 36 Page 2, line 26: "...requires these two lots need to be combined to alleviate..." 37 Page 4, line 10: "...until the owner Wof that land..." 38 39 Motion by Commissioner Heinis, second by Commissioner Jenson, to approve the November 18, 40 2008 Meeting Minutes as amended. 41 42 Motion carried unanimously, 43 44 VI. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL 45 46 None. 47 0 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes December 16, 2008 Page 2 1 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 3 None. 4 5 VIII. CONCEPT REVIEWS 6 7 VIII.1 3055 OLD US HWY 8 LOT SPLIT 8 9 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes presented the staff report for the requested lot split at 3055 10 Old US Hwy 8. She stated Mr. David Lutz, General Counsel for The Wirth Companies met with 11 staff regarding a proposal to split their property located at 3055 Old Highway 8. This property is 12 zoned as Industrial and is approximately 237,000 square feet. The City Ordinance requires that a 13 lot in the Industrial Zoned District must be at least 15,000 square feet. If the lot is split 14 approximately in half as proposed by Mr. Lutz,the resulting lots would meet the requirements of 15 the ordinance. According to the latest information from Hennepin County regarding this site, it 16 appears that a second, much smaller lot that is shown on the original survey map is no longer 17 part of this property. It was likely sold off and became a townhome development that now exits 18 to the north of the parking lot. Assuming that the current site meets the front and back yard 19 setbacks, the property owner would have to insure that the side yard setbacks at the newly 20 formed lot line,which is proposed to be north of the building,would conform to the 15 foot side 21 yard setbacks as required by the City's ordinance. 22 23 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes stated when Mr. Lutz was asked about future parking 24 needs he indicated that the intent is to build underground parking for the proposed building on 25 the parking lot portion of the property and under the existing building. Staff provided Mr. Lutz 26 with additional information regarding the Parking Ordinance. 27 28 Mr. David Lutz, General Counsel for The Wirth Companies, presented an updated survey on the 29 subject property. He stated essentially The Wirth Companies is looking to do this lot split 30 because of the current timing. They have recently paid off a loan on this parcel and the property 31 is currently debt free. It is anticipated that there will be new debt placed on this site very shortly. 32 It would be ideal to complete the lot split before the new financing is put in place in order to free 33 up the vacant lot for future financing and potential development. Mr. Lutz stated it is requested 34 that the lot split be allowed under the current ordinance,with the requirement that no new 35 development be allowed on the newly created parcel without the filing of a plat. Due to the short 36 window of time with the financing that will be proceeding, it is requested that the lot split be 37 completed as quickly as possible. 38 39 Mr. Lutz reviewed the survey and answered questions of the Commission on the requested lot 40 split. He explained the idea is to create a parcel that is as large as possible on the portion of the 41 lot that will be developed.An easement would need to be put in place for parking issues. He 42 stated they are happy to entertain the idea of a deed restriction which would state that the City 43 would look at both of the parcels when addressing zoning requirements. 44 45 Chair Stromgren asked whether the applicant has looked at parking requirements for the existing 46 building. Mr. Lutz replied the exact parking requirement has not been reviewed. Parcel A and 1 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes December 16, 2008 Page 3 1 Parcel B combined as one lot exceed parking requirements. The Wirth Companies is proposing 2 to place a deed restriction on the property to address parking from the City's perspective. 3 Lenders will not provide a loan on the building without guaranteed rights to parking for the 4 building. 5 6 Commissioner Jenson questioned why the City Council would consider splitting the two parcels, 7 knowing there will be a significant parking easement that needs to be resolved. Assistant City 8 Manager Moore-Sykes replied once Parcel A is basically a vacant lot, anything that goes on the 9 parcel would need to follow ordinance requirements for parking. Mr. Lutz and The Wirth 10 Companies will need to figure out the parking situation of the current building before the 11 Council will likely entertain a lot split. 