HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 10201992 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
101331
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1992
Document: PL MINUTES 10201992
L f
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 OCTOBER 20 , 1992
6
7
8 1 . CALL TO ORDER
9
10 The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7 : 30
11 p.m. and the Pledge of Allegiance .was led by Chairperson
12 Faust .
13
14 2 . ROLL CALL
15
16 Commissioners Present : Thompson, Franzese, Gondorchin, Murphy,
17 Werenicz, Madden and Faust
18
19 Staff Present : City Manager Burt and Management Assistant
20 Urbia
21
22 3 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 18 , 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION
23 MEETING
24
25 Motion by Madden, second by Franzese to approve the minutes of
26 the August 18 , 1992 Planning Commission Meeting with the
following corrections :
29 page 3 , line 31 : Add after the word "medium" the word
30 "density"
31 page 3, lines 39/40 : This sentence should read as follows ,-
32 "Commissioner Madden also inquired as to when the impact on
33 the other lots will be resolved. "
34 page 4 , lines 23/24 : Delete the entire sentence.
35
36 Commissioner Gondorchin noted that the word "supermarket" had
37 been treated as two words throughout the text of the minutes
38 and should be one word.
39
40 Motion carried unanimously
41
42
43 4 . DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE OCTOBER 27 ,
44 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
45
46 Commissioner Werenicz will attend the October 27 , 1992 City
47 Council Meeting representing the Planning Commission.
48
49 5 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
50
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
PAGE 2
4
5
6 A. Rezoning of Properties in Kenzie Terrace Moratorium Area
7 From Commercial ( "C" ) to Single Family Residential ( "R-
8 1 „ )
9
10 The public hearing was opened by Chairperson Faust at 7 : 37
11 p.m.
12
13 The Chairperson advised that the public hearing had been
14 called to consider the proposed rezoning from "C" to "R-1" in
15 the area north of the proposed new intersection at Kenzie
16 Terrace which is currently the 2905 Kenzie Terrace area, 2700
17 Coolidge Street and 2715 Coolidge Street . The publication
18 requirements for the .public hearing had been met .
19
20 Management Assistant Urbia briefly reviewed the history of
21 this proposed rezoning. He noted that the Planning Commission
22 had recommended to the City Council that the most appropriate
23 use was single family residential .
24
25 The Planning Commission also reviewed a proposal to amend the
26 St . Anthony Comprehensive Land Use Plan regarding this area.
The Commission recommended to . the City Council that the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan be amended as proposed.
29
30 The Metropolitan Council approved the application for the
31 proposed amendment . The City Council approved the proposed
32 amendment at its September 8 , ;1992 Council Meeting.
33
34 Commissioner Madden observed that the Planning Commission had
35 been requested to really focus on a very narrow portion of the
36 area. He also noted that he had heard that the Kenzington
37 Condo Division was going through a bankruptcy and the
38 development may be taken over by Resolution Trust . He
39 recalled that a medical facility had been part of the original
40 development for vacant site in the area.
41
42 The City Manager stated that_ Resolution Trust does own a
43 portion of the development which is not owner-occupied.
44 Resolution Trust is a group of attorneys who manage
45 properties . Back taxes have been paid.
46
47 He noted that the present ownership of the vacant site is
48 still in question so that the future use or development has
49 not been determined. The question of ownership is between Meta
50 and Resolution Trust .
•
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
PAGE 3
4
5
6 Some developers have contacted the City Manager regarding the
7 vacant site being used for a medical facility. Noting that it
8 is located in a tax increment area, the City Manager stated
9 there could be some financial opportunities available for
10 developers . While the parcel could remain undeveloped for some
11 time, the City Manager noted there is a concern regarding the
12 paying off of the bonds .
13
14 Commissioner Madden inquired if there had been any thought
15 given to rezoning of this parcel . The City Manager responded
16 that this had not been considered by anyone that he knows of
17 but the parcel is presently being used by Kenzington residents
18 for parking.
19
20 The Public Hearing was closed at 7 : 44 p.m.
21
22 Commissioner Murphy observed that this issue has been
23 discussed at length. Commissioner Madden favors the rezoning
24 but is bothered by the piecemeal approach being used. He noted
25 he had previously expressed a concern regarding the impact
26 all of the changes will make.
isOne of Commissioner Madden' s concerns was with regard to the
29 ingress and egress for the meat market and the Amoco Station.
