My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PL MINUTES 08202002
StAnthony
>
Parks & Planning Commission
>
Planning Commission Minutes
>
2002
>
PL MINUTES 08202002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/19/2016 5:03:29 PM
Creation date
4/19/2016 5:03:27 PM
Metadata
Fields
SP Box #
34
SP Folder Name
PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2002
SP Name
PL MINUTES 08202002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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
Page 7 <br /> •1 another may not. She stated that the regulations must be "black and white" so it is easily <br /> 2 understood if the proposal meets or does not meet the Code. <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Steeves stated in the City of Minneapolis, a 45-day neighborhood review period is <br /> 5 required. He explained that often times staff attends the meetings and sees neighbors <br /> 6 trying to redesign the applicant's house on the spot. He commented on the problems that <br /> 7 can occur with a neighborhood review board. <br /> 8 <br /> 9 Thomas noted that St. Anthony is made up of a whole array of housing styles and <br /> 10 different neighborhoods. He suggested that if someone tried to tear down one of the <br /> 11 tudors on St. Anthony Parkway, there would be objections from the neighborhood. He <br /> 12 noted that while he agrees it can get picky, neighborhood input may be considered the <br /> 13 price of democracy. <br /> 14 <br /> 15 Steeves stated the difference comes when someone acquires and develops the lot <br /> 16 privately. Then to bring in a design review process seems to him to be somewhat <br /> 17 onerous or an exercise that is probably less than productive if not a requirement and just <br /> 18 a suggestion. <br /> 19 <br /> 20 Tillman stated there are also market pressures that come to bear since it is not good to <br /> 21 have the largest and best house in the neighborhood since it sometimes does not retain its <br /> 22 value. <br /> *4 Vice Chair Stille suggested the Planning Commission further study the information <br /> 25 provided by staff and discuss whether this process would be applicable in St. Anthony. <br /> 26 He noted the design review process may be an avenue to protect some of the <br /> 27 neighborhoods in St. Anthony. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 Chair Melsha stated he is not at the point where he is comfortable telling a private <br /> 30 homeowner how their house should look and, perhaps, the recommendation to the City <br /> 31 Council should be to gather information about the process for review and discussion at <br /> 32 the next meeting about whether the Council should take that process further. He stated <br /> 33 the Council's meeting minutes do not make clear whether the Council supports the <br /> 34 formation of a design review board. <br /> 35 <br /> 36 Thomas stated he thinks there is value in encouraging someone who is renovating a <br /> 37 property to talk to their neighbors to get their input. He noted that large renovation <br /> 38 projects can impact sunlight or be imposing to adjacent buildings. He stated he would <br /> 39 urge them to talk to their neighbors prior to a substantial rehab that impacts other <br /> 40 property values. <br /> 41 <br /> 42 Chair Melsha concurred that would be the neighborly thing to do. <br /> 43 Planning Commission consensus was reached to further research a design review board <br /> 44 process. <br /> *6 8.3 Northwest Quadrant/Apache Redevelopment Update. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.