Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 07211992 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 101335 Box: 19 ' Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1992 Document: PL MINUTES 07211992 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 4 5 JULY 21 , 1992 6 7 8 1 . CALL TO ORDER 9 10 Chairperson Faust called the Planning Commission Meeting to 11 order at 7 : 30 p.m. 12 13 2 . ROLL CALL 14 15 Commissioners Present : Thompson, Franzese, Murphy, Weren.icz 16 and Faust 17 18 Commissioners Absent : Gondorchin and Madden 19 20 Staff Present : City Manager Burt and Management Assistant 21 Urbia 22 23 3 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 16, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION 24 MEETING 25 6 Motion by Murphy, second by Franzese to approve the minutes of the June 16, 1992 Planning Commission Meeting with the 8 following corrections : 29 30 page 2 , line 15/16: Insert before " land" on line 15 the 31 following "higest and best" followed by the word "use" on line 32 16 . 33 page 3 , line 12 : The sentence should read as follows , "He also 34 suggested a development should be considered that (strike "of 35 a structure which" ) would bridge the gap between single family 36 and commercial property (strike "multiple family dwellings" ) . 37 page 3 , line 17 : Replace the word "structures" with the words 38 " land use" 39 page 10 , line 7 : Correct "Anoco" with "Amoco" 40 41 Motion carried unanimously 42 43 4 . PUBLIC HEARINGS 44 45 There were no public hearings . 46 47 5. MISCELLANEOUS 48 49 A. Concept Review - Land Use for South End Development 50 51 Chairperson Faust noted that at the last Planning Commission meeting staff was requested to find responses to six questions posed by members of the Planning Commission. The answers to 54 the six questions were included in the agenda material . PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 , 1992 3 PAGE 2 4 5 Staff response to the highest and best use for monetary 6 considerations were light industrial and for aesthetics, open 7 space. 8 9 The property appraisals have not been received. It was noted 10 in the staff response that appraisals would not relate to 11 determining the appropriate use of the property. They can be 12 used by staff in negotiating a price for the two current 13 structures and land. 14 15 The size of the two newlycreated lot-s is as -fol Lows ; Lot_ #1 , 16 closest to Unocal is 10 , 000 square feet (approximately 100 ' by 17 100 ' ) . Lot #2 , closest to existing homes is 13, 125 square feet 18 (approximately 75' by 125 ' ) and (approximately 50 ' by 150 ' x 19 2 ) . 20 21 Under current Minnesota property tax laws and depending on 22 valuation, commercial and light industrial would realize more 23 tax revenue than single family residential . 24 25 In response to a Planning Commission member' s inquiry 26 regarding the Council ' s preference for zoning of these two parcels , staff replied this is not known. The rationale is that the City Council would prefer not to bias the Planning 29 Commission' s recommendation. 30 31 The consultant from BRW selected the R-1 zone based on the 32 input from members of the South End Task Force. 33 34 The Chairperson felt the responses were quite clear and 35 inquired if any Commission members had further questions or 36 comments . There were none. 37 38 The City Manager stated that the phrase "most appropriate use" 39 is preferable to the phrase "highest and best use. " A planning 40 and zoning concept applicable to that use of land which will 41 promote the greatest good for the greatest number and is in 42 the best interests of the community as a whole is the 43 definition given as the "most appropriate use. " 44 45 He felt the South End Task Force has supplied very good input 46 and had well rounded representation which reflected various 47 segments of the community; business people, residents from 48 throughout the City and interested parties . 49 50 The City Council will consider the extension of the Tax 51 Increment District at it ' s August 28th meeting. W- Using Plan D, the City Manager reviewed various aspects of the 54 development . A roadway is being considered for the present 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 0 JULY 21 , 1992 3 PAGE 3 4 5 6 location of the Good Luck Cafe. There will be considerable 7 buffering in the area and Kenzie Terrace will be used as a 8 transition buffer. 