30 He questioned if these would be in place after the redesigning
31 of the street as they are today.
32
33 The City Manager advised that an engineer has been hired to
34 design the roadway and the right-of-way issues regarding these
35 two businesses . The City has the authority to close the
36 ingress and egress outlets from 27th Avenue.
37
38 Commissioner Madden stated he fails to see how they could
39 continue to operate without their present ingress and egress .
40 The City Manager noted that the design element is not part of
41 the rezoning and that land use is the specific issue to be
42 addressed tonight . He also mentioned there may be a need for
43 the City to purchase another triangle of property from a
44 residential property owner.
45
46 The City Manager advised that in conjunction with the
47 redevelopment , neighborhood meetings will be held with
48 residents of the area to discuss access to properties and how
49 to preserve the neighborhood character 'of the area.
50
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
3 PAGE 4
4
5
6 Motion by Gondorchin, second by Werenicz to recommend to the
7 City Council approval of the rezoning of the area north of the
8 proposed new intersection at Kenzie Terrace (currently the
9 2905 Kenzie Terrace area, 2700 Coolidge Street and 2715
10 Coolidge Street ) from "C" to "R-1 " as this would be consistent
11 with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan as approved at the
12 September 8 , 1992 Council Meeting. As part of the Kenzington.
13 Study area, and a consensus would be reached by working with
14 the developer and the neighbors .
15
16 Motion carried unanimously
17
18 B. Request for Side Yard Setback Variance - John Novak, 2608
19 West Armour Terrace
20
21 The Public Hearing was opened at 7 : 54 p .m
22
23 The Chairperson advised that Mr . Novak is requesting a
24 variance of one foot four inches from the requirement of a
25 total of fifteen feeet in order to expand a single garage to
26 a double garage .
The proposed addition is seven feet . The eave overhang is an
29 additional 2 . 5 feet . Currently, the home is fifteen feet and
30 eight inches from the side lot line. The proposed addition
31 would have the structure eight feet and eight inches from the
32 side lot line.
33
34 The Management Assistant prepared a memo detailing three
35 sideyard setback variance requests since 1985 . It was noted
36 that while all three were recommended for approval by the
37 Planning Commission, one was denied by the City Council .
38
39 A letter was received from five of Mr. Novak' s neighbors which
40 stated they did not oppose this variance being, granted. His
41 neighbor to the west did not sign the letter.
42
43 Commissioner Murphy inquired if the fifteen foot requirement
44 is a local requirement or a state requirement . The City
45 Manager responded that this is a local requirement which is
46 based on maintaining a suburban setting rather than an urban
47 setting. A minimum of five feet is required by the Fire Code
48 and the minimum requirement of the State Code is less than
49 that .
50
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
PAGE 5
4
5
6
7 Mr. Novak ' s reasons for expanding his garage size was to
8 accommodate two cars and have the structure attached to his
9 home.
10
11 Chairperson Faust inquired if Mr. Novak had considered a
12 building which would not require a variance. Mr. Novak
13 responded the dimensions for this size structure would result
14 in an area which would be very "tight" to get into and out of
15 his vehicles . Also, the larger size garage would enable him to
16 have direct access to his home.
17
18 Commissioner Thompson felt Mr. Novak had the right approach
19 and would be able to have both of his vehicles inside. He
20 noted that new construction in the City requires a double
21 garage be built .
22
23 Mr. John Dotolo, 2626 West Armour Terrace, the neighbor
24 adjacent to the Novak home, expressed some of his concerns
25 with this size garage. He thinks a twenty foot garage is. large
26 enough to accommodate two full-sized vehicles and wants the
lot lines established before any constructin begins . He noted
that the lot line stakes had been put in thirty years ago and
29 now are underground.
30
31 Mr. Novak advised he found the stakes with the use of a metal
32 detector and used a survey of the property he had received
33 from the City. He stated he has staked out the lot lines . Mr .
34 Dotolo contends the stake on the back of the lot is eight feet
35 off .
36
37 The Management Assistant advised that the Building Inspector
38 will require a survey be done if there is any doubt as to the
39 lot line locations . No permit will be issued until this matter
40 has been decided.
41
42 The City Manager noted that the Planning Commission can also
43 require. a survey.