12 13 Mr. Lutz stated The Wirth Companies would expect an easement to be put in place as a condition 14 of the lot split that would allow Parcel B parking on Parcel A. Depending on the determined use 15 of Parcel A, there could be underground parking or a garage located on the parcel. 16 17 Commissioner Jenson questioned what could be developed on Parcel A that would make 18 underground parking affordable. Mr. Lutz replied this has not been explored yet. Mixed office 19 use/retail is a possibility. The idea is to free the parcel up for future development. 20 21 Chair Stromgren questioned what provisions the City has in place to deal with future uses on the 22 property, which is currently zoned as Light Industrial, as housing and retail are not allowed in 23 Light Industrial zoning. Comments from the City Attorney will be needed on whether the lot 24 split would be allowed prior to a specific proposal coming forward. Mr. Lutz replied The Wirth 25 Companies believes the opportunity to split the lot is now. The new lender will only place the 26 debt on the building portion of the parcel; the other parcel will be kept debt-free. 27 28 Chair Stromgren questioned if a rezoning may be necessary, rather than to complete the lot split 29 and create a 100,000 square foot parcel that is zoned Light Industrial with different parking 30 requirements than would be required for a Commercial zoned parcel. He commented on the 31 positive aspect to the City of development on the subject parcel, especially with the location 32 adjacent to Highway 8 and County Road C. Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes stated it would 33 likely depend on the use that is ultimately proposed as to whether it would be appropriate for the 34 site. ! 35 36 Mr. Lutz stated The Wirth Companies is very early on in the stages of development and has not 37 looked at zoning on the parcels yet. They need to have a developable piece of land that is debt 38 free in order to approach lenders to see what their interest is. Zoning and proposals for the site 39 will come further down the road. 40 41 Chair Stromgren indicated additional staff feedback will be desired on the proposed lot split with 42 consideration of facilitating the applicant's desires while still protecting the City's ability to have 43 control. 44 i Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes December 16, 2008 Page 4 1 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes stated the survey has been sent to the City Attorney for 2 review. She noted in the future when there is a development use proposed by The Wirth 3 Companies a building permit will be required. 4 5 Chair Stromgren questioned how a PUD would be handled with the existing building and a 6 separate parcel. Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes replied a PUD would need to be beneficial 7 to both the City and the proposed development. 8 9 IX. OTHER BUSINESS. 10 11 IX.1 ELECT CHAIR 12 13 Chair Stromgren requested nominations for the election of Chair. 14 15 Motion by Commissioner Chaput, seconded by Commissioner Jenson, to nominate Joel 16 Stromgren as Planning Commission Chair for the year 2009. 17 18 As there were no other nominations, Chair Stromgren closed nominations for the election of 19 Chair. 20 21 Motion carried 4-0-1 (Chair Stromgren abstained). 22 23 IX.2 ELECT VICE-CHAIR 24 25 Chair Stromgren requested nominations for the election of Vice-Chair. 26 27 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, seconded by Commissioner Chaput, to nominate Don Jensen 28 as Planning Commission Vice-Chair for the year 2009. 29 30 Commissioner Jenson stated Commissioner Jensen brings his insightful knowledge of city 31 ordinances and land use in a relevant manner to the Commission. 32 33 As there were no other nominations, Chair Stromgren closed nominations for the election of 34 Vice-Chair. 35 36 Motion carried unanimously. 37 38 X. REPORTS FROM STAFF 39 40 Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes noted the metro area real estate statistics included in the 41 Commission's packet. 42 43 XI. COMMUNITY FORUM. 44 45 None. 46 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Minutes December 16, 2008 Page 5 1 XII. INIFORMATION AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 2 3 Commissioner Jenson requested an update on remaining work to be done on the Silver Lake 4 Road project. Assistant City Manager Moore-Sykes indicated the remaining portions of the 5 project to be executed are tree plantings, sod replanting, and the final lift of bituminous. 6 7 XIII. ADJOURNMENT. 8 9 Motion by Commissioner Jenson, second by Commissioner Crone, to adjourn the meeting at 10 7:25 p.m. 11 12 Motion carried unanimously. 