HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 08192003 Meeting Sheet
IIIIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIVIIIIIIIIIII
iosaso
Box: 34
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 2003
Document: PL MINUTES 08192003
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA
AUGUST 19, 2003
7 p.m., Council Chambers
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. PUBLIC INPUT
Individuals may address the Planning Commission about any item not included on the regular
agenda. Speakers are requested to come to the podium, state their name and address for the
Clerk's record, and limit their remarks to five minutes.
5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
6. MEETING MINUTES
6.1 Review and Approve Planning Commission Minutes of July 15, 2003
7. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL
• 7.1 Designate a Planning Commissioner to the August 26, 2003 City Council Meeting
8. PUBLIC HEARING
8.1 St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC, 2900 Pentagon Drive, amend comprehensive sign
plan
9. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION
9.1 Preliminary/Sketch Plan Review of Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the Northwest
Quadrant (Apache) Redevelopment
9.2 Discuss opinion signs
9.3 Discuss restaurant parking requirements in the commercial zoning district
10. ANNOUNCEMENTS
11. ADJOURNMENT
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2003
• Page 1
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 August 19, 2003
6 7:00 p.m.
7
8
9 I. CALL TO ORDER
10 Chair Melsha called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
11
12 II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
13 Chair Melsha invited the Council and the audience to join in the Pledge of Allegiance.
14
15 III. ROLL CALL.
16 Commissioners present: Chair Melsha; Vice Chair Stille; Commissioners Hanson, Hoska,
17 Steeves, and Stromgren.
18
19 Absent: Commissioner Tillman.
20
21 Also present: Assistant City Manager Susan Hall; John Shardlow, Planning
0 Consultant, NW Quadrant Project.
24 IV. PUBLIC INPUT.
25 No one stepped forward.
26
27 V. APPROVAL OF AGENDA.
28 Motion by Commissioner Hanson, second by Commissioner Hoska, to approve the meeting
29 agenda as presented.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 VI. MEETING MINUTES.
34 6.1 Review and Approval - Planning Commission Minutes of July 15, 2003.
35
36 Vice Chair Stille referenced page nine, change Barry Tetland to Barry Tedland.
37
38 Motion by Commissioner Hoska, second by Chair Melsha, to approve the Planning Commission
39 meeting minutes of July 15, 2003 as amended.
40
41 Motion carried unanimously.
42
43 VII. COMMUNICATION WITH CITY COUNCIL.
7.1 Designate a Planning Commission member to the August 26, 2003 City Council
0 Meeting.
46
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2003
• Page 2
1 Chair Melsha stated that Commissioner Hanson has indicated that he would be available to
2 attend the next City Council meeting on August 26, 2003.
3
4 VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
5 8.1 St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC, 2900 Pentagon Drive, Amend Comprehensive Sign
6 Plan.
7
8 Chair Melsha opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
9
10 Susan Hall stated that the St. Anthony Shopping Center recently signed leases with two tenants
11 that have a regional and national scope: Bumper to Bumper and Subway. She stated that both
12 tenants have developed a logo with uniform signage to promote their stores and that according to
13 the petitioner the current comprehensive sign plan does not provide sufficient flexibility for sign
14 design to accommodate regional and national tenants. She explained that this is the reason that
15 the tenants are requesting an amendment to the St. Anthony Shopping Center's comprehensive
16 sign plan. She further explained that the petitioner has stated that they would help to facilitate
17 these and future regional and national tenants.
18
19 Ms. Hall stated that the petitioner has outlined the criteria for the signage and reviewed with the
20 Commission. She noted that the petitioner also included sign plans for Subway and Bumper to
21 Bumper for review. She mentioned that staff recommends approval of the comprehensive sign
9 plan amendment for the St. Anthony Shopping Center.
24 Dan Lee, St. Anthony LLC representative was available for questions.
25
26 Chair Melsha closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
27
28 Commissioner Hanson asked if there is an ordinance that designates the hours that the sign could
29 be lit. Chair Melsha stated that he was not aware of an ordinance that designates a timeframe.