9 10 Regarding acquisition of the two restaurant properties, the 11 City Manager stated he has met with the real estate broker for 12 the Rosie' s location. The owner is living out of the country 13 and has given the broker authority to represent him. He 14 _ appears very anxious to sell the property and finalize the 15 negotiations. The City Manager has not met with the owners of 16 the Good Luck Cafe at this point in time. 17 18 Because of some newspaper articles , which indicated these two 19 lots may be considered for residential development , the City 20 Manager noted he has received calls from parties interested in 21 purchasing the parcels . Some people have also expressed an 22 interest in purchasing the equipment in the two businesses . 23 24 The City Manager felt the two parcels may possibly cost two 25 hundred and fifty thousand dollars . 26 Land use recommendations is what is being sought from the 8 Planning Commission regarding the area development . 29 30 The concept must be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan 31 also. This is a new requirement of the Metropolitan Council . 32 33 The City Manager noted there will clearly be costs associated 34 with the Good Luck Cafe purchase as the owners are considering 35 relocating, possibly in St . Anthony. They have been approached 36 by the owners of the St . Anthony Shopping Center. 37 38 Residents in the area have stated that some of their concerns 39 focus on the blighted appearance of the area and the potential 40 impact any development may have on their property values . They 41 appeared to approve of the berming being recommended adjacent 42 to the Bona service station. 43 44 Commissioner Murphy inquired if any consideration had been 45 given to drainage problems which may result from the berming. 46 The City Manager stated there will be a small impact . The 47 plans include changing the grade, relocating the sewer and 48 installation of storm sewer. This will be very expensive as 49 will the redesigning of the roadway and the landscaping 50 design. All of the landscaping and design work will assist in 51 creating a residential appearance. Commissioner Werenicz felt a considerable amount of berming 54 would be necessary to maintain a residential appearance. PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 , 1992 3 PAGE 4 4 5 6 The City Manager concurred with this opinion in light of the 7 bar across the street , considerable noise in the area and the 8 heavy traffic . He stated that a developer will be required to 9 put in a three to four foot berm with mature trees on top of 10 it . Site lines will be kept in mind as well and the berm must 11 be out of the right-of-way. 12 13 Chairperson Faust inquired who would own the berm. The City 14 Manager advised this will be the property of the county but 15 traditionally, it would be maintained by the property owners . 16 17 Chairperson Faust acknowledged the berm at the Equinox 18 Apartments is very effective for screening but its maintenance 19 and grass cutting lacks something. 20 21 The City Manager felt if the lot size of the Bona service 22 station were increased much of the problems would be 23 eliminated. The City could give some land to this owner which 24 would accommodate more parking space as well as a berm which 25 would surround the entire business . 26 Chairperson Faust felt parking was always a problem at this 0 service station. He recommended that the berm be high enough 29 and steep enough to deter parking., walking or driving on 27th 30 Avenue in that area. 31 32 The City Manager is hopeful if the City gives this land to Mr. 33 Bona there will be no parking either on 27th Avenue nor on 34 Coolidge Street . Future owners of this site are also a 35 concern. 36 37 He advised that a Phase I environmental assessment has been 38 done on the Rosie ' s Restaurant and Good Luck Cafe sites . He 39 felt if this were to be done on the Bona property it could be 40 very expensive. 41 42 Commissioner Murphy inquired if any thought had been given to 43 making these parcels available for building of rental 44 property, perhaps duplexes . He felt this type of building 45 would maximize the tax dollars which could be realized from 46 the development . 47 48 The City Manager felt the City Council was not really looking 49 at higher property tax returns as much as having a development 50 which would be compatible with the area. He noted that there 51 is already rental property located on Pahl Avenue and some of the neighbors to this house feel threatened. 