13 14 Respectfully submitted, 15 Carol Hamer 16 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. I i STAFF REPORT To: Planning Commission Report No.: VIL1. From Kim Moore-Sykes,Assistant City Manager Date: January 20,2009 Subject: 3055 Old US I-fiighway 8 Administrative Lot Split Requested Action: Lot Split without Platting Date Application Received• Dec.23,2008 Property Address: 3055 Old US Highway 8 Zoning District: LI 60-Day Expires: N/A Waiver Letter Required: Yes Date Sent: No X Future Action: Public Hearing for Lot Split without Platting January 20,2009 Background: Mr. David Lutz,General Counsel for The Wirth Companies met with Staff regarding a proposal to split their property located at 3055 Old Highway 8. Mr. Lutz reported that his client is proposing to split this property into two parcels in order to facilitate the future and eventual redevelopment of the parcel currently comprising the parking lot. The subject property is zoned as Industrial and is approximately 237,000 SF. The City Ordinance requires that a lot in the Industrial Zoned District must be at least 15,000 SF so if the lot is split approximately in half as proposed by Mr. Lutz, the resulting lots would meet the square footage requirements of the Ordinance. In addition,the lot must be at minimum 100 feet wide. The Parcel Split Description Survey as provided by Mr. Lutz shows the total frontage width of the current lot to be 867 feet. The City's Ordinance specifies that each parcel in the Industrial Zoned District have specific minimum setbacks for the front,rear and side yards. While the current parcel is assumed to have the minimum setbacks, the proposed lot B, as noted by the City Attorney,will be deficient in setbacks at the proposed north lot line. Another issue for proposed Lot B will be the lack of required parking as outlined in Chapter 1650. Mr. Lutz has acknowledged that there is initially no plan for parking on the proposed Lot B but his client is proposing to put a restriction on the deed that requires the lot to be considered as one for purposes of zoning and land use planning. Under this deed restriction,the parking will be still be on the newly created Lot A and the setback issue is resolved for Lot B. When asked about future parking needs should redevelopment of Lot A occur,Mr. Lutz indicated that their intent is to build underground parking for the existing building on Lot B. Staff submitted the site plan, application and supporting documentation from Mr. Lutz regarding the proposed lot split without platting to the City Attorney. Following his review, the City Attorney contacted staff with his concerns about approving a lot split that would create an nonconforming lot(Lot B) and that a 3055 Old hywy 8 Lot Split 01202009 Staff Report Format.doc restrictive deed might create a situation that insinuates a Planned Unit Development(PUD)for this property if approved for subdivision without platting. As proposed,Lot A is 93,390 SF and 2.1 acres. The City Ordinance states that to be considered as a PUD,the lot needs to be three (3) acres minimum(1655.02). But if approved as proposed and the restrictive deed is in effect that considers the site one lot for the purposes of zoning and land use planning, then Lot A could be eligible to be developed as if under a PUD. The City Attorney also stated that this lot split without platting would create situation where the proposal by the applicant is in conflict with the City Ordinance. In submitting this application, the applicant stated that they currently have no development plans for the newly created lot but may be planning for development in the future. The City Attorney stated that generally another element of the PUD process is a Preliminary Development Plan(1655.10 Subd.3) thereby causing a potential verification problem for the City should the Wirth Company begin developing Lot A without a development plan. In addition,Section 1655.06,Coordination with Subdivision Regulations clearly states that if a PUD process is invoked,then the subdivision review shall be carried out under Chapter 15 (Subdivision of Land)of this Code simultaneously with the review of the PUD. Mr.Gilligan suspects that the deed restriction will ultimately lead to a request for PUD but after the subdivision of land has occurred on this property. Action: Recommend denial of applicant's request for Subdivision without Platting based on the concerns raised by the City Attorney. Attachments: • Application and supporting Letters and documentation from Applicant • Site Map • Aerial Photo of Property (Hennepin County) • Letter from City Attorney 3055 Old hywy 8 Lot Split 01202009 Staff Report Format.doc THE WIRTH COMPANIES 615 Second Avenue South