CC PACKET 08272002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes �� August 20, 2002 Page 7 1 Chair Melsha next addressed the issue of further study of a design review board. He 2 stated that he would support forming a subcommittee to address that issue. 3 4 Tillman stated that it makes her nervous to consider having a design review board since it 5 is very difficult to regulate "taste" and while some may think the appearance is pleasing, 6 another may not. She stated that the regulations must be "black and white so it is easily 7 understood if the proposal meets or does not meet the Code. 8 9 Steeves stated in the City of Minneapolis, a 45-day neighborhood review period is 10 required. He explained that often times staff attends the meetings and sees neighbors 11 trying to redesign the applicant's house on the spot. He commented on the problems that 12 can occur with a neighborhood review board. 13 14 Thomas noted that St. Anthony is made up of a whole array of housing styles and 15 different neighborhoods. He suggested that if someone tried to tear down one of the 16 Tudors on St. Anthony Parkway, there would--be objections from the neighborhood. He 17 noted that while he agrees it can get pickneghborhood input may be considered the 18 price of democracy. 19 20 Steeves stated the difference comes iu '' someone acquires and develops the lot 21 privately. Then to bring in a design revR- process seems to him to be somewhat 22 onerous or an exercise that is pro b .1ian productive if not a requirement and just 23 a suggestion. 24 25 Tillman stated there are fial markel essures that come to bear since it is not good to 26 have the largest and bes e neighborhood since it sometimes does not retain its 27 value. 28 29 Vice Chair Stille sugd the Planning Commission further study the information 30 provided by staff and discuss whether this process would be applicable in St. Anthony. 31 He noted the design review process may be an avenue to protect some of the 32 neighborhoods in St. Anthony. 33 34 Chair Melsha stated he is not at the point where he is comfortable telling a private 35 homeowner how their house should look and, perhaps, the recommendation to the City 36 Council should be to gather information about the process for review and discussion at 37 the next meeting about whether the Council should take that process further. He stated 38 the Council's meeting minutes do not make clear whether the Council supports the 39 formation of a design review board. 40 41 Thomas stated he thinks there is value in encouraging someone who is renovating a 42 property to talk to their neighbors to get their input. He noted that large renovation 43 projects can impact sunlight or be imposing to adjacent buildings. He stated he would 44 urge them to talk to their neighbors prior to a substantial rehab that impacts other 45 property values. 46 47 Chair Melsha concurred that would be the neighborly thing to do.