HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 08201985 Meeting Sheet
'F
i
i It
101848
r
Box: 21
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1985
Document: PL MINUTES 08201985 {
f
'1
�1
' J
1
• 7
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• August 20, 1985
1 The meeting was called to order at 7-:33 P.M. by Chair Pro Tem Hansen.
2
3 Present for roll call : Hansen, Bjorklund, Madden, and Wagner.
4
5 Absent: Franzese Carrived at 7:35 P.M. Q., Bowerman, Jones.
6
7 Also present: City Manager; David Childs.
8
9 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to approve
10 as submitted the minutes of the Planning Commission-meeting held July 16, 1985.
11
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13
14 Chair Franzese arrived at 7 :35 P.M. and reported that Commissioner Bowerman had
15 called her to let her know he would .be unable to attend either the August or .
16 September Commission meetings. Before the vote on the minutes was taken there
17 was a brief discussion related- to the format used to amend motions in the minutes.
18 No firm decision was made related to a change, but it was generally agreed the
19 motions always appeared in whole form when the Council approved them.
• 20
- 21 Commissioner Madden said he wasn't certain from the report in the minutes just
22 how his comments to the Chair, when he informed her he would not be present at
23 the July meeti-ng,.. had been conveyed to the other Commissioners but he wanted to
24 reiterate that- hi;s...own concern °that the conditions limiting the hours of operation
25 which had been. pr.oposed for.-the Blanske-variance during the Commission's June 18th
26 meeting "had been way out in left field" had__been. supported° by both the City
27 Attorney and the' Council when the-final motion of approval was made by the
28 Council , June-23rd. The Commissioner also said .he had perceived that during the
29 long, involved dissertation on how long the mini-warehouses should be open,` hlis
30 own concerns about the identification- of the warehouse facility on the side of a
.31 truck/trailer parked across Foss Road near, his. home had been somehow lost and that
32 signage which he perceives is clearly in non-conformance with the City Sign
33 Ordinance, i-s still in place where -it can eas-ily be seen from the Commissioner 's
34 home, Mr. Childs said- he,would :contact -Mr. Blanske, who, he was certain, would
35 be willing-to remove the sign since he had said as much during the hearing .
36
. 37 Commissioner Madden indicated .he believed in the future the Commission should stick
38. to matters. which are directly applicable to the variance request and conceded that
39 his own comments about the sign might not have been valid in that regard either.
40
41 At 7:40 P.M. the Chair opened the hearing to consider a petition .from P.E.J. , Inc. ,
42 10-4 Metro Square Building, St. Paul , for a conditional use permit which would
43 allow the operation of a tanning studio in the Northgate Office Park Condominiums
44 being constructed at 2526 .Minnesota Highway 88.
• 45
46 The notice of the hearing had been published in the .'August 6th Bulletin and mailed
4-7 to all property owners of record within 200' feet of the subject property. No one
48 present indicated failure to receive the notice or objected-to its content.
-2-
1 In his memorandum to the Commission members, Mr. Chi.lds had indicated the request
• 2 was similar to that approved by both the Commission and Council the previous
3 month and had listed the conditions and findings which he perceived would• be
4 applicable to this permit approval . -The Manager- i°ndicated staff had. received no
5 comments either for or against the. request from any of the neighbors.
6
7 Commissioner Bjorklund asked whether the Minneapolis residents living adjacent to
8 this project had been notified of the hearing and the Manager told him the City
9 policy had always been not to go beyond the City boundaries. .He said he perceives
10 that is also the policy followed by most of the adjoining municipalities, probably
11 because getting property owners ' •names and addresses in other cities in quite a
12 task. However, Mr. Childs . said he felt this could be done as a courtesy in the
13 future, if that is what the Commission desires. The question was raised whether
14 any of the homes adjacent to the Northgate would be within the 200:foot`'notification
15 range. The Commissioner said he had only mentioned it because he thought it mi-ght
16 have been done as a courtesy since so many of the Minneapolis residents had
17 shown such an interest in various developments in the St. Anthony Shopping Center.
18 The Manager said he would inquire at the next Manager's meeting what other
19 communities ' policies are. The Chair indicated she perceived it might be very
20 difficult to notify adjoining residents from other municipalities about every
-21 new project. in the St. Anthony or Apache Plaza- shopping centers.
