Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 09182001 Meeting Sheet IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII 106223 Box: 36 Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2001 Document: PL MINUTES 09182001 t CITY OF ST. ANTHONY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 3 SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 4 7:00 p.m. 5 I. CALL TO ORDER. 6 Chair Melsha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 7 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 8 Chair Melsha invited the Council and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance. 9 III. ROLL CALL. 10 Commissioners present: Chair Melsha; Vice Chair Stille, Commissioners Hanson„ Hatch, I 1 Steeves, Tillman, and Thomas. 12 Absent: None. 13 Also present: Assistant City Manager Susan Henry. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA. 15 Susan Henry stated that Chair Melsha needed to designate a Planning Commissioner to attend the City 16 Council meeting of October 9, 2001 rather than September 25, 2001. 17 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Hatch,to approve the meeting agenda with the 18 change above. 19 Motion carried unanimously. 20 V. PUBLIC INPUT. 21 Hearing no comments, Chair Melsha moved forward with the agenda. 22 23 VI. MEETING MINUTES. 24 6.1 Review/Approval of the Planning Commission meeting minutes of August 21, 2001. 25 Motion by Vice Chair Stille, second by Chair Melsha, to approve the Planning Commission 26 meeting minutes of August 21, 2001. 27 Motion carried unanimously. 28 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL. 7.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the City Council regular meeting of October 9, 0 2001. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2001 Page 2 0 1 Chair Melsha indicated that Vice Chair Stille was available to attend the next City Council 2 meeting on October 9, 2001. 3 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS. 4 8.1 Request for Lot Split: Wirth Companies, Lot 1, Block 1, Beutz Addition. 5 Susan Henry stated that Wirth Companies was requesting a lot split. She added that it was the 6 same lot split that was approved by the City Council back on June 23, 1998, but the applicant 7 did not follow-up with a final plat. Ms. Henry indicated that a dispute arose between the two 8 property owners which was why the split was never completed. 9 Ms. Henry stated that the request was to subdivide and replat Lot 1, Block 1, Beutz Addition, 10 which is a vacant lot to the southwest of the Apache Medical Building. She indicated that the 11 current property-owner was in agreement with the request. 12 Ms. Henry stated that the applicant's request would bring Lot 1, Block 1, Beutz Addition into 13 compliance with Chapter 15, Subd. 4 (1), of the City's Ordinance, which states that all lots 14 must abut their full frontage on a public street. She continued that the replatting of the vacant lot 15 creates a lot that meets the minimum lot size requirement under the same chapter. Ms. Henry stated that Legal Counsel reviewed that plat in 1998. She indicated that there have 17 been no changes since then, but that the item to note was the easement. Prior to the 18 development of the lot, a final plat will have to be approved and evidence of title will need to be 19 provided. 20 Ms. Henry also referred to the moratorium that is on the City's Northwest Quadrant until 21 October 4, 2001, which was approved by the City Council last fall. She added that staff 22 recommendation was to approve the preliminary plat and bring it to the October 9, 2001 City 23 Council meeting, at which time the moratorium will have expired. 24 David Lutz, representative of Wirth Companies, came forward and reviewed the details that 25 Ms. Henry covered. 26 Chair Melsha asked if there was any other land that would be affected by the lot split. Mr. Lutz 27 indicated that there was no other land that would be impacted by the requested lot split. 28 Commissioner Thomas asked what plans were in place for the lot. Mr. Lutz stated that nothing 29 was in the works at this time, but that some type of future development would take place. 30 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m. 4R1 Commissioner Tillman asked if they needed to recommend approval contingent on the 32 moratorium being lifted. Chair Melsha agreed on the continency. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2001 Page 3 1 Vice Chair Stille asked if it would affect the parking for the Medical Center. Mr. Lutz stated it 2 would reduce the parking a small amount, but would still be within compliance. 3 Commissioner Hatch stated that, according to the moratorium ordinance, it needed to be a 4 change in use. Chair Melsha stated it was arguable that it was a change in use. Vice Chair 5 Stille added that staff acknowledged that same point, and recommended approval. 6 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Hatch, to recommend approval of the 7 request for Lot Split: Wirth Companies, Lot 1, Block 1, Beutz Addition, contingent upon the 8 moratorium being lifted, and evidence of title being provided for the preliminary plat. 9 Motion carried unanimously. 1 o IX. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION. 11 9.1 Draft Antenna ordinance Review. 12 Susan Henry indicated that Chris Smith, an attorney assisting Jerry Gilligan,was present to 13 present his draft of the Antenna Ordinance for review by the Planning Commission. 0 4 Commissioner Tillman asked where in the draft it was listed that a conditional use permit(CUP) 5 was required outside of the Telecommunications Overlay District(TOD). Chair Melsha 16 echoed Commissioner Tillman's concern. 17 Mr. Smith indicated that the City wanted to have a TOD where antennas would be a permitted 18 use within certain areas, with specific criteria requirements, and would be approved by City 19 Staff. He added that anything else would require a CUP and approval by the Planning 20 Commission and City Council. 