CC MINUTES 04142026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 3 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 City Council Regular Meeting Minutes April 14, 2026 Page 3 Councilmember Jenson appreciated the graphic's clarity. Councilmember Doolan asked if houses were on a corner if they were adjacent to an alley, not just a street. City Planner Grittman stated that houses adjacent to alleys would be considered corner units, provided the alley intersected with a street. Councilmember Doolan had a question regarding Section F. She asked whether only the utility features and signage are grandfathered, or whether plantings would also be grandfathered. City Planner Grittman stated there is no immediate intention to remove planted objects within the triangle. Still, they would not necessarily be grandfathered in, as the City has permission to remove these objects if they become a public safety concern. Mayor Webster proposed that the Council move on to the next point, administrative penalties. Councilmember Elnagdy cited that in City Planner Grittman's memo, an appeals process is mentioned as a response option. The actual language stated that "a party can seek judicial review as provided in state law." She questioned why an internal appeal and review process was not chosen instead. City Planner Grittman informed the Council that the administrative penalty section is a City -based opportunity for someone who has committed a violation to make their case. The violator would appear before the City Examiner instead of the Council. This is the City -based method for appealing a violation. If the violator is not satisfied with the City -based appeal, they can appeal to the U.S. District Court. Councilmember Doolan stated there is concern to ensure everyone is treated fairly and equally throughout this process. She commented that Section 2C is a good start, noting that the City Clerk must establish a process for evaluating the City Examiner's competency. However, she questioned if there could be more criteria, such as the Hearing Examiner being an expert in a particular field. She stated that if citizens lack faith in processes, unclear selection criteria could damage trust. City Planner Grittman stated that it is envisioned that the Council will provide an approved list of potential City Examiners, and that it would be the Clerk's job to select an Examiner from the approved list to hold the first hearing. The appellant would have the opportunity to object, and upon an objection, the Clerk would choose a second Examiner from the list. The opportunity to object allows the appellant to have a say in who their judge is. Councilmember Doolan asked whether the suggested addition would be included in a previously presented flowchart that explains the appeals process more visually. City Planner Grittman stated that he believed this was the plan. City Planner Grittman explained that the mobile food unit regulations in St. Anthony were modified to protect the interests of an ice cream vendor. Exceptions to the regulations were created to exempt businesses like ice cream vendors and lunch trucks from current regulations. Otherwise, the language of this section restricts food trucks to event locations where they are serving the property owner or the event occurring, or to the on -site location of the brick -and - mortar restaurant from which the food truck operates.