22
23 Present for the discussion of the permit application were Jerry Isaacs, the
24 office park developer, Craig Mathiev, and Jeff Roberts of P.E.J. , Inc. The latter
25 indicated he • perceived the Commission had been very astute to give careful
26 scrutiny to the type of business he runs because without planning board's
• 27 vigilance,- the tanning business might not have evolved to the accepted enterprise
28 it had, because it—had been hard at first for these studios to gain credibility
29 because of people's fears of undesirable activities which might or might not have
- 30 been present. in .some of the earliest operations. The petitioner mentioned his
31 other studios in the 'Har.-Mar and 'Signal Hills shopping centers and told the
32 Commi.ssioners that if his business fails in St. Anthony it would be because of
33 consumer rejection," not lack of- professionalism or integrity of the operation.
34
35 When Commissioner Hansen. asked Mr. Roberts whether he was familiar with the
36 restrictions the City placed on its signage, the tanni-ng' studio operation said he
37 was not, but any -sign he would be erecting, would -conform to the City's ordinances.
38 He _said whatever signage he proposed would be tastefully done, electrically lit,
39 and attached--to-the buildi.ng. • Commissioner Hansen urged him to become familiar
40 with the City's sign, ordinance when A t comes to the amount of square footage
41 permitted, etc. , and past experience has been that some merchants have made
42 arrangements to hang signs on their stores which they find after-the-fact-.are not
43 in conformance with the City's regulations. Mr. Roberts responded by saying it
44 was his intention to find out about the City ordinances as soon as he got approval
45 for his studio and whatever he is allowed •to -do legally, and within the City
46 sanctions signwise, he would do and- it would be his job to make up with other
47 forms of advertisi-ng what he coul.dn't do with signage.
48
49 Chair Franzese asked Mr. Isaacs whether he had considered any uniform signage for
50 the project', telling him the City had been trying to motivate uniform signage for
51 the adjoining shopping center.
52
• 53 Mr. Isaacs told the Commissioners he had.consulted three different sign companies
54 • regarding possi.b.le signage for the project. He said the existing billboard would
55 be used temporarily for rental • purposes and, then would be taken down. All of the
-3-
1 signage for the building .would be uniform with a letter sign identifying the
• 2 building as the Northgate Office Park to be constructed across the front and each
3 unit owner, with the exception of the tanning facility, to be identified on each
4 pillar with a smoked glass identifier_ . That sign would be the only one which
5 would be different since it would be p laced on the east side of the building
6 facing Highway 88 at the entrance to the park. 'Mr. Isaacs said he had stuck
7 to the uniform signage policy in spite of pressure from prospective buyers like
8 beauty shop owners who wanted ,to put bigsigns up on the front of their units
9 and the developer told the Commissioners 'he was certain the City would be very
10 pleased with the end product once it is completed.
11
12 There was no one present who indicated opposition -to the permit and the hearing
13 was closed at 7:50 P.M.
14
15 Commissioner Madden started to make .a recommendation -of approval for the request,
16 but when Commissi-oner 'Bjorklund suggested several changes, the Commissioner with-
17 drew his motion in favor of the other Commissioners ' .
18
19 Motion by Commissioner Bjor klund and seconded by Commissioner Hansen to recommend
20 the Council grant a conditional- use.permit to ,P.E.J. ,Inc. ,. 104 Metro Square
21 Building, St. Paul , under the City ordinance amendment which would allow the
22 operation of -a body sun tanning f acil'ity in .unit #19, Condominium #535 in the
23 Northgate Office Park at 2526 Highway 88, subject to annual review of the permit
24 and to the facility meeting all applicable City, State, and Federal Codes.
25
26 In recommending approval , the Planning Commission finds that:
• 27
28 1 . No one appeared- at the Commission hear:ing .or contacted staff prior to the
29 hearing to object to the permit;
30
31 2. The proposed service seems to. fit in with other types of service in that
32 commercial district; and
33
34 3. No problems or complaints about similar operations in St. Anthony have been
35 reported.
36
37 Motion carried unanimously.
38
39 The Commission next considered -the final platting for the Hertog Floral Addition.
40
41 Mr. Childs said he believed all the Commissionconcerns regarding the utility and
42 drainage easements had been..addressed in the plat included in their agenda packet.