30
31 Motion by Vice Chair Stille, second by Commissioner Steeves, to recommend approval of the
32 proposed amendment of the St. Anthony Shopping Center, LLC Comprehensive Sign Plan as
33 presented.
34
35 Motion carried unanimously.
36
37 IX. INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.
38
39 9.1 Preliminary Sketch Plan Review of Planned Unit Development PUD) for the Northwest
40 Quadrant (Apache)Redevelopment.
41
42 John Shardlow, Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban, Inc., stated that this is the first step in the
43 development review and approval process for the proposed Village at St. Anthony PUD. He
stated that the information submitted by the development team at this time is consistent with the
level of information required for the Preliminary Development Plan stage, as defined by the
46 PUD ordinance. He noted that a copy of the new PUD ordinance was included as reference for
47 the Commission. He reviewed the planning process timeline with the Commission stating that
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2003
• Page 3
1 the project has been underway for approximately three years. He provided the Commission with
2 a project overview noting that this project is the first to be done under the new planning
3 ordinance. He explained that they stopped at the point of articulating design principles and
4 objectives.
5
6 Mr. Shardlow reviewed the goals of the project noting that the intent is to redevelop a vacant
7 market-obsolete facility. He noted that this is a very important project and explained the City
8 Council's commitment to encourage and include community involvement throughout the
9 process. He stated that it is very important to the community that the water quality is improved
10 in Silver Lake through this process. He stated that throughout the planning process they were
11 able to determine ways to improve the water quality from the runoff as it occurred.
12
13 Mr. Shardlow explained that as part of the process the City appointed a 26-member Committee
14 that is comprised of a variety of members from the community. He explained that the role of the
15 Steering Committee was to provide a broad cross section of individuals from the community.
16 He reviewed the Master Framework Plan with the Commission noting that the committee wanted
17 to be sure that there was a comprehensive summary. He stated that the City began the
18 development selection process and that after reviewing several proposals they choose to the
19 Pratt-Ordway team.
20
21 Mr. Shardlow stated that it is important to note that the planning development is consistent with
the City's Comprehensive Plan and reviewed with the Commission. He reviewed the new land
use designation and provided an overview of what it would provide for the project.
24
25 He explained the Purpose section of the Planned Unit Development ordinance to the
26 Commission noting that all documents, exhibits and agreements would be recorded. He further
27 explained that this would become the standard that would govern this property going forward.
28 He stated that the PUD ordinance identifies three stages in the development process noting that
29 the proposal submitted for their review is consistent with the level of detail required for the
30 planning development stage. He clarified that the Commission would not be taking any action at
31 this time.
32
33 Mr. Shardlow explained that the Sketch Plan review is the first step in the process noting that the
34 Preliminary Development Plan coincides with the Preliminary Development Plat and that the
35 Final Development Plan coincides with the Final Development Plat. He stated that the developer
36 would like to have approval of the Preliminary Development Plan before the closing on the
37 property, which is scheduled for September 30.
38
39 Chair Melsha clarified the approval process and what they would be approving noting that this
40 would form the basis of the final agreement. Mr. Shardlow confirmed and explained that when
41 it is approved it would create a binding contract between the City and the developer and
42 reviewed with the Commission. He assured the Commission that all exhibits would be attached
43 to the contract noting that they could attach any other conditions of approval going forward.
0 Mr. Shardlow stated that two meetings on the planning documents will be held; the first on
46 August 26, 2003 which is a concept review by the City Council and the second on September 16,
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2003
• Page 4
1 2003, which is the public hearing on the Planning Commission level. He stated that
2 consideration for approval would follow at the September 23, 2003 City Council meeting.
3
4 Mr. Shardlow reviewed the Design Framework Manual and intent with the Commission. He
5 stated that the manual would also be included and recorded noting that it could be used for future
6 reference as they add to the development.