44
45 - Mr. 'Dotolo also was concerned with the drifting of snow.
46
47 The Public Hearing was closed at 8 : 09 p.m.
48
49 Commissioner Gondorchin inquired if a twenty foot garage would
50 prevent the installation of an inside door to the house.
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
3 PAGE 6
4
5
6 Mr. Novak responded that it would not .
7
8 Commissioner Murphy stated he is concerned with these types of
9 variance requests . He felt the three questions regarding
10 conditions necessary to grant a variance were not answered in
11 the affirmative. He observed that there is no topographical
12 issue and it appeard to be a situation of convenience rather
13 than hardship. He also felt the hardship was not caused by
14 City ordinance and that ordinances were adopted to maintain
15 community standards desired by residents .
16
17 Commissioner Werenicz felt that some of the City' s ordinances
18 are responsible for creating hardship situations. This issue
19 may have to be addessed in the future as many of the older .
20 homes in the City have single car garages . He observed that
21 this would only be a one foot , four inch infringement .
22
23 Commissioner Murphy agreed that the ordinances may have to be
24 reviewed in the future but for now the only consistency
25 available regarding variances is meeting the three conditions_
26 required by State statutes and City ordinances .
Commissioner Werenicz felt a twenty-foot garage would be very
29 "tight . "
30
31 Commissioner Franzese agreed with the observations of both
32 Commissioner Werenicz and Commissioner Murphy. She questioned.
33 if members of the Planning Commission feel strong enough
34 about these issues to address the ordinances presently on the
35 books .
36
37. The City Manager advised that the recodification is not yet
38 finalized and still can be changed. It will be reviewed in
39 November. He noted that 50 ' s characteristics do not apply in .
40 the 90 ' s, referring particularly to single family homes with
41 single car garages.
42
43 The City Manager stated that requests have been received from
44 property owners to allow the placement of garages forward on
45 their property to accommodate the parking of vehicles .
46 Presently, this is prohibited, but he suggested that the
47 Planning Commission could review that section of the
48 ordinance.
49
50
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
PAGE 7
4
5
6 Chairperson Faust indicated he could not support the granting
7 of the variance request . He also cautioned holding out hope
8 for something to change when it may not happen.
9
10 Mr. Novak noted that variance requests are rarely approved . He
11 inquired what conditions are necessary to have a variance
12 request approved..
13
14 Chairperson Faust responded that the ordinances are adopted by
15 the City Council based on public input . He noted that State
16 statute allows a City to violate its own ordinances if there
17 are unforeseen circumstances as reflected by the three
18 conditions in the application .
19
20 Commissioner Murphy said that a variance was granted
21 approximately six .months ago because of topography which
22 affected drainage.
. 23
24 Commissioner Madden observed that what constitutes a hardship
25 is viewed differently by different people. He feels a case can
26 be made for this variance request in that Mr . Novak is only
asking for a sixteen inch variance.
29 Commissioner Franzese inquired what the standard measurements
30 are for a double garage. Werenicz responded that the standard
31 measurements are 22 ' x 24 ' .
32
33 Commissioner Murphy recalled the denial of a permit by the
34 City Council to build a 24 foot garage.
35
36 The City Manager noted that the Planning Commission lacks the
37 legal counsel that is. usually present at Council meetings
38 whereby a definition of "hardship" can be given.
39
40 Commissioner Gondorchin felt the request should be denied.
41 However, he understands the need for double garages on the
42 south end of the City as being desirable which would influence
43 his support for granting the variance request . .
44
45 Motion by Madden, second by Werenicz that the- Planning
46 Commission recommends to the City Council that the variance
47 requested at. 2608 West Armour Terrace be granted pursuant to
48 the owner furnishing a certified survey that the lot lines are
49 properly located as stated by this owner at the hearing, that
50 the neighbors have signed a statement favoring the variance
PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
3 PAGE 8
4
5
6 being approved, the neighbor to the east had a mixed
7 statement , and the Planning Commission finds that a hardship
8 does exist .
9
10 Roll call : Thompson, Franzese, Gondorchin, werenicz., Madden -
11 aye
12 Murphy, Faust - nay
13
14 Motion carries
15
16 6 . MISCELLANEOUS
17
18 A. Proposed Parking Ordinance
19
20 The City Manager noted that this ordinance had been
21 recommended by the Planning Commission to receive approval by
22 a vote of six to one. After this recommendation received
23 coverage in the local newspapers , many residents contacted
24 City Councilmembers and staff in City Hall regarding its
25 implementation and how it would impact their particular
6 situations .
