HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 05181993 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
ioizss
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1993
Document: PL MINUTES 05181993
*2 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 MAY 18, 1993
4
5
6 I. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
7
8 The meeting was called to order at 8 : 00 p.m. with the
9 Pledge of Allegiance led by Chair Faust. Because of the
10 School Board elections held that evening, the meeting was
11 begun an hour later than the regular 7 : 00 p.m. starting
12 time.
13
14 II. ROLL CALL
15
16 Commissioners present: Thompson, Franzese, Murphy,
17 Gondorchin, Faust, Werenicz and Madden.
18 Commissioners absent: None.
19
20 Staff present: Management Assistant Dave Urbia.
21
22 III. APPROVAL OF APRIL 20, 1993 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
23 MINUTES
24
25 Motion by Madden, seconded by Gondorchin to approve the
minutes of the April 20, 1993 Planning Commission meeting
as presented with no corrections .
28
29 Motion Carried Unanimously.
30
31 IV. DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO JUNE 8, 1993
32 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
33
34 Commissioner Franzese will represent the Planning
35 Commission at the June 8, 1993 Council meeting.
36
37 V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
38
39 A. Request for Subdivision/Plat Approval, Raymond A.
40 Hellickson,3901-3909 Silver Lake Road
41
42 The hearing was opened at 8 : 05 p.m. by Chair Faust who
43 read the Notice of Hearing which had been published in the
44 May 5, 1993 edition of the St. Anthony Bulletin.
45
46 Approval was necessary for the tax increment financing
47 proposal for the St. Anthony Professional Building to be
48 erected on the two lots which would be combined into one
49 parcel . Mr. Urbia advised that the proposed building and
50 parking area met all requirements for commercial zoning.
51 He was requested to research the irregularity in size of
the County right-of-way. The Management Assistant
3 indicated he knew of no plans for development of the empty
54 lot just east of this parcel on 39th Avenue.
• Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page2
1 Kenneth H. Lee, 3904 Penrod Lane, reiterated his approval
2 of the development which he had indicated in his May 11th
3 letter to the Council, copies of which had been provided
4 the Commissioners . He said his concerns regarding runoff
5 water onto his own property which is the closest and would
6 be the most affected, had been satisfactorily addressed by
7 the applicants . Dr. Hellickson had also assured Mr. Lee
8 that he intended to landscape the site in such a manner as
9 to improve the neighborhood. Mr. Lee perceived one of the
10 pluses of having offices on that property was the low
11 traffic which could be expected to be generated,
12 especially on weekends .
13
14 The public hearing was closed at 8: 10 p. m.
15
16 Motion by Franzese, seconded by Werenicz to recommend
17 Council approval of the request for subdivision/plat from
18 Raymond A. Hellickson for 3901-3909 Silver Lake Road.
19
W1 Motion carried unanimously.
22 B. Application for Garage Setback Permit, Leonard J.
23 Casanova, 3312 36th Avenue N. E. '
24
25 The hearing was opened 8 : 12 p. m. by Chair Faust who read
26 the Notice of Hearing which had been published in the May
27 5, 1993 edition of the St. Anthony Bulletin.
28
29 Mr. Urbia corrected his staff report to indicate the
30 proposed garage would be 23 . 6 feet X 22 .2 feet and would
31 maintain a four foot setback on the west with combined
32 sideyard setbacks of 12 feet, 4 inches . No dimensions
33 would surpass 24 feet and the total area would be 523.9
34 square feet where the Setback Permit allows up to 528
35 square feet. The Management Assistant told the
36 Commissioners he perceived this proposal exactly mirrored
37 the intent of amending the City Ordinance to create the
38 Garage Setback Permit.
39
40 Commissioner Franzese indicated that since Mr.Casanova was
41 her neighbor, she would be neither participating in the
42 discussions nor voting on the application .to be in compliance
43 with the by-laws.
44 Commissioner Madden thought the sideyard setback for the
front of the proposed might be a little less than the
4W required four feet but it was assumed the house might not
47 have been positioned exactly plumb on the lot.
• Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 3
1 Mr. Casanova indicated he was requesting the permit
2 because he needed more garage room for two cars and had
3 noted that homes with single garages in the neighborhood
4 had remained longer on the market than those with double
5 garages . The applicant also said his home had a gable roof
6 with a one foot overhang which would be in compliance with
7 the setback requirements of the City Ordinance.
8
9 Mr. Casanova told Commissioner Werenicz he has 18 feet of
10 concrete driveway in front of the existing garage but
11 could not maintain the existing width at the curb cut
12 because of a large tree in that location.
13
14 The Public Hearing was closed at 8: 25 p. m.
15
16 Motion by Werenicz, seconded by Thompson to recommend the
17 City Council grant a Garage Setback permit to Leonard J.
18 Casanova, 3312 36th Avenue N. E. which would allow for a
469 four foot sideyard setback on the west side and combined
0 sideyard setbacks of 12 feet, 4 inches where the City
21 Ordinance calls for 5 feet and 15 'feet respectively.
22
23 In recommending approval of the request the Commission
24 finds that there were no neighbor objections to the
25 permit.
26
27 Voting on the motion:
28 Aye: Thompson, Murphy, Gondorchin, Faust, Werenicz and
29 Madden.
30 Abstention: Franzese.
31
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33
34 C. Application for Garage Setback Permit, Douglas & Julie
35 Henry, 3531 Skycroft Drive.
36
37 The Public Hearing was opened at 8 : 27 p. m. by Chair Faust
38 who read the Notice of the Hearing which had been
39 published in the May 5, 1993 edition of the St. Anthony
40 Bulletin
41
42 Mr. Urbia explained that the applicants were requesting a
43 Garage Setback Permit to construct a second 22 feet X 24
44 feet double garage with an eighteen foot sideyard setback
in the backyard to match the grandfathered sideyard
6 setback of the existing house. The City Ordinance requires
47 a minimum sideyard setback from a public right-of way of
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 4
1 30 feet. He indicated this request would not exactly fit
2 the intent of the Garage Setback Permit since the Henrys
3 already have a double garage. However, it would meet the
4 City' s concerns about the storage of boats and
5 recreational vehicles .
6
7 It was noted that the power line supports would most
8 likely be located right in the middle of the driveway
9 proposed for the new garage. It was also estimated that
10 the house north on Penrod only had a 15 foot sideyard
11 setback.
12
13 There were four neighbors present to express their
14 opposition to the permit.
15
16 Richard L. Trauba, 3600 Penrod Lane, reported there were
17 no other homes in that area which had two garages . He
18 felt the Henry lot was too small to accommodate two
9 garages . He said he could see an addition to the existing
2�0 garage as long as it was only one stall .and was attached
1 to the house.
22
23 Gerald Dunphy, 3104 36th Avenue N. E. , agreed with Mr.
24 Trauba' s assessment that there were no other homes in the
25 Wilshire Addition with detached garages . He indicated
26 however, that there was a house on the other end of 36th
27 Avenue which had four stalls but he said he knew Mr. Henry
28 would have a problem with the setbacks on his property if
29 he tried to match that garage.
30
31 Delores Bury, 3008 36th Avenue N.E. , said she would be
32 looking right at the new garage from her back yard and
33 would be "very disappointed" to have detached garage
34 allowed. She would not however be opposed to having an
35 addition to the existing garage.
36
37 A letter from Walter and Addie Hunt, 3000 36th Avenue,
38 indicated strong opposition to authorizing a two car
39 garage addition to the Henry home.
40
41 Mr. Henry addressed his application by saying he and his
42 wife had only purchased the corner property because they
43 thought they would be allowed the proposed detached
44 garage. He said a City official had advised him that he
could put the second garage on the property without a
6 variance as long as it would be 45 feet from the curb. The
Planning Commission Meeting
.May 18, 1993
Page 5
1 applicant had provided copies of his arguments in favor of
2 the permit for the Commissioners .
3
4 Mr. Henry indicated he thought the garage would look
5 better 12 feet closer to the street than twelve feet
6 further away. He said the appearance of his home was very
7 important to him. His plan was to spend an extra $1,200
8 to stucco the garage to match the house. He added that a
9 shorter driveway would prevent any future owner of the
10 property from parking boats, etc. in front of the garage
11 because the grade would be too steep. On the other hand,
12 a driveway 12 feet longer would be more level. If he
13 isn't allowed a double garage to park two vehicles in
14 there will probably be either a boat or a snowmobile
15 parked outside.