7
8 Mr. Shardlow reviewed the examples in the Design Framework Manual with the Commission.
9 He referenced page 10 stating that it provides a good summary of how the basic land uses fit on
10 the site. He reviewed the access, circulation and road functions for each road with the
11 Commission. He identified the preliminary location for transit stops noting that they might add
12 additional stops in the future. He stated that this would be studied in more detail. He reviewed
13 the sidewalk installations and the connections to the park with the Commission. He provided an
14 overview of the current park design for the Commission noting that the existing stormwater pond
15 would be expanded. He stated that they would also create an additional pond and reviewed the
16 proposed location with the Commission. He stated that water quality is a priority concern for the
17 community and that presently all drainage from the roofs and parking lots would flow into the
18 ponds. He stated that the size of the ponds meet the Rice Creek Watershed District standards.
19 He reviewed the water treatment process with the Commission.
20
21 Mr. Shardlow reviewed the Preliminary Development Plan with the Commission stating that the
project would require a very substantial commitment to landscaping. He reviewed the
40 preliminary landscaping requirements with the Commission noting that park improvements would
24 also include asphalt and concrete trails.
25
26 Chair Melsha clarified that they do not plan on doing anything with the three existing businesses
27 along Silver Lake Road. Mr. Shardlow confirmed that the three businesses identified have not
28 been incorporated into the development plan. He referenced a summary page of the project that
29 includes and identifies what businesses would stay and which ones would go.
30
31 Commissioner Hanson stated that he was a member of the Steering Committee. He reviewed
32 their discussions regarding the amount of retail on the site and noted that they are working with an
33 additional 800 square feet of retail and asked Mr. Shardlow how this site could handle the
34 proposed amount of retail. Mr. Shardlow stated that this is a good site for discount retail and that
35 there are several who are interested in the location. He stated that the study has been revised and
36 that he would provide a copy for the Commission's review.
37
38 Vice Chair Stille referenced the parking, noting that nothing has been presented yet, and asked if
39 there would be enough parking in some of the areas. Mr. Shardlow stated that the ordinance
40 requires 5.5 spaces per thousand adding that the Commission should keep in mind that they are
4P looking to attract sit down restaurants along the area. He stated that Miles Lindberg revised the
42 site plan at the request of the discount retailers to ensure that there were 5.5 spaces per thousand.
43
Vice Chair Stille stated that it was his understanding that the buildings would be placed towards
0, Silver Lake Road versus the parking area and asked for further clarification. Mr. Shardlow
46 explained that they have had several discussions regarding placement of the buildings and the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2003
• Page 5
1 parking area noting that this configuration was not their first choice. He further explained that
2 the developer convinced them, that this configuration was the only way to market the site.
3
4 Commissioner Hanson expressed concerns regarding access to the site noting 39`h at Silver Lake
5 Road. He clarified that his concern is that they did not have left turn lanes and that it appears
6 that they do not have enough room. He asked Mr. Shardlow what would control the traffic
7 access. Mr. Shardlow stated that the City and County would review access to the site. He stated
8 that they would present information as it becomes available from study.
9
10 Commissioner Stromgren asked if more detail on the building features is available. He noted
11 that the parkland would be extended and asked if there would be any consideration for a
12 connection to the Three Rivers Park. Mr. Shardlow explained that there would not be a
13 connection due to the residential areas. He further explained that they are considering access via
14 Silver Lake Road.
15
16 Commissioner Stromgren asked for further clarification of the water quality issue. Mr. Shardlow
17 explained that they are working with the Watershed and that they have a good understanding of
18 the standards and requirements. He stated that a fair amount of the site is not being treated at
19 this time noting that it would be part of the treatment process upon completion of the project. He
20 reviewed the treatment process with the Commission.
21
Commissioner Hanson asked for clarification of the City contribution and Associate contribution
9 for the overall project. Mr. Shardlow stated that he met with City Financial Consultants and
24 reviewed the negotiated agreement with the Commission. He explained that it would protect the
25 City and that it would be a `pay as you go' tax increment throughout the project. He further
26 explained that the City would not be issuing any bonds and that they are in the process of
27 seeking another livable community grant to assist with the park.