An Ad Hoc Committee on the Parking Ordinance was established
29 and met to discuss the matter. Members of the Committee agreed
30 that the City was visually in good condition. They had some
31 ideas as possible ways to accomplish the issue of image and
32 neighborhood aesthetics versus the proposed parking ordinance.
33
34 Consideration was given to the Housing Maintenance Code which
35 is presently being considered by the City Council . Also
36 suggested was for the City to require a permit for all
37 property owners who park commercial or recreational vehicles,
38 recreational and utility trailers or watercraft on their
39 property. The permit would be an agreement on how the vehicles
40 or equipment would be stored.
41
42 The Ad Hoc Committee also suggested that a Beautification
43 Committee be appointed to handle complaints between neighbors
44 and resident complaints on the appearance of another' s
45 property. A variation of the Beautification Committee could be
46 City mediation whereby City staff would make initial contact
47 in neighbor complaints . If no resolution of the problem could
48 be reached by City staff , the matter could be referred to the
49 services of Dispute Resolution.
50
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
3 PAGE 9
4
6 Upon receiving the report of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Council
7 felt additional input should be received and referred the
8 matter back to the Planning Commission. The intention of this
9 referral was for the Planning Commission to receive community
10 input at its meeting and report its findings back to the City
11 Council .
12
13 Staff also supplied information regarding parking restrictions
14 in three other communities which have provisions similar to
15 the proposals being discussed for St . Anthony.
16
17 Commissioner Gondorchin felt a subcommittee should be
18 appointed to address this issue. He distributed a document
19 which contained his thoughts and comments on various parts of
20 the proposed ordinance.
21
22 Mary Rockwood, 3404 Silver Lake Road, stated her opposition to
23 the ordinance. She noted that her recreational vehicle is in
24 very good condition and that the only view which it blocks in
25 front of her home is hers . She has pursued parking it
26 elsewhere and felt all of the options were too far away and
costly as well as holding the potential for vandalism. She
40 inquired if this ordinance is approved, whether the City would
29 be willing to provide secure places to park recreational
30 vehicles .
31
32 The City Manager corrected the ;misunderstanding that this
33 ordinance focuses exclusively on ,recreational vehicles as it
34 does not .
35
36 Sande Antczak, 3501 36th Avenue, told the Commission she was
37 advised when she moved into the City that parking of
38 recreational equipment was not prohibited.
39
40 Jeff Kennedy, 2800 Hilldale Avenue, requested that no change
41 be made and viewed this . issue as "passing the buck. " He owns
42 a tent trailer which he wants to leave parked on his property.
43
44 William Zawislak, 2500 34th Avenue, advised he had served on
45 the Planning Commission and recalls that many residents were
46 told a number of years ago that the parking of recreational
47 vehicles was permitted on private property. He noted that
48 paved surfaces were required and many property owners went to
49 some expense to meet this requirement . He also felt that off-
50 site parking space for this equipment is very costly.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
3 PAGE 10
4
5
6 Chairperson Faust inquired how well publicized this meeting
7 was regarding addressing this issue. The City Manager advised
8 that a press release had been put out and 'it had received much
9 attention at two Council meetings . He noted that there were a
10 record number of complaints received this summer and Dispute
11 Resolution was used quite successfully.
12
13 The City Manager noted that many phone calls were received by
14 staff in. support of the ordinance. He felt the issue of
15 parking as a whole has to' be addressed.
16
17 Commissioner Werenicz felt this issue of recreational vehicle
18 parking will not simply disappear. He observed that the owners
19 of this type of equipment have banded together and lobbied
20 against the passage of the ordinance. He felt it was unlikely
21 that those residents who oppose parking of this type of
22 equipment on private property will organize. He inquired if
23 this issue could be put on a referendum ballot .
24
25 The City Manager responded that ordinances are not voted on by
referendum but it could be included in a community survey
which is being prepared for distribution.
29 The 1988 survey results were used by the City Council to set
30 goals . The City Manager felt a survey is a very good barometer
31 for action by the Council and needs assessment . The response
32 is quite high and it represents a meaningful cross section of
33 the community. The survey will be done in March or April and
34 will include some questions on parking. Approximately 400
35 households will receive the survey.