FAX(612)339-2538 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 (612)373-0400 IV Professional Real Estate Management &Development November 17, 2008 Kim Moore-Sykes Saint Anthony Village 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699 Re: Lot Split— St. Anthony Business Center Dear Ms. Moore-Sykes, I am writing to you as a follow up to my telephone message that I left for you in which I am attempting to obtain a lots split of the St. Anthony Business Center located at 3055 Old Highway 8 in St. Anthony, Minnesota. I have reviewed with my client the necessary zoning requirements and have discussed with him his timing and I have come to realize that under the circumstances it may be more appropriate to pursue a subdivision without platting as allowed under the City of St. Anthony Code §1500.8 Subdivision without Platting. Currently the property has no debt on it and therefore it has a"window" of opportunity to seek to split the lot so as to potentially develop another building on the site. My client anticipates that new debt will be placed on this site very shortly and therefore it is critical that the lot split be done before the new financing is in place in order to free up the vacant lot for future financing and potential development. My client would propose that the lot split be allowed under the above referenced ordinance and be put on for a hearing with the City of St. Anthony's city council before the end of the year with the requirement that no new development be allowed on the newly created parcel without the filing of a plat. This way he can proceed to place the new debt on the property and still proceed with exploring a new development on the vacant parcel. I would be able to obtain a survey rather quickly showing the proposed lot split and the proposed legal descriptions. For zoning purposes, I think my client would be agreeable to put a restriction on the deed that requires the two lots to be viewed as one for zoning purposes and I believe this would satisfy any reservations the city would have regarding compliance issues. With no new development set in stone and with the necessity to get the financing on the existing parcel as soon as possible I believe this is the situation that falls within the scope of the above mentioned code. Please call me to discuss this option further at 612-373-0430. Sincerely, David A. Lutz General Counsel • 3301 Silver Lake Road •St. Anthony,MN 55418 • (p)612.782.3301 • (f)612.782.3302 www.ci.saint-anthony.nin.us Date: Fee: $150.00 SUBDIVISION/PLAT APPROVAL APPLICATION Application is hereby made for a SUBDIVISION/PLAT APPROVAL for a lot split/lot combination. The resultant size of the existing lot: X ;lot area: sf rt <t 7L' •�'�ur1' Size of new lot created: X ;new lot area: sf ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 010 /V/� 'q ul F s7�i f9►��F�y �,� �� PID(s): (7G-Cal- ?3-1//- PRESENT 3-y/-PRESENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SAF PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION: i �� � ice' hz 11QtCYY1L�i1Ce/K OWNER: Jf AWL' 6,611".'x' CONTACT NAME(print): �P�{�e,i .1. Ctir� PHONE: if /.2- 373- e"f"' ADDRESS: -(/5- JnJ lic, I, FAX: G 1,2 - 33 9 - 2-3-3c' CITY/ZIP: /LJi�„o1� MW �Syc^Z EMAIL: ffrP�/fti' ��1l�cv�� � APPLICANT: CONTACT NAME. 1i PHONE: ADDRESS: /� 2 N ��'. �S, FAX: CITY/ZIP: /ii/J_ eTn/�s, /��/SS''/�`z EMAIL: APF1 LICANT'S Signature Date OW R'S Signature Date ADMINISTATIVE DATA SURVEY-Office Use Only PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ❑ Approved Application received: ❑ Denied Fee paid: Date: Date of Concept Hearing: COUNCIL ACTION Date of Public Hearing Notice: ❑ Approved Date of Public Hearing: ❑ Denied Resolution Number: Da te: F:\Planning\Forms\SubdivisionPlat Approval Applicantion 2005.doc X2'23—pB e c1c � a Parcel Spilt Description and Sketch ,q°` The Wirth Companies ,°4' St. Anthony Business Center xecao'�cc AN ��M^R l:rY'�vsiu WirWlgl Yi YmwiYw hr F.r W1YO.r Osr.b M �+•�a rr"L:� Y 282.6 ?82.66 / r.r p� �nlova®wem�c�ar^,„nmw�rr�ra•_:.:wn.•.��.._. 1�� ' PARCEL A w r.Ye rr�.r l.r esrrrr Yw.. Ywb r W r rn 1..Y+Ya 0 .may �4 �. NapOFVBm PMOs167!Frr:=•-4tr.�db�r'��r��,tv:�n..__ Q � � .u"i���Yre�•�rr r�.�bry rrrv�osn.r �YO�:.Yyb�WS��YWWWOs�Y Y�Y�OVY�mr q WM,w O.* �w1 r r '9AREA TABIp :L PARCH B r..ym C ��W�VM :M1410P BP�B1®dL.LP1�:r'nl:.t']::9:5'V' ggqq���� r.^I I.�W M1�Yi r�IIWR �j ppQ sn.Y Y r.Y r rCVtt f/)L .