28
29 Commissioner Steeves asked for clarification of the phasing process of the project. Mr.
30 Shardlow explained that the properties located to the west have not been purchased yet. He
31 explained that Phase 1 would include all bank owned and City owned property along Stinson and
32 reviewed with the Commission. He stated that the City is not in a position to give final
33 development approval until the developer has control of the property.
34
35 Commissioner Hanson asked if Phase 1 would be mostly retail. Mr. Shardlow clarified that
36 Phase 1 would be a combination of retail and housing. He noted that the developer has entered
37 into a purchase agreement to purchase the Cub store and reviewed the agreement with the
38 Commission.
39
40 Ms. Hall clarified that they would be recommending approval of the final plan and plat for retail
41 only, not housing, at the September 16, 2003 public hearing. Mr. Shardlow confirmed.
42
43 Len Pratt, Developer, Pratt/Ordway, stated that the entire team is present and available for
questions. He stated that based on feedback from residents in the community, they are
considering retail, restaurants, walking areas, parking and a Central Park feature. He explained
46 that the first piece for consideration is the retail/office component and reviewed with the
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2003
• Page 6
1 Commission. He introduced his team to the Commission noting members from the Robert Muir
2 Company, Dominium, Inc, Hunt Associates, URS and KKE Architects.
3
4 Kathy Anderson, KKE, reviewed the parking issues, the importance of establishing a brand
5 identity that would draw attention to something new and upscale, the monument signs, the
6 walking areas and materials with the Commission. She explained that they would add diagonal
7 parking versus parallel parking, as it would allow more parking at the front of the stores. She
8 stated that because of the large variety of materials that would be used throughout the
9 development they would be working very closely with the housing development and retail to
10 determine how each would fit in with the overall design.
11
12 Miles Lindberg, URS, reviewed the regional mall model concepts with the Commission. He
13 explained that part of the reason the parking field is oriented to the east side of the building is
14 because it does generate traffic and reviewed with the Commission. He stated that they are
15 trying to balance the traffic that would have to use the major access point and organize the
16 access so that there are alternatives to get in and out without creating too many conflicts. He
17 reviewed the materials and landscaping with the Commission.
18
19 Mr. Pratt encouraged the Commission to consider the evolving walking areas. He stated that he
20 has been a national judge for Smart Growth and Urbanization Projects for the last three years
21 and that through his experience he has seen that shops within walking distance to residents has
40 become an important issue when deciding to move into an area.
24 Mr. Pratt noted the concern regarding the relocation of Tires Plus and explained that their effort
25 is to try to accommodate as many of the existing businesses as possible. He further explained
26 that there is not a location, in the proposal, for a car service type business and that Tires Plus
27 would be relocated. He clarified that the relocation is not within this project and reviewed with
28 the Commission.
29
30 Mr. Pratt suggested that the Commission consider a historic connection. He stated that Main
31 Street would be a unique village experience and reviewed with the Commission.
32
33 Chair Melsha stated that it would be helpful if they provided a sketch that shows a view of the
34 parking lot area that includes the landscaping. Ms. Anderson provided the Commission with an
35 overview of the parking area as it looks along Silver Lake Road.
36
37 Commissioner Hanson noted the importance of phasing and asked how much occupancy has to
38 be filled in the retail area before moving to the residential phase. Mr. Pratt clarified that this
39 project is not going to be phased. He explained the process to the Commission stating that they
40 have the financial strength to put it all up at the same time.
41
42 Gary Vogel, BKV Group, reviewed the site plan with the Commission. He introduced Mark
43 Morehouse and Karen Dombrowski, Dominion Acquisition to the Commission. He stated that
they would incorporate the landscaping and design into the housing area. He explained that the
0 proposal calls for 64 townhome units and that it is their hope to have side-by-side townhomes
46-- that would include four different styles and reviewed the proposed styles with the Commission.
47 He reviewed the access points and green areas on the site with the Commission. He
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2003
• Page 7
1 acknowledged Vice Chair Stille's concerns regarding the parking stating that 60% of the parking
2 would be underground and would also include above ground parking sprinkled throughout the
3 site. He stated that the apartment building would have 220 units and reviewed with
4 Commission. He reviewed the extension of the Central Park area, the clubhouse and north
5 elevation with the Commission. He referenced the materials stating that they would use similar
6 bricking and stucco materials as what would be on the retail buildings.