4 1 PLANNING COMMISSION 0 JULY 21 , 1992 3 PAGE 5 4 5 6 Commissioner Murphy agreed that it would not really be a 7 desirable place to locate a multiple dwelling rental building. 8 Chairperson Faust felt the degradation of the area would be 9 added to if anything but R-1 is approved. 10 11 The City Manager has noticed a trend in St . Anthony whereby 12 properties with small houses are purchased. The houses are 13 removed and larger homes are being built on the parcels . 14 15 Commissioner Werenicz inquired if the Council had ever 16 contemplated paying the costs of clearing lots for this 17 venture. The City Manager felt this may be a possiblity. 18 19 He noted that there is a market in the City for one story 20 townhomes . Presently there is a developer who has expressed 21 interest in the gas station property on 33rd Avenue and 22 Stinson Boulevard for this type of housing. The City Manager 23 stated that this parcel is going through a Phase II clean up. 24 25 Commissioner Franzese inquired if developers and individuals 26 are both looking for building sites in the City. The City 0 Manager responded that both are looking but lots in the City are at a premium. He will be recommending that the H.R.A. 29 consider look at purchasing lots, cleaning them up and selling 30 them for construction. 31 32 Chairperson Faust felt the Planning Commission may be at cross 33 purposes if it recommends these parcels for multiple family or 34 commercial usage. Commissioner Murphy observed that if the 35 strategies is to develop residential housing then the zoning 36 on the lots makes sense to be residential . 37 38 Commissioner Werenicz inquired if staff had pursued further 39 information regarding commercial development on these lots . 40 The City Manager responded staff had pursued the placement of 41 a medical complex or building in the area. He has been advised 42 this market is flat and there are a large number of risks in 43 commercial property as there is presently a high vacancy rate. 44 He had also explored other commercial uses such as a fast food 45 restaurant or a video store. He felt these both would have a 46 negative impact on the nearby residential property. 47 48 Commissioner Thompson commended the City Manager for all of 49 his efforts on behalf of developing this area commercially. 50 51 Commissioner Werenicz noted that since this development may realize no profit for the City, perhaps open space or a park 46 should be considered. 54 W PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 , 1992 3 PAGE 6 4 5 6 Chairperson Faust noted he would be apprehensive to have this 7 as open space as other problems may materialize such as 8 loitering or drinking. He feels it should be used for 9 residential purposes . 10 11 The City Manager advised that locations for holding ponds are 12 still needed and this area could be considered. He felt this 13 may be very costly for the City but one is needed in the area. 14 15 Commissioner Werenicz again stated his concer-n with the 16 proposed berming in that he is not sure it will be effective 17 nor successful . The City Manager suggested that fencing could 18 be added to the berming although it would require maintenance. 19 20 Chairperson Faust stated he does not view a berm as a barrier 21 but rather an abatement of sound and site lines . 22 23 Motion by Murphy, second by Franzese that the Planning 24 Commission recommend to the City Council that under Concept D 25 the most appropriate land use of the two lots in question �26 would be single family residential development , R-1 . �l8 It was noted that BRW had recommended R-1 zoning after 29 consulting with the South End Task Force. This zoning met the 30 criteria outlined which were the "highest and best use" ; "most 31 appropriate use" ; "most probable use" ; and, "most profitable 32 use. " Members of the Planning Commission added three more 33 criteria. They are as follows ; "eliminate blighted area" ; 34 "promote the desirability and the upkeep of the surrounding 35 area" ; and, "minimize traffic intrusion. " 36 37 Motion carried unanimously 38 39 40 The City Manager advised that at the August Planning 41 Commission meeting, Commission members will be requested to 42 discuss their opinions regarding extension of the Tax 43 Increment District to include a portion of Apache Plaza or the 44 creation of a new district . At the August meeting there will 45 also be a public hearing for the Conference of Plan Change. 