&t O m i OL .VY 1 dd O �. r EXHIBIT A Legal Description PARCEL A: Lot 1, Block 1,Apache Terrace 2nd Addition, Ramsey County, Minnesota. PARCEL B: That part of SOO LINE RAILROAD COMPANY railroad right of way adjoining the plat of APACHE PLAZA 3`d ADDITION, Ramsey County, Minnesota described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 1, Block 1 of said APACHE PLAZA 3`d ADDITION; thence North 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds West on an assumed bearing along the South line of said Lot 1, Block 1, APACHE PLAZA 3'd ADDITION 464.58 feet to the Westerly most corner of said Lot 1, Block 1 APACHE PLAZA 3`d Addition, said Westerly corner being the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 68.37 feet; thence along a curve concave to the South 463.55 feet, said curve having a radius of 4,369.53 feet, a central angle 6 degrees 02 minutes 28 seconds, and a chord being North 81 degrees 36 minutes 46 seconds East; thence North 84 degrees 38 minutes 00 seconds East 168.00 feet; thence South 00 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds East 67.29 feet to the Northerly line of said APACHE PLAZA 3`d ADDITION; thence South 84 degrees 38 minutes 00 seconds West 168.00 feet; thence along a tangential curve concave to the South, 470.01 feet of said curve having a radius of 4,329.53 feet and a central angle of 6 degrees 13 minutes 12 seconds to the point of beginning. A-1 Conditions Attached to Lot Split 1. Lot coverage Limitation/applicability of Zoning Code St. Anthony Business Center Corporation(SABC)and St.Anthony East, LLC (SAE)agree that the entire parcel legally described in paragraph 4 herein("Parcel") shall, for zoning purposes, be considered a single zoning lot,notwithstanding any new lot of record created by the administrative lot division. SABC and SAE agree the administrative lot division does not constitute a waiver of, nor does it supersede, any state statutes of local ordinances pertaining to zoning. SABC, SAE or any subsequent owner or lessee of any lot of record created by the administrative lot division shall, notwithstanding the preceding,have the right to construct,reconstruct or otherwise reconfigure new or existing improvements on the entire Parcel so long as such improvements taken together with the improvements existing on the entire Parcel will be in compliance with applicable provisions of the City of St. Anthony Legislative Code or so long as the necessary variances are obtained. 2. BuildingCode applicability. SABC and SAE agree that for purposes of Chapter 5 in the 1997 Uniform Building Code, the new property line created by the administrative lot division shall be ignored and the entire Parcel shall be treated as one (1) lot for purposes of applying the General Building Limitations. 3. Legal Effect. Each new parcel created by the administrative lot division is subject to this agreement which constitutes a restrictive covenant which shall run with the land and be binding upon SABC, SAE, their successors,heirs and assigns. 4. Legal Description of Parcel: Hennepin County Property Map Print Page 1 of 1 Hennepin County Property Map - Tax Year: 2008 The data contained on this page is derived from a compilation of records and maps and may contain discrepancies that can only be disclosed by an accurate survey performed by a licensed land surveyor.The perimeter and area(square footage and acres)are approximates and may contain discrepancies.The information on this page should be used for reference purposes only. Hennepin County does not guarantee the accuracy of material herein contained and is not responsible for any misuse or misrepresentation of this information or its derivatives. I 3112 r 3117 3508 3512/ 3108 r 44 3113 r `~- 3509 3104 J 3109 �l — ,i 3100 3105 31Sr4 V;e A E 3101 3500 g sosa � 3040 3043 I'. 3043..,_ 3036 3039 _�`•~•!J I ') 30]2 3035 ]035 t 302`8' I 30]1 3`024 E 302541 4 40 3021 Io r 29]0 3017 3042 r Selected Parcel Data Date Printed: 12/10/2008 2:27:06 PM Parcel ID: 06-029-23-41-0098 Current Parcel Date: 12/3/2008 Owner Name: ST ANTHONY BUSINESS CTR CORP Parcel Address: 3055 OLD HWY 8,ST.ANTHONY, MN 55418 Property Type:COMMERCIAL-PREF Sale Price: $1,667,500.00 Homestead:NON-HOMESTEAD Sale Date: 03/1997 Area (sgft): 188158 Sale Code: Area(acres):4.32 A-T-B:TORRENS Market Total: $2,500,000.00 Tax Total: $83,758.58 http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/HCPropertyMap/Locator.aspx?PID=0602923410098 12/10/2008 Hennepin County Oblique Aerials Page 1 of 1 Hennepin County Oblique Aerials Images courtesy of:Mlcrosofto Virtual EarthTM 2008 Flight path April 2006 Show/Mide Mae[ontrd NE i C�Dr s Is a J j M — County _ y 1. ti 98, k iry In http://gis.co.he>inepin.mn.us/HCPropertyMap/Birdseye.aspx?PID=0602923410098 12/10/2008 Hennepin County Oblique Aerials Page 1 of 1 Hennepin County Oblique Aerials Images courtesy of:Microsoft©Virtual EarthTM 2008 Flight Date:April 2006 Show!Hide Mao Control t � y , R H < < NE g a: Y ap o http://gis.co.hennepin.mn.us/HCPropertyMap/Birdseye.aspx?PID=0602923410098 