7
8 Mr. Pratt encouraged the Commission to visit various urban developments that Pratt-Ordway and
9 other developers on his team have been involved with in order to get an idea of how these units
10 mix together. He stated that they are very aware of the need for senior housing and reviewed
11 with the Commission.
12
13 Commissioner Hanson stated that affordable housing in the Village is a concern and asked what
14 is being done to address this concern at this site. Mr. Morehouse explained that they are working
15 with the Metropolitan Council in order to define the type of housing that would meet with the
16 Metropolitan Council guidelines. He stated that they would continue to work with all
17 organizations that have an interest.
18
19 Vice Chair Stille referenced the entrance on 39`h Avenue at the west side of the site noting that in
20 June, the site plan had a softer approach with respect to where an entrance monument would be
21 placed and asked for further clarification. Mr. Pratt reviewed the changes in the road stating that
they stressed in the design that this would be included in the next phase/approvals of the site
plan. He explained that part of the curve in the road that was removed, could reappear as they
24 get into the final design. Mr. Shardlow pointed out that Stinson Boulevard is a shared boulevard
25 with Columbia Heights. He stated that Columbia Heights is planning a redevelopment in that
26 area and that they are working with them to determine if the original plan would work moving
27 forward. He explained to the Commission that the plan would evolve and change throughout
28 this process.
29
30 Mr. Morehouse suggested that the Commission visit some of the sites they have developed and
31 referenced the New Brighton project. He stated that they are currently underway and that there
32 is a model open for tours. Mr. Pratt suggested visiting the Village of Blaine at the same time and
33 suggested sponsoring a tour for the Commission. Chair Melsha stated that the Commission
34 would discuss the possibility of a tour at a later time.
35
36 Mr. Shardlow reiterated that they are currently working with Columbia Heights and that this
37 could be an additional opportunity to service water that runs into Silver Lake and reviewed with
38 the Commission.
39
40 Commissioner Stromgren referenced earlier images of housing styles that drew more on the
41 character of St. Anthony Village, noting that the design process is all very preliminary, he stated
42 that it appears that they have strayed a bit from the original design. He clarified that he is not
43 seeing this as a big problem and expressed concerns that there could be a real disconnect with
the character of the surrounding community. Mr. Lindberg suggested that the Commission
provide them with an idea of what they would like to include with respect to elements of the
46 design.
47
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2003
• Page 8
1 Commissioner Stromgren suggested that Mr. Lindberg take a drive along the Parkway, 33`d,
2 Crestview and Silver Lane to get a feel for the design of the homes in the area. He stated that
3 there is a variety that includes the 1950-60's ramblers and starter mansions that include
4 considerable stone and brick. Mr. Lindberg agreed stating that by clarifying the specific
5 elements of each design they would like to incorporate would help them create the image they
6 are after.
7
8 Commissioner Hanson asked at what point in the project did they review and determine that
9 retail would work in this area. He noted that the initial proposal was only for housing. Mr. Pratt
10 explained that the acquisition of a mall, the restrictive cross easements, the cost of providing the
11 infrastructure, the storm ponding and relocation of people all had an impact on their decision to
12 incorporate discount and more retail into the plan. He reviewed the redevelopment process and
13 concepts of suburban areas with the Commission.
14
15 Vice Chair Stille referenced the name, Village of St. Anthony and expressed concerns that the
16 naming could cause confusion with respect to their location. He stated that he lives in St.
17 Anthony Village and when you just say St. Anthony it raises the question of location. He
18 referenced other locations that add to the confusion, the Village of St. Anthony, St. Anthony
19 Main, St. Anthony Park, St. Anthony Village and the proposed Village at St. Anthony. He stated
20 that this gives the impression of a `new' location. He stated that they have their own brand and
21 that is that they live in the Village and that being a resident, he is struggling with the concept.