16
17 Mr. Henry indicated his intent to plant shrubbery and
18 bushes around the proposed garage as a buffer for the
409 neighbors ' view. This would include a hedge where the
0 fence is now and three more trees . He said the neighbors
1 across the street weren't "excited" about his plans but
22 hadn't opposed them either. The neighbor north of him had
23 indicated he was not opposed to the proposal as long as
24 Mr. Henry continued the existing fence to prevent people
25 from cutting through. Mr. Henry reiterated that he
26 perceived a nice stucco garage would look a lot nicer than
27 a cement slab with a boat and snowmobile which are in
28 storage now parked on it.
29
30 The applicant noted that almost all the houses and garages
31 on Penrod all the way up to 37th Avenue maintained the
32 same setbacks from the street as his home, having been
33 grandfathered into the Ordinance. ,
34
35 When asked why he didn't just make an addition to his
36 existing house , Mr. Henry said he had gotten bids on that
37 and a detached garage and found it would cost him $33, 000
38 to attach extra stalls with a small addition to a bedroom
39 while the detached garage with the same stucco finish as
40 the house would only cost him $14, 000 . the latter was all
41 the couple could afford at this time he added. He would
42 just meet the 30% ordinance restriction with the garage
43 located where he had proposed. A garage with a 45 foot
44 sideyard setback from the street would require a 12 foot
long driveway and would take up too much of his backyard,
QP6 the applicant said. And even then he might only be able
47 to have a stall and a half structure and would have to
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 6
1 construct a two stripped driveway besides to meet the 30%
2 ordinance restriction.
3
4 Mr. Henry agreed with Mr. Murphy that he might have to run
5 the driveway around the guidelines but said that would be
6 no problem for him. He indicated he had contacted NSP but
7 hadn't gotten a response yet.
8
9 The Public Hearing was closed at 9 :00 p.m. for Commission
10 discussion.
11
12 Commissioner Thompson said he thought Mr. Henry had
13 researched his proposal very well. He also perceived the
14 applicants had gone out of their way to accommodate the
15 neighbors by proposing berming,landscaping, and a nice
16 looking building to make the proposal more acceptable.
17 Although he was also concerned about maintaining a 30 foot
18 right-of-way, the Commissioner added that he perceived a
�9 pleasant looking structure which would be compatible with
the house and the property would be less unsightly in the
21 backyard than having all kinds of recreational vehicles
22 parked back there instead.
23
24 Commissioner Madden indicated he could look more favorably
25 on the request if the garage were going to be closer to
26 the house and not taking up so much of the backyard.. He
27 wondered if the garage couldn't be erected just far enough
28 away from the back of the house as to permit a bedroom,
29 breezeway or patio at a later date at a cost which might
30 be easier for the young couple to afford later on.
31
32 Commissioner Murphy agreed with that suggestion saying
33 he perceived the applicants would be ruining a nice
34 backyard by putting a garage back so far. He said a
35 structure closer to the house would also be more
36 acceptable to him and would more closely match what other
37 property owners in that area have already done without
38 ruining the character of the neighborhood.
39
40 Commissioner Franzese said she had mixed reactions to the
41 proposal since the City policy has been to encourage the
42 storage of recreational vehicles away from the neighbors '
43 view. She added that it was unfortunate the garage wasn't
4 on the other side of the house since homeowners just a
short distance away had been able to increase a double
6 garage sited on the that side of the house to three stalls
47 without a variance. However, she indicated she was
• Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 7
1 leaning more closely towards opposition to the permit
2 because she did not perceive the Garage Setback Permit -had
3 been intended for detached buildings but rather had been
4 tailored for converting existing single garages to double
5 to meet the types of vehicles most of today's families
6 possess .
_ 7
8 Commissioner Thompson reacted to the other Commissioners '
9 comments by modifying his first reaction to the proposal
10 by saying he could now see where it would be better to
11 have the proposed garage sited closer to the house,
12 especially as long as Mr. Henry followed through with the
13 landscape buffering he was proposing.