12/10/2008 THE WIRTH COMPANIES 615 Second Avenue South FAX(612)339-2538 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55402 (612)373.0400 IV Professional Real 10- Estate Management &Development December 24, 2008 Kim Moore-Sykes Saint Anthony Village 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony, MN 55418-1699 Re: Lot Split—St. Anthony Business Center Dear Ms. Moore-Sykes, I am writing to you as a follow up to our telephone call yesterday. As you are aware we have a pending lot split application on file with the City of St. Anthony and we have submitted a survey to the City with a proposed line for the split. You have correctly noticed that the survey did not have set back markings on it and you were seeking an explanation as to why there were no set back markings. My client desires to have the lot split occur so that the newly created lot be as big as possible for future developments. To satisfy the City of St. Anthony for zoning purposes, it was my client's intention to put a restriction on the deed that requires the two lots to be viewed as one for zoning purposes and therefore the set back requirements from the existing building would not be relevant. We believe this should satisfy any concerns the City may have and proposed deed restriction language has been forwarded to you. If you have any further questions or concerns please feel free to contact me at 612-373-0430. Sincerely, David A. Lutz General Counsel . ain tho ilia e January 13,2009 Wirth Companies 615 Second Avenue S. Minneapolis,MN 55402 Attention: David Lutz Dear Mr. Lutz: Your request for the Administrative Lot Split for 3055 Old Highway 8,will be presented to the Planning Commission for a public hearing on Tuesday,January 20,2009. Minnesota State Statute requires any land use related applications be approved or denied by the governing body within 60 days of receipt of the complete application. Following the public hearing,the Planning Commission will make their recommendations to the City Council. The City Council will make a decision on your application at the January 27,2009, Council Meeting. Your presence or that of your representative is required at both meetings. If you or a representative cannot be present at the Planning Commission meeting on the above date, the policy of the Planning Commission is to automatically table the request. Sincerely, Kim Moore-Sykes Assistant City Manager Enclosure 3301 Silver Lake Road, St.Anthony, Minnesota 55418-1699-www.ci.saint-anthony.mn.us -(612) 782-3301 -FAX(612) 782-3302 Our Mission is to be a progressive and livable community,a walkable village, which is safe and secure. t > HORSEY DORSEY 8 WHITNEY LLP JEROME P. GILLIGAN (612)340-2962 FAX(612)340-2643 giUiganjerame@dorsey.com January 13,2009 Ms. Kim Moore-Sykes Assistant City Manager City of St. Anthony 3301 Silver Lake Road St. Anthony,MN 55418 Re: Proposed Subdivision—St. Anthony Business Center Dear Ms. Moore-Sykes: The City of St. Anthony has received an application from St. Anthony Business Center Corporation to subdivide its property at 3055 Old Highway 8 into two lots. As proposed by the applicant one lot would contain the existing building, and the second lot would contain parking and would otherwise be vacant. The lot on which the existing building is located would not meet the setback or parking requirements, and the applicant is proposing that the subdivision approval be conditioned on the two lots being considered one lot for zoning purposes and that a restrictive covenant be placed on the lots to that effect. The applicant has stated that it will be exploring new development on the vacant parcel but that it does not have any plans at this time for such development. What is being proposed by the applicant is akin to a planned unit development. However, in this case there will not be an approved final development plan to govern the development of the property as is required under the City Code for a planned unit development. I would not recommend that the City approve a subdivision that creates a nonconformity, and I do not believe it is a good practice for the City to impose zoning restrictions by contract. For these reasons I believe the City should deny the proposed subdivision. In connection with the denial the City should specify that the reason for the denial is that the subdivision as proposed creates a nonconformity. Should you have any questions at this time,please call me. Yours Trul , !roe P. Gillig JPG/pmh DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP • WWW.DORSEY.COM • T 612.340.2600 • F 612.340.2868 SUITE 1500 • 50 SOUTH SIXTH STREET • MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402-1498 USA CANADA EUROPE ASIA I