IR He encouraged them to consider this issue as they move forward in the planning process. Mr.
Pratt stated that they have discussed the naming issue as a group noting that it is a subjective
24 issue, open for discussion. Chair Melsha stated that one of the local features of this area is the
25 lake and suggested that they take that into consideration as a possible connection when
26 considering the naming.
27
28 Mr. Pratt stated that they have been in ongoing negotiations with the owners of the Cub Foods
29 store noting that they recently completed the negotiations to purchase the store, in partnership
30 with the Robert Muir Company. He stated that in an effort to determine how they can be good
31 neighbors and meld it together so it works, Terry Kingston, Officer of SBT, LCC is present to
32 announce the agreement.
33
34 Terry Kingston, Officer of SBT, LLC, announced to the Commission that Cub Foods has agreed
35 to enter into a purchase agreement and advised the Commission that a resolution concerning this
36 is being reviewed by the City Attorney to be presented to City Council for approval at the
37 August 26, 2003 City Council meeting. He reviewed the agreement with the Commission.
38
39 Ms. Hall asked if the Commission was interested in scheduling a workshop to discuss the
40 planning issues prior to the public hearing. Mr. Shardlow stated that he is willing to do a
41 workshop between now and the public hearing to review any concerns. He stated that he could
42 put together a map of the developments for the Commission to review and tour.
43
Vice Chair Stille suggested providing the Commission with a list of the developments and
0 suggested that each could visit the developments as they have time versus a scheduled tour. Mr.
46 Pratt stated that if the Commission would let them know when they are coming they could have
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2003
• Page 9
1 a representative meet with them and provide a tour through the area. He suggested coordinating
2 the tour through Ms. Hall.
3
4 Chair Melsha suggested that if someone wants a more detailed tour to contact Ms. Hall to
5 coordinate a schedule. Ms. Hall asked if the Commission would like to schedule a workshop.
6 Chair Melsha stated that a workshop was not necessary due to Mr. Shardlow's presence at the
7 meeting.
8
9 Peter Beck, Apache Medical Building, expressed his support of the project noting that he has
10 been following the process closely. He expressed concerns regarding the potential impact the
11 project could have on the medical building. He stated that at one point in the planning process
12 they were a part of the project adding that they are no longer included in the project. He
13 explained that their major concern is the curving of the road as the plan shows that the easement
14 would be closed and asked for clarification. He stated that they plan now to do some work to
15 make the building a mixed use building. They plan to come forward with recommendations for
16 upgrading the medical building so that the building conforms and fits with the design of the area.
17 Mr. Pratt stated that access of the easement would be the same as what exists now.
18
19 Mr. Beck stated that he is very comfortable and pleased with the plan they reviewed this
20 evening. He asked if they could purchase or have access to the Design Framework Manual so
21 that as they move forward they can work with the designs and materials that would allow them
40 to be compatible.
24 9.2 Discuss Opinion Signs
25
26 Susan Hall stated that earlier this year the topic of opinion signs came up for discussion. She
27 referenced a letter from City Attorney Jerry Gilligan and provided a copy for the Commission to
28 review. She explained that City Attorney Gilligan reiterated that while the City can regulate
29 opinion signs by providing restrictions on the size, location, number of signs, the City cannot
30 totally prohibit opinion signs or regulate the message. She further explained that Mr. Gilligan
31 also stated that the City could possibly ban offensive content, such as profanity, from opinion
32 signs but that is as far as the City should go. She stated that any limitations beyond the items
33 outlined would be considered an infringement on freedom of speech rights. She stated that
34 Mr. Gilligan agreed that it would make sense to address the opinion sign issue and consider an
35 amendment to the City's sign ordinance, as opinion signs are not explicitly defined. She stated
36 that City Staff reviewed the New Brighton ordinance and found that they do not specifically
37 address opinion signs in residential areas. She explained that New Brighton staff said that it has
38 been City policy to treat opinion signs the same as election signs and reviewed with the
39 Commission. She mentioned that staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss
40 the appropriate zoning parameters for opinion signs and address the language in the sign
41 ordinance pertaining to political signs and touch base with City Council with a recommendation.