46 The zoning changes will be on the agenda for the September 47 Planning Commission meeting. 48 49 There was some discussion regarding agenda items for the joint 50 meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission. 51 B. Review of Proposed Sign Ordinance Changes - Draft #2 , May 27 , 1992 Including Business Community Input 4 PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 , 1992 3 PAGE 7 4 5 6 On May 27 , 1992 Dave Urbia , Management Assistant , forwarded to 7 the City Attorney questions of the Planning Commission 8 regarding Draft #1 of the sign ordinance. Urbia noted that no 9 written responses have been received from the City Attorney at 10 this point in time . There were, however, some verbal responses 11 received which Urbia passed on to the Planning Commission. 12 13 The City Attorney recommended that the City not take the 14 responsibility of removing signs which have dangerous or 15 hazardous waste in them nor spend any funds on removal. which 16 may not be recoverable. 17 18 He suggested that deposit requirements not be considered as 19 they could become an administrative nightmare for signs which 20 remain in place over an extended period of time. 21 22 The Planning Commission received copies of a memo sent to 23 local businesses and civic organizations by Urbia requesting 24 their opinions on the proposed sign ordinance changes . 25 26 Chairperson Faust suggested that the Planning Commission review the ordinance and make comments as it is being reviewed. 29 30 Commissioner Murphy noticed the absence of any comments 31 regarding garage sale signs . The City Manager advised that 32 these are seldom on the right-of-way but rather are on 33 property owners lawns . Those which are posted in the right-of- 34 way are already addressed in the ordinance. 35 36 Commissioner Murphy inquired if there was a formula which 37 governed the square footage for signs . He was advised this was 38 defined based on some consistencies which already exist in 39 other cities . 40 41 Chairperson Faust noted that signs drive businesses , 42 businesses drive signs . Community standards are somewhat more 43 stringent in St .Anthony than in other communities . 44 45 Commissioner Murphy observed that the ordinance does not 46 address aesthetics . Urbia mentioned he had hoped there would 47 be more input from other cities regarding aesthetics . 48 49 Commissioner Werenicz noted he has never heard of a business 50 being kept from locating in St . Anthony because of the 51 requirements of the City' s sign ordinance. Discussion continued regarding the discussion of the 4 subcommittee for signage needs between a strip mall and a W PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 , 1992 3 PAGE 8 4 5 shopping center. Very careful consideration was given to the 6 needs of shopping centers and strip malls already in the City. 7 Various definitions of each were discussed as were the 8 allowable square footages . 9 10 Regarding signs attached to a vehicle the Planning Commission 11 felt this should be clarified as to intent such -- as for 12 purposes of advertising. Members of the Planning Commission 13 also suggested that the period of time should be changed from 14 forty-eight hours to seventy-two hours so it would be in 15 compliance with the proposed parking ordinance. 16 17 The City Manager stated that the parking ordinance may nor may 18 not become a reality. 19 20 It was recommended that residential real estate signs be 21 addressed rather than real estate signs in subdivision 12 . 22 23 In Section 1400 . 12 , subdivision 1 , which addresses residential 24 signage, the Planning Commission made the following 25 recommendations : 26 ( 1 ) One identification sign per dwelling unit should be a �g monument sign. 29 30 ( 2 ) One freestanding sign identifying a multiple dwelling 31 complex should be reviewed by staff with their recommendation 32 for clarification to be brought back to the Planning 33 Commission . 34 35 ( 3 ) Each church sign reference should be clarified to address 36 directional signs . 37 38 The period of thirty days for enforcement should be clarified 39 as to what the date for compliance is . 