14
15 Commissioner Werenicz stated that he had to oppose the
16 garage which had been proposed because it appeared one
17 side would be built right up against a utility easement.
18 He perceive moving the guide wires would only transfer a
�9 maintenance nuisance to someone - else's property. It was
0 also his contention that the Garage Setback Permit had
21 only been intended to allow the expansion of one car
22 garages on older homes in the community. The Commissioner
23 said he seriously doubted that anyone wanted to see a
24 precedent set for double garages in backyards which in his
25 opinion, would be totally out of character for St.
26 Anthony.
27
28 Chair Faust agreed that the proposal certainly didn't
29 appear to meet the intent of the permit when it was
30 established. He also questioned whether a structure
31 further back on that property with a 12 foot driveway
32 could satisfy the 30% criteria set for backyards .
33
34 Motion by Madden, seconded by Murphy to recommend the
35 Garage Setback Permit requested by Douglas and Julie
36 Henry, 353-1 Skycroft Drive, be denied by the City Council .
37 In the interest of not having recreational vehicles parked
38 on driveways, etc. , the Commissioner wouldn't want the
39 idea of additional storage space completely abandoned for
40 this property. Rather they recommend the applicants be
41 encouraged to work with staff to find some way of
42 modifying their plans so as to erect the structure they
43 proposed closer to the house in the hopes of its
44 eventually be.coming an attached garage.
05
6 Motion Carried Unanimously.
47
• Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 8
1 D. Variance Request, James A. Sarna, Stop-N-Save, 3529
2 Stinson Boulevard
3
4 The Public Hearing was opened at 9 : 06 p. m. with Chair
5 Faust reading the Notice of Hearing which had been
6 published in the May 5, 1993 edition of the St. Anthony
7 Bulletin.
8
9 The Chair noted that the Commissioners hadn't received any
10 of the documentation for the proposal in their agenda
11 packets . He indicated that they had the option of tabling
12 without consideration or tabling later in the meeting if
13 they perceived the need for more information. The fact
14 that the proposal had received a concept review at the
15. Commission' s April meeting, prompted the Commissioners to
16 suspend the rules governing deadlines for submitting
17 documentation for a proposal.
18
409 Mr. Urbia indicated the applicant had reduced the width of
0 the canopy over the gas pumps from 32 feet to 28 feet.
21 However, even the reduced size would require a 10 foot
22 setback variance from 33rd Avenue N. E. and 18 feet from
23 Stinson Boulevard. Thirty five foot setbacks from the
24 street are required for both sides which the City
25 Ordinance treats as front yards .
26
27 The Management Assistant had been requested to research
28 the number of setback variances granted to the Amoco
29 Station on 37th and Silver Lake Road. His research
30 indicated only a 13 foot variance had been granted there
31 since 1985 .
32
33 Mr. Sarna confirmed that the previous request for a canopy
34 32 feet X 32 feet had been pared down to only a 32 foot X
35 28 foot canopy and concrete slab, with no changes in the
36 angle for the canopy. He assured the Commissioners that
37 he planned no signage on the canopy.
38
39 The Public Hearing was closed at 9 : 15 p.m.
40
41 Chair Faust indicated he still found the canopy obtrusive
42 on that corner where the station can be seen from all
43 directions . He said there are residences adjoining all
44 the commercial on each corner and there have been several
01 5 proposals for residential development on the vacant corner
46 across the street.
47
• Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 9
1 Commissioner Murphy indicated that with a new fence and
2 the landscaping promised by Mr. Sarna, he thought this
3 proposal would be a marked improvement to the appearance
4 of that corner where there are some very unattractive
5 appearing businesses across Stinson and an abandoned gas
6 station on the other side of 33rd Avenue N. E.
7
8 Commissioner Franzese pointed out that the gas
9 station/store was an approved use for that property and by
10 helping the owners to improve their business the
11 Commission would be fulfilling the City' s desire to have
12 its businesses succeed and be competitive.
