PL MINUTES 08202002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Page 7 •1 another may not. She stated that the regulations must be "black and white" so it is easily 2 understood if the proposal meets or does not meet the Code. 3 4 Steeves stated in the City of Minneapolis, a 45-day neighborhood review period is 5 required. He explained that often times staff attends the meetings and sees neighbors 6 trying to redesign the applicant's house on the spot. He commented on the problems that 7 can occur with a neighborhood review board. 8 9 Thomas noted that St. Anthony is made up of a whole array of housing styles and 10 different neighborhoods. He suggested that if someone tried to tear down one of the 11 tudors on St. Anthony Parkway, there would be objections from the neighborhood. He 12 noted that while he agrees it can get picky, neighborhood input may be considered the 13 price of democracy. 14 15 Steeves stated the difference comes when someone acquires and develops the lot 16 privately. Then to bring in a design review process seems to him to be somewhat 17 onerous or an exercise that is probably less than productive if not a requirement and just 18 a suggestion. 19 20 Tillman stated there are also market pressures that come to bear since it is not good to 21 have the largest and best house in the neighborhood since it sometimes does not retain its 22 value. *4 Vice Chair Stille suggested the Planning Commission further study the information 25 provided by staff and discuss whether this process would be applicable in St. Anthony. 26 He noted the design review process may be an avenue to protect some of the 27 neighborhoods in St. Anthony. 28 29 Chair Melsha stated he is not at the point where he is comfortable telling a private 30 homeowner how their house should look and, perhaps, the recommendation to the City 31 Council should be to gather information about the process for review and discussion at 32 the next meeting about whether the Council should take that process further. He stated 33 the Council's meeting minutes do not make clear whether the Council supports the 34 formation of a design review board. 35 36 Thomas stated he thinks there is value in encouraging someone who is renovating a 37 property to talk to their neighbors to get their input. He noted that large renovation 38 projects can impact sunlight or be imposing to adjacent buildings. He stated he would 39 urge them to talk to their neighbors prior to a substantial rehab that impacts other 40 property values. 41 42 Chair Melsha concurred that would be the neighborly thing to do. 43 Planning Commission consensus was reached to further research a design review board 44 process. *6 8.3 Northwest Quadrant/Apache Redevelopment Update.