4 3 He also said NSP had been ;able to put all electrical lines underground unlike
44 the Johnson project north of this one which had the existing feeder lines which
45 would not be feasible to replace.
46
47 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Wagner to recommend
48 Council approval of the finalplatting for the Hertog Floral Addition,-,-a seven .
49 lot subdivision between 33rd and 32nd Avenues N.,E. , east of Edward Street, as
50 presented in the final plat for the project.
51
52 In recommending approval of the final platting, the Commission finds that:
i 53
54 1 . Both the Commission and Council had held public hearings on the preliminary
55 platting;
r _ >
-4-
• 1 2. No one appeared at either hearing .to object to the planning.
2
3 3. The subject plat generally conforms to municipal standards and where lots are
4 smaller than required, many. simil.ar lots.with small frontages, depths, and
5 land area, have been platted and developed in the adjacent locality;
6
7 4. The final platting speci.fically' identifies the utility and drainage easements
8 to which the City would. have access, which. .had been. a concern of the Planning
9 Commission; and
10
11 5. The platting requires placement of. al-1 utilities underground as recommended by
12 the City's Comprehensive Plan,
13
14 Motion carried unanimously.
15
16 Copies of the Proposed Assessment Policy for the City had- been provided each
17 Commissioner at the request of. .the Council , Mr. Childs said, and he told them any
18 suggestions they might have related to. the policy should be submitted in written
19 form to him in time for the Council to take into consideration before they approve
20 the final document probably late i'n September. SeveraY preliminary comments and
21 suggestions for-changes in wording were made that evening, which the Commissioners
22 were requested to put in writing., for presentation to the Council .
23
24 Commissioner Hansen indicated h`is- concern with how two different Commission matters
25 had been- handled in -the past two' or three,.months . He said it had been three
26 months since. the Curtis Mathes signage had been .appr.oved, by the Council (even
•
27 though. there had, been 'an even split of.the Commissionvote on the recommendations
28 to the: Council because of reservations some Commissioners had about the
29- proposall and since that time, not only had the non-conforming 990 Video sign
30 which :the- store owners had -promised both the Commission and Council would be
3L taken down; remained on the .front of the store, but -a Targe promotional banner
32 had- been --hung there as well., The Commissionerindicated he had talked to Mr.
33 Childs about these violations of -the -Sign Ordinance and had been told the owners
34 would be cited immediately, which .he surmised had evidently not happened.
35
36 Commissioner -Hansen drew. a parallel: with this problem and what he perceived had
37 happened in, relation to the Karate studio, saying he was basing his conclusions
38 on what he had read in the Commission and Council minutes for June and July,
39 because he had missed both months ' Commission meetings.
40
-41 From those minutes,. the Commissi_oner. sa:id, his understanding- had been that the
42 'Council had granted .a conditional-..use permit for the studio in .spite of the non-
43 approval of the Commission, which.- he noted, -had even caused Councilmember Ranallo
44 to question "Why do we even have a .P-lanning Commission? Because of his per-
45 ception of what. had happened in both-these cases, Commissioner Hansen said he had
46 questioned whether "the real feelings of'. the Commission were being accurately
- 4 7 conveyed to the Council " because the impression he had gotten had. been that both
. 48 issues- had .'just sort of.. slid through' the Council '!.
49
50 The Commissioner then reminded the .other. Commissioners of hiw own "bad feelings"
51 about the sign request because he had percei-ved there was "someth.ing fishy about
- 52 : the whole request from the start, when the- applicant -had lied about several
53 matters, .including- his conversation with the City Manager", and he added, "in light
54 of what's happening now, I wasn 't so far off".
55
� f ,
=5-'
1 Commissioner -Madden said he had. certainly- tried to .accurately'convey the Com-
• 2 mission's concerns about the sign request when- he reported those minutes to the
3 Council and he reminded the Commission members that it had been his own suggestion
4 that the Karate studio request- be laid over for. 30 days because the applicant
5 had failed to appearat the hearing in spite of the letter from the Manager
6 notifying him that his presence would be required at the Commission hearing on
7 his request. However, Commissioner Madden. said, the other Commission members had
8 prevailed because, he said, they had,been 'told the applicant had a lease and they
9 believed they shouldn't hold him .up from opening on -the lease date., so the decision
10 was made that the matter should -be sent, instead, to the Council , with a recom-
11 mendation for denial so the Council could decide .whether the applicant had a
12 valid reason for not showing up at the Commission hearing.