13
14 Motion by Franzese, seconded by Werenicz to recommend the
15 City Council grant variances of 12 feet on the 33rd Avenue
16 side and 12 feet on the Stinson side to James A. Sarna for
17 the 32 foot X 28 foot canopy over the gas pumps at the
18 Stop-N-Save Store, 3259 Stinson Boulevard.
9
0 Voting on the motion:
21 Aye: Franzese, Werenicz, Thompson, Murphy, Gondorchin and
22 Madden.
23 Nay: Faust
24
25 Motion carried.
26
27 E. Rezone Properties East of Silver Lake Road and South of
28 TCF Bank .from R-2 and R-4 to Commercial
29
30 The Public Hearing was opened at 9 :21 p. m. with the Chair
31 reading the Notice of Hearing which had been published in
32 the May 5, 199 edition of the St. Anthony Bulletin.
33
34 Mr. Urbia pointed out that the requested action would
35 correct a miszoning in the area to bring it into
36 conformance with the City of St. Anthony Comprehensive
37 Land Use Plan. He added that the Cub Food. development at
38 Apache should generate interest in and facilitate
39 commercial service development for this property.
40
41 The Ramsey County Traffic Engineer's response to Mr.
42 Urbia's query regarding allowable accesses to Silver Lake
43 Road had been distributed to the Commissioners . The
44 engineer had advised that the only accesses which would be
45 allowed along the east side of Silver Lake Road south of
6 39th Avenue would be right in, right out, with no median
47 cuts for left hand turns. The County had also perceived
• Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 10
1 the construction a right in, right out access at either 30
2 feet or 170 feet from the TCF curb cut would not cause any
3 potential traffic problems . The possibility of any
4 business locating next to TCF negotiating an access
5 agreement with the bank had also been suggested to a bank
6 official.
7
8 Copies of letters supporting the rezoning from the two
9 property owners had been distributed. Kenneth Lee who had
10 spoken in support of the proposed development of the
11 professional offices north of TCF, related his long
12 history of property ownership in that area including the
13 land where Apache and TCF had been built. The property
14 owner pointed out that he had unsuccessfully tried to sell
15 the two lots proposed to be rezoned that evening to TCF
16 for half the price they were asking for the lot they own.
17 Mr. Lee assured the Commissioners that the soil on all
18 three lots is made up of only subsoil from the Apache
0 9 development. Subsoil tests have indicated blue clay way
0 down which Mr.Lee perceived anyone who bought the land for
21 development would be able to overcome.
22
23 Commissioner Franzese suggested that with his wealth of
24 information about the growth of the Village, Mr. Lee would
25 certainly be a valuable addition to the St. Anthony
26 Historical Society.
27
28 Ruth Nelson, 3916 Macalaster Drive, who lives in the area
29 wondered why when so many TCF customers have to park on
30 the adjoining streets during busy times, the bank didn't
31 keep the lot it owns for additional parking space it
32 certainly needs . She was quite concerned about the use of
33 a general commercial classification for the property to be
34 rezoned perceiving there could be some undesirable uses
35 which might come under such a general classification.
36
37 Mr. Urbia told her there are permitted uses, conditional
38 uses, and prohibited uses under that classification. He
39 said even permitted uses have all kinds of restrictions
40 like parking area requirements and any proposal which
41 can't meet those restrictions would simply not be allowed
42 to develop that space. The Management Assistant cautioned
43 against narrowing down the classification saying the
44 market would probably govern what goes in that space
•5 anyway. He addressed Mrs . Nelson' s concerns about a
46 development like a potato chip factory going into that
47 space by saying that use would be classified as Light
• Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 11
1 Industrial and would never be considered for the subject
2 property. Its size would also prohibit a use like a
3 restaurant and there wouldn't be enough room for most
4 retail development.
5
6 The Public Hearing was closed at 9 : 36 p.m.
7
8 Commissioner Werenicz indicated he favored rezoning to
9 Commercial since he could see no viable use for the
10 property if it were left residential. He thought its
11 classification should be changed to match the development
12 around it. He added that there would be plenty of
13 opportunities for the residents in the area to react to
14 any proposed development.
15
16 Chair Faust said his first concern had been that a fast
17 food establishment might try to locate there. However Mr.
18 Urbia' s assurances to Mrs . Nelson that systems are in
9 place to prevent that from happening and to encourage the
0 type of service business which would be best for that
21 property had alleviated those concerns .