21 Mr. Smith referred to Section 4 of the ordinance, which deals with the TOD. He stated that the 22 intent was that anything that did not fall within the listed provisions of Section 3 would require a 23 CUP. 24 Chair Melsha stated that Mr. Smith's interpretation was accurate. He added that there was 25 confusion because a specific TOD was not identified in the draft. 26 Mr. Smith indicated that he thought it most beneficial to describe the parcels and properties 27 which would be the overlay district, rather than an actual zoning district. 28 Chair Melsha stated that they wanted to exclude commercial properties from the ordinance. Commissioner Thomas suggested that some members of the subcommittee meet with Mr. Smith 30 to clarify some of the details. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2001 Page 4 1 Commissioner Thomas referred to Section 2, item B, Color and Architecture, and it's 2 inconsistency with Section 2, item C, regarding (Wireless Telecommunications Facility) WTFs 3 and camouflage. 4 The Commission clarified that the intent is that all WTFs should be concealed and camouflaged. s Chair Melsha stated that the outline captures the intent of the Commission and that it really only 6 needs to be cleaned up. 7 Commissioner Tillman restated her concern that a CUP may not be a great enough barrier for 8 areas outside of the TOD. Chair Melsha indicated that he understood her point, but stated that 9 they do not want to be too stringent on not wanting towers anywhere because the City needs 10 them. 11 Chair Melsha asked Mr. Smith if he was aware of City restrictions in relation to the CUP 12 standards. Mr. Smith stated he believed that there existed some language that discusses the 13 factors that the Planning Commission would consider when determining whether the standards 14 for a CUP were being met. Mr. Smith indicated that one of those standards was distance to 4 other residential structures. 16 Mr. Smith indicated that he felt there were reasons for which the Commission could deny a 17 CUP request, and that it was rare that as decision was reversed if properly and reasonably 18 documented. 19 Chair Melsha indicated that members from the subcommittee would meet with Mr. Smith in the 20 near future to clean up the draft and further discuss some of the issues discussed this evening. 21 9.2 Point of Sale Ordinance Discussion. 22 Susan Henry stated that a subcommittee has met to discuss a draft from 1998 draft that did not 23 go forward to the City Council. She added that overall the subcommittee felt that it was a good 24 idea, and the proposed draft works pretty well. 25 Ms. Henry outlined what the subcommittee identified as important concepts and aspects of the 26 process. 27 Chair Melsha asked if a misdemeanor was a uniform penalty for not complying with the Point- 28 Of-Sale Ordinance. Ms. Henry stated it was in order to keep home-owners in cooperation. 29 Commissioner Steeves stated that the main difference between the St. Anthony and New Hope 0 Point-Of-Sale evaluations was that the New Hope evaluation was more specific. 31 Commissioner Steeves asked if they could ascertain experience from other cities whether they 32 have other opportunities to rectify a situation before it becomes a misdemeanor. Commissioner Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2001 • Page s Thomas indicated that the subcommittee discussed stating, under the purpose of the Point-Of- 2 Sale Ordinance,that the City wants to upgrade it's housing stock and is willing to work with 3 residents and home-buyers to help facilitate that upgrading. 4 Commissioner Hanson indicated that the subcommittee hoped that an In-House Inspector 5 would be part of the overall Point-Of-Sale plan. Ms. Henry indicated that would not happen 6 for three to five years, due to budget constraints. 7 Commissioner Steeves indicated that the City of Minneapolis requires applicants to post a 8 Performance Bond that is equal to 125% of the estimated cost of making the improvement so 9 that they are assured that the item is taken care of. 10 The Commission discussed a few examples that they have dealt with in the past in relation to I 1 Commissioner Steeves' statement. 12 Commissioner Tillman asked if someone who got an inspection,then decided not to sell their 13 home would still be held responsible to correct the code violations. Commissioner Hanson 14 stated that was something that has been discussed because of the potential safety and health 15 hazards which may exist. 16 Commissioner Thomas stated that they would give either the seller, or buyer the option to 17 correct the violations. 18 Commissioner Tillman referred to the small, non-safety issues that are identified by the 19 inspector, and asked, if the home-owner decided not to sell, would they still be held responsible 20 for correcting the violations. She added that it was a risk of requesting an inspection. 21 Commissioner Hanson stated that it could be negotiated in the contract that the buyers would 22 have ninety days to correct the violations. 23 Commissioner Thomas stated that his understanding was that a home-owner who was looking 24 to sell would need to be made aware of the Point-Of-Sale Ordinance by their realtor. He 25 added that, at that point, the home-owner could decide that they did not want to sell. He 26 added that the inspection would need to be presented at, or before, the time of closing. 27 Commissioner Thomas stated that he did not hire an inspector when they bought their home 28 three years ago, and he just discovered that his garage door opener had a red tag on it and was 29 out of compliance. He added that he felt it was something that he should have known about. 30 Ms. Henry stressed that the focus of the inspection was for Point-Of-Sale purposes. 0 31 The Commission requested more information on how other cities kept track of the Point-Of- 32 Sale Ordinance and associated inspections. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2001 Page 6 Commissioner Hanson stated it would be necessary to inform local realtors of the Point- Of- 2 Sale Ordinance in the City of St. Anthony, as well as educate the public. 3 Commissioner Tillman stated that she thought that the idea was wonderful. 4 Chair Melsha asked if they were trying to go after the minor and cosmetic problems, or major 5 problems. Commissioner Thomas stated he thought they were focusing on the minimum 6 standards. 7 Commissioner Steeves stated that liked the idea of two standards. He thought a misdemeanor s penalty should be attached to the minimum standard (health and safety), and a less severe 9 penalty attached to the cosmetic violations. 10 Chair Melsha indicated that he had Minnegasco out to have his furnace serviced and learned 11 that there were things that were hazardous in his home of which he was unaware. 12 Commissioner Hanson suggested that Ms. Henry research other cities that have a Point- Of- 13 Sale Ordinance in effect, and any associated misdemeanors. 94 Commissioner Thomas suggested that Ms. Henry continue working on the proposed Point-Of- 15 Sale Ordinance blending in the minimum standards with another emergency life, health and 16 safety set of standards that would have to be fixed immediately and would carry a misdemeanor 17 penalty. He added that he would do some research on a tracking system. 18 Chair Melsha stated it was important to gather information from other cities that are 19 comparable to the City Of St. Anthony. 20 Chair Melsha stated that he was concerned about getting comfortable without being too heavy- 21 handed. Ms. Henry stated that needed to continue working on it, until they were comfortable 22 with the end result. 23 Commissioner Hatch asked how the public would become involved and informed. The 24 Commission discussed a few options and decided that inviting them to their meetings was the 25 best option. Ms. Henry would include the subject of Point-Of-Sale in Chair Melsha's portion 26 of the newsletter. 27 9.3 Northwest Ouadrant Redevelopment Update. 28 Ms. Henry informed the Commission that a pre-proposal conference for interested developers 29 will be held Thursday, September 20, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. at the St. Anthony City Hall. She indicated that Jim Prosser, Ehlers and Associates, would lead the presentation. 31 Ms. Henry stated that developer proposals are due into Ehlers and Associates on October 26, 32 2001. She added that late this year or early next year,the City will be reviewing the proposals Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2001 • Page 7 1 and interviewing developers, subjecting the concepts to further evaluation and identifying any 2 potentially viable development proposals. 3 Chair Melsha asked about the next legislative session and if there have been any further 4 discussions regarding helping out with the TIF revisions that were made. Ms. Henry responded s that there is going to be presentation to the Metropolitan Council by the consultants from Ehlers 6 and Associates and Mayor Cavanaugh on October 10, 2001 which she identified as a big step. 7 She added that they are aware the City of St. Anthony does not have a lot of money to work 8 with, and they will be able to provide them financial guidance on a state level. 9 Commissioner Steeves asked what followed the request for proposal (RFP)deadline. Ms. 10 Henry stated that she would keep them informed when she had more information from Mr. 11 Prosser. 12 Commissioner Tillman asked who decides on selecting the developer for the project. Ms. 13 Henry responded that the City Council makes that decision and added that the Council has 14 made it clear that they want the input of the Planning Commission. 405 X. ANNOUNCEMENTS. 6 Commissioner Tillman stated that she liked the format that the City Council uses during their study 17 sessions, when they sit at the round-table. She asked if the Planning Commission had the power to 18 change things a bit, and if they would they want to use the more intimate format when appropriate. 19 Chair Melsha stated that it was a good idea, depending on the nature of the meeting. Ms. Henry stated 20 that the room was designed for the current set-up, but that the point was well taken, and she would 21 approach the City Manager on the subject. 22 Commissioner Hanson had an update on the St. Anthony Shopping Center. He indicated that there 23 was a new tenant in the Center which was a specialty shop for children's dress clothes. He added that 24 Fitness Center was increasing in population. 25 Commissioner Hanson stated that he was informed that construction had begun on the Salvation Army 26 site which was where the Hennepin County Library would move to and then expand. He asked the 27 Commission what the large mounds of dirt behind Custom Liquidators. Commissioner Tillman 28 indicated that the dirt was from the Harding Pond. 29 Commissioner Hanson asked if there was talk about a Southwest Task Force at some point. Ms. 30 Henry stated it was a good question, but the Stonehouse was in the heat of discussion right now. She 31 added that once decisions regarding the Stonehouse are made, they will be closer to examining the southwest area. 33 Commissioner Steeves thanked the Commissioners who have served on the various sub-committees 34 feeling that they have really made great progress. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes September 18, 2001 • Page 8 Vice Chair Stille echoed Commissioner Steeves' appreciation for the work of the sub-committees. 2 XI. ADJOURNMENT. 3 Motion by Chair Melsha, second by Commissioner Hanson, to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m. 4 s Motion carried unanimously. 6 Respectfully submitted, 7 Courtney Seesz 8 Timesaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. • •