42
43 Chair Melsha noted that the City of New Brighton has a commercial and political sign definition
but nothing that addresses opinion signs. He suggested tweaking the definitions to include
0 opinion signs in St. Anthony's sign ordinance.
46
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2003
• Page 10
1 Vice Chair Stille wondered what the City could require in this area and noted that it references
2 the City's ability to monitor the aesthetics and ensure that it is pleasing, which includes signs
3 that are in disrepair.
4
5 Commissioner Stromgren noted that part of the problem could be enforcement issues. He
6 suggested re-writing the ordinance and reviewing the setbacks.
7
8 Ms. Hall stated that in terms of homemade signs, Mr. Gilligan did not feel comfortable that the
9 City could ban or restrict them.
10
11 Vice Chair Stille stated that Edina's code addresses indecent signs and reviewed the definitions
12 with the Commission.
13
14 Chair Melsha suggested a two or three person subcommittee to review and consider a
15 recommendation. Vice Chair Stille agreed to be on the subcommittee and suggested discussing
16 this further at a later time. Ms. Hall suggested meeting before or after a Planning Commission
17 meeting. Chair Melsha stated that he has a copy of the Richfield sign ordinance that is interesting
18 and they will be reviewing this. Chair Melsha asked for other volunteers. Having no one come
19 forward, Melsha said he and Stille could work on the opinion sign issue.
20
21 9.3 Discuss Restaurant Parking Requirements in the Commercial Zoning District.
0 Chair Melsha stated that at last month's Council meeting it was suggested that the Planning
24 Commission study the parking ordinance to determine if it is unnecessarily restrictive when
25 compared to other cities. He explained that the City Council would like the Planning
26 Commission to begin the process of amending the ordinance, if necessary, so the City can
27 determine the need for future parking variances. He asked Ms. Hall if she could, over the next
28 two months, gather data from neighboring cities and provide the Commission with a report on
29 how St. Anthony fits.
30
31 Chair Melsha suggested Richfield, St. Louis Park, Columbia Heights and New Brighton. Ms.
32 Hall stated that she has had discussions with the City Planner in New Brighton. She reviewed
33 his comments with the Commission and agreed that it would be interesting to poll various cities
34 to see how their Parking Ordinance is working for them. She stated that she would poll a
35 number of cities and report back to the Commission with results in the October/November
36 timeframe.
37
38 X. ANNOUNCEMENTS.
39
40 Chair Melsha thanked the members of the Commission and residents for their effort and patience
41 at the July Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the Commission did a good job adding
42 that the Council appreciated their efforts and input.
43
Commissioner Hoska thanked Chair Melsha for his work at July City Council meeting. He
stated that he did a good job on his presentation.
46
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
August 19, 2003
• Page 11
1 Ms. Hall stated that the Commission is invited to the Ground Breaking Ceremony for the new
2 Fire Department and Public Works facility. She stated that it is scheduled for September 9, 2003
3 at 5:00 p.m. at the Public Works Building and at 5:30 p.m. at the Fire Station site.
4
5 Ms. Hall reviewed the Northwest Quadrant/Apache Redevelopment Schedule with the
6 Commission.
7
8 Ms. Hall referenced the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) document and explained
9 that it was included as an informational document for their review and that it did not require any
10 action.
11
12 Ms. Hall stated that they would be reviewing a redevelopment plan attached to the Tax
13 Increment Financing(TIF)plan at the September meeting and suggested making notes for
14 comment and discussion regarding usage and compatibility with the City's Comprehensive Plan
15 and other guiding documents. She stressed their review was not for the financials, but the overall
16 plan.
17
18 XI. ADJOURNMENT.
19
20 Motion by Commissioner Hanson, seconded by Commissioner Hoska, to adjourn the meeting at
21 9:35 p.m.
40 Motion carried unanimously.
24
25
26 Respectfully submitted,
27
28
29 Bonnie Sullivan
30 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc.
31
0