22
23 Motion by Murphy, seconded by Madden to recommend the City
24 Council rezone to C (General Commercial District) the
25 following properties;
26
27 * Lot 7, Block 7 of Mounds View Acres Second Addition
28 which is presently zoned R-4 (Multiple Family Residence
29 District) ;
30
31 * Lot 8, Block 7 of Mounds View Acres Second Addition is
32 presently zoned R-2 (Two Family Residence District) ;
33
34 * Lot 9, Block 7 of Mounds View Acres Second District
35 which is presently zoned R-2 (Two Family Residence
36 District) .
37
38 Motion carried unanimously.
39
40 VI. MISCELLANEOUS
41
42 A. Discussion of Kenzie Terrace Area
43
404 Chair Faust indicated the information the Management
5 Assistant had provided in the agenda packet was in
46 response to the Commission desire to take a more proactive
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 12
1 role in the planning issues which the City is currently
2 grappling with in that area.
3
4 Staff had provided this information as a stimuli for
5 creative thinking and not necessarily for immediate action
6 the Chair indicated. He said he anticipated the
7 discussions would be continued over several meetings. A
8 brief overview of developments related to the Bona
9 station, the bowling alley, and Kentucky Fried Chicken
10 restaurant was given that evening. The Commissioner' s
11 comments centered primarily on improvement of the Firstar
12 Bank area with emphasis on measures to further identify
13 the Lowry/Stinson area as the gateway to St . Anthony. The
14 importance of including the property occupied by the
15 mobile home park in any upgrading efforts was
16 acknowledged.
17
18 VII. STAFF UPDATE
9
0 Therapeutic Massage Commercial Use
21
22 The Management Assistant' s memo on the issue had advised
23 reception of a proposal from the tanning salon owner to
..24 sublease a portion of her business to allow a therapeutic
25 graduate to establish a service there. The precedent for
26 this use in St. Anthony had already been established. Mr.
27 Urbia provided copies of the conditions set for that
28 applicant for Commission consideration before the proposal
29 is formally presented, .possibly at their next meeting.
30 Questions which were raised about the wording of the first
31 condition will be resolved before that meeting.
32
33 Concept Review of Proposed Garage Addition, 2803 33rd
34 Avenue. N.E.
35
36 The proposal was for a garage addition which would be only
37 . a foot from the property line. The Commission consensus
38 was that the proposal wouldn' t meet the criteria for
39 either sideyard or overhang setbacks established for the
40 Garage Setback Permit . An example of a possible violation
41 of setback requirements on a new three car garage addition
42 on Chelmsford was noted.
43
44 In regard to her neighbor' s request for a permit for a
5 garage addition on which she had abstained from voting,
6 Commissioner Franzese told the Commissioners all the houses
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 13
1 in that Billman Addition are not sited exactly plum with
2 their front property lines .
3
4 Marquette Bank Signage Change with Transfer of Ownership
5
6 Mr. Urbia alerted the Commissioners to a future hearing
7 they will be holding related to a logo change for First
8 Bank. There will probably be a reduction in the sign size
9 he added.
10
11 Upcoming Hearing on Bona Property Changes
12
13 Mr. Urbia reported the owners of the gas station had
14 reached an agreement with the City related to the
15 elimination of the 27th Avenue access . The applicant
16 would now be requesting a variance for the gas pump
17 canopy. He also reported the addition of more pumps would
18 require changes in the Conditional Use Permit already held
09 by the station.
0
21 Council/Staff March Retreat
22
23 The Chair expressed his appreciation of the report in the
24 Commission agenda packet.A brief discussion of the
25 recreational vehicle parking issue followed with
26 Commissioner Madden commenting that he knew the issue was
27 still very much alive in the minds of many residents .
28 Commissioner Werenicz agreed saying he perceived those
29 residents often failed to attend the meetings on the issue
30 in contrast to the status quo proponents who have always
31 turned out in force for those meetings .
32
33 VIII. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS
34
35 More Timely Scheduling of Public Hearings
36
37 Commissioner Madden said he thought the inaccurate
38 estimation of hearing times that evening demonstrated the
39 validity of past requests for more realistic scheduling.