36
37 The City Manager advised that enforcement and image were prime
38 concerns of the residents . Commissioner Gondorchin agreed that
39 the question of enforcement was a valid concern and felt a
40 subcommittee should be appointed to address the ordinance.
41
42 Chairperson Faust was hesitant to wait until March or April
43 for the results of the survey to take action on this matter.
44 He felt a subcommittee should be appointed to address the
45 issues brought up by the current input .
46
47 Commissioner Werenicz felt that the subcommittee had to wait
48 for the survey results to be able to combine i.ts work with
49 the survey results .
50
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 OCTOBER 20 , 1992
PAGE 11
4
5
6 Chairperson Faust noted it was quite helpful to have a member
7 of the City Council and of the staff serving on the Sign
8 Ordinance Subcommittee.
9
10 Commissioner Fra.nzese suggested that the entire Planning
11 Comission could work with staff on this ordinance. Chairperson
12 Faust noted that when four or more commissioner meet this
13 constitutes a public meeting. Commissioner Madden felt this
14 would not be a problem.
15
16 Commissioner Murphy anticipated some problems with the survey
17 answers as people would answer per their understanding. He
18 inquired what the purpose of the City Council was 'when staff
19 was requested to draft this ordinance.
20
21 The City Manager responded that it was to focus on maintaining
22 image and beautification .
23
24 Motion by Faust , second by Murphy to table this matter until
25 the December Planning Commission Meeting for further
26 information and that no public meetings be held without
notifying the public.
29 Commissioner Madden suggested it could be discussed at a
30 Planning Commission work session. Chairperson Faust stated
31 this would constitute a public meeting.
32
33 The City Manager will issue a press release before the
34 December Planning Commission meeting advising that this matter
35 will be on the agenda for discussion .
36
37 Motion carried unanimously
38
39 B. Review Road Reconstructon Task Force Final Report and
40 Proposed Assessment Policy
41
42 Connie Kozlak chaired the Road Reconstruction Task Force. This
43 task force was appointed by the City Council in February of
44 1990 . Its charge was to make recommendations on improvements
45 to the aging infrastructure and roads in the City. It also
46 examined funding alternatives for recommended improvements,
47"- reviewed the assessment policy of the City, and made
48 suggestions for a plan to educate residents on the need- for
49 the repairs .
50
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
3 PAGE 12
4
5
6 The Task Force had discussions on infrastructure concerns ,
7 took a walking tour of the City to examine the condition of
8 city streets and heard explanations from Braun Engineering
9 regarding the Pavement Management Plan, which is a ten year
10 plan.
11
12 Ms . Kozlak advised that the Task Force spent the most amount
13 of its time on discussions regarding the roads . It was the
14 consensus of the Task Force that the streets should be
15 replaced with the same type of material-s which were used
16 originally. She also noted that all of the roads were built at
17 the same time, about thirty to forty years ago.
18
19 The Task Force recommended that road improvements be done
20 incrementally, rather than all at one time. It was suggested.
21 that the condition of the watermains be examined and those
22 which need repair or replacement have the work done when the
23 street is being replaced.
24
25 Replacement of sanitary sewers should also be considered . and
26 the elimination of sump pumps which empty into the sanitary
sewer system should be addressed. The Task Force recommended
that sump pumps should be inspected by the City at the time of
29 sale of the home. Support of an ordinance which would require
30 separation of these sump pumps from the sanitary sewer system
31 was indicated by the Task Force.
32
33 Implementation of a storm sewer utility charge was recommended
34 by the Task Force. This utility would charge all properties in
35 the City a fee for storm water runoff . The funds could also be
36 used for repair of aging storm sewers and to maintain the
-37 existing lines and the addition of new sewer lines .
38
39 The City has an on-going program of televising its sewers as
40 part of routine maintenance. Records should be reviewed to
41 determine which areas may need the sanitary sewer lines
42 replaced. The - Task Force also recommended that all streets
43 planned for improvements be televised during the design phase
44 of street improvements to determine if repairs or replacements
45 are needed.