13
14 Commissioner Madden said when the. applicant appeared before the Council the next
15 week, he told them he had gotten the date wrong and was in the midst of a divorce,
16 which the Commissioner said, the -Council accepted as an excuse for his absence.
17 The Commissioner added that the- sense of the direction -he had gotten from the four
18 other Commissioners had been to "give the guy a chance to get his application
19 approved the next week".
20
21 Commissioner Hansen said 'he wasn'tquestioning how the minutes were reported,
22 but "the bottom line is that I talked to Dave Childs three weeks ago and he said
23 the Curtis Mathes owners were going to be' cited right away". Since this had not
24 happened, Commissioner Hansen asked the Manager just what the status of the case
25 was, but before Mr. Childs could given an answer, the Commissioner stated that
26 "regardless what that reply might be, I believe this is just another example
•
27 where at least half of the Commission foresaw there might be problems with this
28 request and, the Council , whether in good faith or not, had been too accommodating
29 to a business which they believed would be great for the shopping center and which
30 they didn't want to lose".
31
32 Mr. Childs' response was that he had, over the last 15 years, worked for five
33 different city councils and planning boards and had concluded that "this Council
34 listens to this Planning Commission more than any other I 've ever worked with".
35 He said "the number oftimes the Council has overturned what the Commission had
36 recommended, or ignored that-'recommendation, -had been minimal as compared to
37 what had happened. in other communities". The Manager said further that St.
38 Anthony is the only City he knows of where the "Council actually receives the
39 Commission recommendation directly from. a Commission representative", and he con-
40 cluded by saying, he believes in most cases, the Council listens to the Commission
41 and agrees with their recommendations a lot more times than he had ever observed
42 another Council doing.
43
44 Commissioner Hansen said he wasn '=t saying the Council didn't listen, he was just
45 questioning whether the Commission's feelings about issues had been accurately
46 reported to them. The Manager told him he was certain that in both these cases,
47 the Commissioners" concerns had been gotten across- accurately, but it had been
48 his observation that understandings of various issues could change from week to
49 week--often depending on whether or' not the applicants were able to give the -Council
50 a better understanding of the issues involved -than they had given the Commissioners
51 the previous week.
• 52
53 In regard to the sign problem, the- Manager told Commissioner Hansen that, after
54 he had talked to' the Commissioner, the Police had, been sent to the store to
55 inform the owners that if they didn't take the signs down, they would be cited
j =6- .
• 1 for violating the Sign Ordinance. The next day, . the store owners attorney had
2 called him for further information regarding the variance because "his clients
3 had told him they had never been told to take the sign down". Mr. Childs said
4 he sent the necessary documentation to. the attorney who called him back last
5 Friday to say "it's -obvious, I have-to get back to my client because this docu-
6 mentation is fairly clear and we' ll have the sign down".
7
8 Right after that, the Manager said, .the banner came down and he decided to give
9 the attorney a few more days in which to get the 990 Video sign removed as well .
10 When Commi:ssitoner Hansen asked. Mr. Childs why he had waited any longer, the Manager
11 told him he had perceived the attorney had "acted in good faith and ought to be
12 given at least a week to get back to his clients to get the other sign removed".
13 Commissioner Hansen 's response to this was to state that he perceived the Manager
14 might have been "a little too soft on the owners" .
15
16 Chair Franzese read that portion of the letter to .-the tanning studio applicants
17 which was identicial to that sent to the Karate studio- owner which stated that
18 the Commission policy would automatically be to recommend Council denial of their
19 request if the applicant failed to appear for the Commission hearing on his
20 request. Commissioner Madden reiterated the position he had taken regarding that
21 policy when the Karate request had been considered, that it was his belief "that
22 any Commission policy quoted should .be policy which had been passed by the current
23 Commissioners. Mr. Childs suggested that should be a point to be considered by
24 the Commissioner's that evening, but-, because, as he had informed the Commissioner's
25 at the start of the meeting, it was necessary ,th,r t he leave the meeting at 8:30 P.M. ,
26 and was already 15 minutes late, he would be unable to participate in that dis-
• 27 cussion. Before leaving at 8:45 P.M. , the Manager assured Commissioner Hansen
28 that it was his intention to cite- the Curtis Mathes store owners August 22nd,
29 if the non-conforming sign was still up on that date.