40 He acknowledged the difficulty in predicting the time each
41 hearing will take but said he perceived some irritation on
42 the part of at least one petitioner that evening at having
43 to sit through several hearings which had been scheduled
44 to be conducted close to his own scheduled starting time.
45 The Commissioner cited a long article in a recent local
6 newspaper which had pointed to similar irritations the
47 public perceives it has to endure to get anything done by
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 14
1 public officials . He said he didn't think citizens should
2 have to sit as long as some had that evening.
3
4 Mr. Urbia commented that the last applicant had also been
5 very late in submitting the necessary documentation for
6 that hearing and added that such tardiness had been more
7 the rule than the exception with those particular
8 applicants . He said the hearings are usually s-cheduled
9 for shortly after the meetings begin "or as soon
10 thereafter as possible" so as to avoid long waits between
11 hearings if they're over sooner than expected.
12 Commissioner Murphy commented he had noticed even
13 corporation meetings were rarely held at their scheduled
14 times . Commissioner Werenicz noted the Commission had
15 reached motions much quicker than usual that evening
16 because it seemed as though repetitive discussions
17 preceding motions had somehow been avoided. Commission
18 Franzese' s suggestion to schedule public hearings at least
n9 15 minutes apart was accepted for trial for the next few
0 meetings . It was agreed that issues farther down in an
21 evening's agenda schedule could always be moved up to fill
22 in any time gaps .
23
24 Commissioner Murphy' s Resignation
25
26 An acceleration in business responsibilities which had
27 forced him to miss several meetings this year as well as a
28 desire to devote any time he can to family
29 responsibilities had forced him to reluctantly offer his
30 resignation that evening, Commissioner Murphy explained.
31 He added that he had enjoyed his service on the Commission
32 very much and speculated there might be period when
33 diminishing scheduling conflicts in the future might open
34 the opportunity for him to serve the community again.
35
36 Chair Faust expressed the Commissions ' appreciation of
37 Commissioner Murphy' s insight and different approach to
38 issues which had come before them during his tenure. He
39 added though they hated to see him leave all the
40 Commissioners were in sympathy with his sense of duty to
41 family over business .
42
43 Motion by Madden, seconded by Franzese to thank
404 Commissioner Murphy for his many contributions to the
5 Planning Commission work and compliment him on his
46 demeanor and cooperative manner. The Commissioners wish
47 their departing member all the goodwill possible with the
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 15
1 hope a change in circumstance might present the
2 opportunity of working together sometime in the future.
3
4 Motion Carried Unanimously.
5
6 Staff Report on Signage Research and Other Old Business
7 _
8 Mr. Urbia reported he had measured the carpet cleaning
9 sign he had been requested to research and found it took
10 up half the window of that particular business . However,
11 other pressing City business had prevented him from doing
12 the requested research on informational signage. He
13 explained the procedure Commissioners need to follow if
14 they want the City to pay for their memberships in outside
15 organizations. The Management Assistant brought the
16 Commissioners up-to-date on the latest developments
17 related to the Cub Food Store going into Apache including
18 City proposals to aid in correcting drainage problems
9 associated with the development.
000
21 There was a discussion of how much flexibility there
22 should be in the by-laws requiring a month's notice before
23 an application can be presented for a hearing before the
24 Commission. It was agreed that a concept review of an
25 application might justify a little more leniency when it
26 came to Commission consideration of a proposal at a later
27 meeting, as had happened with the Sarna application that
28 evening. Commissioner Gondorchin indicated he perceived
29 this to be an added value smaller communities were able to
30 offer their constituents .
31
32 Salvation Army Open House
33
34 Chair Faust issued an invitation to Commissioners to
35 attend the May 24th event and get a first hand look at a
36 community asset on they might not have had an opportunity
37 to see before.
38
39 %I. ADJOURNMENT
40
41 Motion by Murphy, seconded by Werenicz to adjourn the
42 Planning Commission meeting at 10:30 p.m.
43
44 Motion Carried Unanimously.
91 5
46
47
•r
Planning Commission Meeting
May 18, 1993
Page 16
1 Respectfully submitted,
2
3
4
5
6 Helen J. Crowe, Acting Secretary
7