46
47 Existing sidewalk locations were reviewed and additional
48 locations for sidewalks were discussed. Streets with the
49 greatest traffic volume that warrant sidewalks are typically
50 under the jurisdiction of the counties . The Task ..Force felt
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
PAGE 13
4
5
6 these should have priority. A map was prepared which showed
7 the locations the Task Force had identified for additional
8 sidewalks . 29th Avenue was inadvertantly omitted .
9
10 The Task Force also recommended that a Pavement Management
11 Study be adopted and that the first year for improvements
12 should begin in 1993 ..
13
14 A new assessment policy was prepared by Braun Engineering. The
15 Task Force addressed the Length of time suggested for payment
16 of the assessments and the percentages of each improvement
17 which would be assessed to the benefitted property owners .
18
19 The recommended assessment rates are as follows :
20
21 Road Improvements : Assessed at 50% of the cost for all
22 property, except residential (R-1 , R-A2 , and R-2 ) on a
23 Minnesota State Aid road will not be assessed. Alleys will be
24 assessed at 100% of the cost and will be divided among the
25 benefitted properties .
26
Storm Drainage: The Task Force recommended 100% of the cost be
paid for from the storm sewer utility.
29
30 Sanitary Sewer & Watermains ( laterals ) : The Task Force
31 recommended 100% of .the cost be divided among the benefitted
32 properties .
33
34 Sanitary Sewer & Watermains ( trunk/subtrunk) : The Task Force
35 recommended 100% of the cost be paid for from the Utility
36 Fund. All new lines be assessed at 100% .of the actual cost .
37
38 Sidewalks : The Task Force recommended that 100% of the cost
39 for residential (R-1 , R-lA, R-2 , R-3 and R-4 ) be paid for from
40 ad valorem taxes (General Fund) . Commercial and industrial
41 property should be assessed 50% of the actual cost .
42
43 Commissioner Gondorchin requested an explanation as to how the
44 Deferred Assessment proposal worked..
45
46 The City 'Manager explained that it was income-based and stated
47 what -was necessary to apply for an assessment deferral .
48
49 The City Manager addressed the criteria which would warrant
50 the installation of- sidewalks . Some of the requirements would
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
PAGE 14
4 '
5
6 include vehicular speed, traffic counts, safety concerns and .
7 traffic volume.
8
9 The City Manager also advised that the ten year plan f or roads
10 was prepared by Braun Engineering. He noted that it addressed
11 road repair or reconstruction, watermain concerns , and utility
12 repair work. He stated that neighborhood meetings will be held
13 to aggressively review the proposals . These meetings will be
14 held prior to the issue coming before the City Council and
15 the Planning Commission .
16
17 Chairperson Faust inquired if truck travel and school bus use
18 was addressed by the Task Force. The City Manager responded
19 that both of these issues had been discussed by the Task Force
20 and it was determined they were not -really an issue.
21
22 Chairperson Faust questioned if consideration had been given
23 to having the utility wiring put underground. Ms . Ko.zlak
24 stated that this issue had been considered but may not be able
25 to be done in that many of the wires go to the back of houses .
26
The City Manager also advised that Northern States Power has
26
indicated its unwillingness to bury its lines unless it is
29 required by the franchise. All of the utility companies
30 serving the City have been advised of the proposed road
31 construction .
32
33 Commissioner Franzese commended the Task Force for all of its
34 work and stated she feels its members deserve a lot of credit .
35
36 C. Concept Review - Proposed Central Park Improvements
37
38 Jerry Hanson, representing the St . Anthony Sports Boosters,
39 made a presentation for improvements to Central Park. Large
40 drawings of the proposed improvements were distributed to
41 , members of the Planning Commission.
42
43 Mr. Hanson advised that the needs of athletic programs in the
44 City have grown and the facilities have not kept up with the
45 needs . He noted that there are specific needs for soccer
46 fields and basketball courts . A skateboard court has also been
47 considered but the City Manager expressed a concern for the
48 City' s liability for this type of facility.
49
50
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 OCTOBER 20 , 1992
PAGE 15
4
5
6 The Sports Boosters hired a landscape engineer to work on this
7 proposal . The project is proposed to be done in two phases .
8 Phase I , which would be on the upper part of the High School
9 property, was reviewed.
10
11 Mr. Hanson advised that ownership of Central Park is shared by
12 School District #282 and the City. He has already reviewed
13 this proposal with the School Board. The Athletic Boosters are
14 hopeful to start Phase I in July of 1993 .