40 41 42 C. Review Proposed Planning Commission ByLaws - Draft #1 , 43 May 11 , 1992 44 45 Chairperson Faust and Commissioner Franzese attended an 46 Advanced Planning Seminar. At the seminar bylaws were 47 mentioned as were conflicts of interest . It was suggested that 48 a section be included in the bylaws which addressed conflicts 49 of interest during the recodification. 50 51 Some information received from the Advanced Planning Seminar was copied for the commissioners and included in the agenda packet . This information was titled "Section 305 - Planning 4 Commission. " I PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 , 1992 3 PAGE 9 4 5 6 Chairperson Faust suggested that staff could use some of the 7 appropriate information included in the material from the 8 seminar and incorporate it into the bylaws . 9 10 The draft of the proposed Planning Commission bylaws was 11 reviewed page by page. Some of the recommended changes are as 12 follows : 13 A. Chairperson 14 15 1 . Add at the end of the first sentence "or designated by the 16 Chairperson. " 17 18 2 . No changes recommended. 19 20 3 . Delete from this section the phrase "and shall also elect 21 a recording secretary who need not be an appointed member" 22 23 4 . (2 ) Add after "Call " , "alter or change" 24 25 Add ( 5) Coordinate and review agenda with the staff prior to 26 the meeting 0 Add ( 6) Sponsor new members . 29 30 B. Vice Chairperson - No changes recommended 31 32 C. Recording Secretary 33 34 Delete all six items as recommended. Add "Appointed by the 35 City Manager and need not be a member of the Planning 36 Commission. Attends all of the Planning Commission meetings 37 and shall have duties as specified by the City Manager. " 38 39 ( 5) through ( 9) No changes recommended. 40 41 ( 10 ) This item appears to be in conflict with item ( 20 ) . 42 43 ( 11 ) and ( 12 ) No changes recommended. 44 45 Delete ( 13) . 46 47 ( 14 ) Designation of Voting Order . Delete "Voting to be by" and 48 Add "A" before "verbal vote. " 49 50 Items ( 15) , ( 16) and ( 17 ) remain as stated with no changes . 51 Item ( 18 ) shall read "No member may serve more than two (2 ) full consecutive years as chairperson. " 4 1 PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 21 , 1992 3 PAGE 10 4 5 6 Item ( 20 ) appears to be in conflict with item ( 10 ) . 7 8 The Chairperson stated that Commissioner Madden had contacted 9 him regarding the Planning Commission bylaws and was of the 10 opinion that they were not needed. 11 12 6 . STAFF UPDATE 13 14 The City Manager advised that soil tests are presently being 15 conducted on the Rosie' s Restaurant and the Good Luck Cafe 16 properties . 17 18 He also advised the Minneapolis Park Board has begun a lawsuit 19 against the Metropolitan Transit Commission. The matter of 20 contention is the bus route which runs on a parkway in the 21 City. 22 23 7 . COMMISSIONER' S COMMENTS 24 25 The City Council and the Planning Commission is scheduled to 26 hold a joint meeting on August 18th at 6: 00 p.m. The Mayor has commented he would like the Planning Commission to be more �8 pro-active. 29 30 8 . ADJOURNMENT 31 32 Motion by Franzese, second by Murphy to adjourn the Planning 33 Commission meeting at 10 : 35 p.m. 34 35 Motion carried unanimously 36 37 38 39 Respectfully submitted, 40 41 42 43 Jo-Anne Student , Planning Commission Recording Secretary 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 4 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY i� PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA June 16, 1992 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS NOTE: Bring previously distributed copies of the Housing Maintenance Ordinance and the Planning Commission Bylaws. I. CALL TO ORDER. II. ROLL CALL. III. MINUTES. A. MAY 197 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS -- NONE. V. MISCELLANEOUS. • A. CONCEPT REVIEW -- LAND USE FOR SOUTH END REDEVELOPMENT. B. CONCEPT REVIEW -- HOSPICE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. C. REVIEW HOUSING MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE - DRAFT #3, APRIL 30, 1992. D. REVIEW PROPOSED SIGN ORDINANCE CHANGES - DRAFT #2, MAY 27, 1992 INCLUDING BUSINESS COMMUNITY INPUT. E. REVIEW PROPOSED PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS - DRAFT #1, MAY 11, 1992. VI. STAFF UPDATE. A. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. B. JULY MEETING. VII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS. VIII. ADJOURNMENT.