30
31 After Mr. Childs had left, Commissioner Bjorklund said he perceived the sign problem
32 was just another case of "lax enforcement" rather than -the Council ignoring the
33 Commission concerns about the sign request. The Commissioner said he just wanted
34 to "reinforce what Dave had said, that we are "the most listened to Planning Com-
35 mission there is". He also said he perceives the Council also has their problems
36 w-ith "this community having a very conservative spending policy". The Commissioner
37 told -Commissioner Hansen-this case was nothing compared to the year and a half
38 it took to get the Craig & Company signage removed from their shop across from
39 Apache. Commissioner Hansen said he •perceived the Curtis Mathes owners were "mak-
40 ing-anmockery�-of- they-.City-'s�/Sign ,Ordi.nance`•-e, because he had been told they had
41 been warned three times, once with a letter from the Public Works Director which
42 was hand delivered, that they were going to be fined, to no avail , even though
43 there had been no . question that the sign in question was in non-conformance to
44 the City ordinance requirements, and--the Council had told them three months ago
45 they had to take down the second' sign as a condition for putting up the Curtis
46 Mathes logo. It was the Commissioner's own opinion that "the City was wasting
47 more money coddling the store owners than would have been incurred by taking legal
48 action immediately". He reiterated that ,the store owners had both stood up at
49 the meetings and said the sign would be taken down.
50
51 Commissioner Bjorklund said he perceived there was a necessity for the Commission
52 to continue to be very diligent in these matters.
• 53
54 Chair Franzese then asked whether there would be an ,interest in restating the
55 policy which was quoted to al-1 applicants when they were informed. about the hearing
1 on their requests. and whether the same policy should apply to both variance and
• 2 conditional use permit applications. She said she personally agreed with the
3 policy as stated, but also concurred that current Commission members should have
4 an opportunity to provide input towards any policy. which had been stated to be
5 coming from the Planning Commission.
6
7 Commissioner Madden restated his .posit.i=on that he, as a current Planning Commission
8 member, should not have to accept a policy .he had'.not participated in making, but
g indicated he was not suggesting the policy itself: shoul.d. be changed.
10
11 Commissioner Wagner said he also had 'never participated in the formation of the
12 policy, but he certainly concurred with it.
13
14 Commissioner Hansen.wondered if the word "automatically" should be deleted from
15 the letter and the letter instead indicate that denial could -be an option which
16 could be pursued if the applicant failed to make an-appearance.
17
18 The Chair said she could just hear' Commissioner Bowerman saying he perceived the
19 Commission members were'a voluntary body who were giving. of their time and that
20 anyone who wanted a variance or a conditional use permit granted should at least
21 be willing to attend the hearing on his request so the Planning Commission wouldn 't
22 have to second guess the applicant' s intentions.
23
24 A straw vote was taken of the Commission members of. whether the same letter as
25 appeared in the Commission' s August 20th agenda packet should be sent to each
26 applicant for either 'a variance or conditional use permit and passed unanimously
•
27 in favor, of retaining the same wordage in, all future letters.
28
29 Commissioner Bjorklund said- he was disappointed the Manager had to leave before
30 giving him the information he had requested regarding the tenure of each Com-
31 mission appointment. He said he was certain. that his own term was up this year
32 and indicated he would not be serving another term.
33
34 An informal discussion ensued regarding the- type-of signage which might be pro-
5 posed for the tanning facility., which had been acted .upon earlier that evening.
3
35 Although the discussion itself was deemed ."off the cuff", the Chair requested the
3 7 secretary to record in .the minutes that the Commission perception had been that
38 "it would not be automatic that signage would be allowed this business on the
39` Highway '88 side of the office condo building".
41 Commissioner Bjorklund will report the minutes of the meeting to the Council at
42 their August 27th meeting.
43
44 Motion by Commissioner Bjorklund and seconded by Commissioner Madden to adjourn
45 the meeting at 9:10 P.M.
46
47 Motion carried unanimously:
48
49 Respectfully submitted,
50
51 Helen Crowe, Secretary
• 52
53
54
55