15
16 Phase II would include redoing the three baseball fields off
17 Silver Lake Road. No changes are being considered for the
18 tennis courts , the tot lot or the playground equipment . The
19 organization is also considering the addition of a band shell .
20
21 Mr. Hanson stated his purpose in attending this meeting was to
22 get approval for the proposed improvements to the property
23 which is owned by School District #282 .
24
25 Commissioner Werenicz is concerned with the adult use of the
26 present softball fields . He noted that these fields are used
6 two nights a week for adult softball .
29 The City Manager advised that this concern regarding adult
30 softball teams as well as use of the park for passive activity
31 was discussed at the recent School Board Meeting. He also
32 stated there are many other park uses which must be
33 considered. He feels the results of the survey will be of
34 considerable assistance in determining final plans for uses of
35 the park .
36
37 Viewing Central Park as a City focal point or a town square .
38 concept for the City is a consideration stated the City
39 Manager . Noting that the Sports Boosters will be paying for
40 these improvements , the City Manager observed that there are
41 many uses. for profits realized from charitable gambling. He
42 noted- that there will be funding needs for the future of the
43 Parkview Community Building. He feels that Mr. Hanson is more
44 accurately looking for concept approval recommendation to
45 the City Council from the . Planning Commission rather than
46 approval to actually recommend the proposed improvements to
47 the School Board property.
48
49 Commissioner Murphy inquired if the plans include trees and
50 landscaping. Mr. Hanson replied tht planting of trees had not
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
3 PAGE 16
4
5
6 been discussed but it could be considered. Commissioner Murphy
7 suggested an exercise station could also be added. Mr. Hanson
8 felt this equipment could be an easy target for vandalism.
9
10 Commissioner Gondorchin observed that the two little league
11 softball diamonds could be made available for men ' s softball
12 with some shifting.
13
14 Chairperson Faust inquired if there are many complaints from
15 neighboring property owners regarding activities at_ the park
16 as it is presently being used. The City Manager responded that
17 complaints are received about youngsters ' behavior and the
18 lights on the tennis courts being on late into the evening. He
19 felt these concerns as well as others would be addressed in
20 the survey. Opportunities for active and passive activities
21 should be considered in view of the fact that twenty percent
22 of the population of the City is over sixty five years old.
23
24 Commissioner Madden felt the Planning Commission has not had
25 enough time to study the , proposal to make a recommendation
26 tonight . Chairperson Faust stated that he does not view the
Planning Commission as the approving authority in this case .
29 Mr. Hanson advised that the funds have to be donated by
30 December 31st of this year or the Sports Boosters will -have to
31 pay taxes on the remaining amount .
32
33 The City Manager felt there was ample time left to study the
34 proposal without making a recommendation at this point . There
35 will be focus groups to view the results of the survey and
36 define what people are interested in having in Central Park.
37 He recommended that the City does not rush into this without
38 a bigger plan and suggested more thought be put into community
39 needs .
40
41 Commissioner Murphy inquired if the funds have to be actually
42 turned over to project or do the Sports Boosters only have to
43 commit the funds to the project by December 31st .
44
45 Mr. Hanson responded that the School Board must receive the
46 money to expand the athletic facilities in Central Park .
47
48 Commissioner Murphy said he sees no problem from a long -term
49 planning strategy to recommend approval .
50
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OCTOBER 20 , 1992
3 PAGE 17
4
5
6 Motion by Madden, second by Thompson to recommend approval of
7 the proposed plan, that the plan appears to be an acceptable
8 concept , the plan is flexible to accept improvements to
9 Central Park, the proposal must be reflective of the survey
10 results , and the Planning Commission commends the St . Anthony
11 Athletic Sports Boosters for its work and commitment .
12
13 Motion carried unanimously
_ 14
15
16 D. Appoint Plannina Commissioner to Environmental
17 Quality/Recycling Committee
18
19 This appointment will be made at the next Planning Commission
20 Meeting.
21
22
23 ADJOURNMENT
24
25 Motion by Franzese, second by Madden to table the remaining
26 agenda items until the next Planning Commission Meeting and to
0 adjourn the meeting at 11 : 30 p.m.
29 Motion carried unanimously
30
31
32 Respectfully submitted,
33
34
35 Jo-Anne Student , Planning Commission Secretary
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
•