HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 11171987 ` Meeting Sheet
101688
Folder -PC MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1987
Documerit:rPL MINUTESA1171987
J
C 2 rW OF S T . ANTHONY
P LAWN 2 NG COMM 2 S S 2 ON M 2 NUTE S
NOVEMBER 3- 7 , 1 9 8 7
1 The meeting was opened at 7 : 30 P.M. with the Pledge of Allegiance led
2 by Chair Franzese.
3 Present for roll call: Wingard, Franzese, Werenicz.
4 Absent: London, Hansen, Wagner, Madden.
5 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
6 LACK OF QUORUM PREVENTS OFFICIAL ACTION AND REQUIRES CONTINUANCE OF
7 HEARINGS
8 Mr. Childs reported learning that Commissioners Wagner and Hansen would
9 be out of town that evening; Commissioner London' s wife has pneumonia,
10 and Commissioner Madden would be unable to be present, too late to
11 cancel the meeting. He therefore recommended the Commissioners who
12 were present take testimony related to the two sign variance requests
13 for which hearings had been scheduled and advertised for that evening,
14 but defer action to a follow-up meeting where the required quorum of
15 Commissioners could be present to make an official recommendation to
16 the Council.
W7 Commissioners were instructed to assume the continuance would be held
18 at 7 : 30 P.M. , Monday, November 30th, unless otherwise notified.
19 Since no official business could be conducted that night, Mr. Childs
20 verified the designation of a Commission representative to the November
21 24th Council meeting would be unnecessary.
22 Wingard to Move From St. Anthony Before Continuance Date
23 The Commissioner indicated he had already sold his home on West Armour
24 Terrace and, depending on whether his loan goes through in time, said
25 he expected to move his family this weekend to their new home on Prior
26 Lake which would be closer to his work now that the firm he works for
27 had transferred him to Egan. Commissioner Wingard said he therefore
28 assumed he would be ineligible to participate in the November 30th
29 meeting.
30 Changes Suggested for September 15, 1987 Commission Minutes
31 The following were recommended for approval at the next Commission
32 meeting:
33 Page 7 , line 37: Substitute "was" for "wasn' t" at end of line.
34 Page 9, line 1: Delete entire first line as repetitious.
35 Page 10 , lines Rewrite to read: "for which the Manager per-
36 36 & 37 : ceived the concerns would probably be the
4137 same if the opposite were true. . . . "
38 Page 10, line 39: Delete "on" between "based" and "his concerns" .
39 Page 12 , line 21: Substitute "Hennepin County Sheriff ' s" for
40 "Minneapolis Police" .
1
' 1 Page 1 "told" "
g 2, line 26: Insert that between told and to alle-
2 viate" .
3 Page 14 , line 9: Delete "how he" after "Heilicher" .
4 Page 15, line 14: Substitute "that" for "and" at beginning of
5 line.
6 Page 15, line 34: Substitute "that" for "there" between
7 "licenses" and "were"
8 Page 16, line 16: Insert "that" between "perceived" and "to
9 locate" .
10 Page 17, line 5: Insert "of" between "control" and "the
11 arcades" .
12 Page 17, line 35: Substitute "they" for "said" before "would
13 close" .
14 Page 18, line 6: Insert "had" between "unfortunately" and
15 "been" .
16 No further changes were suggested for the minutes of the Commission' s
17 special meeting held November 4th, which had already been revised to
18 reflect changes recommended during the Council' s consideration,
19 November 10th.
20 PUBLIC HEARINGS
21 Commissioners Perceive Too Much Signage Requested for Mickey D' s
�2 Restaurant
23 Chair Franzese opened the hearing on the above at 7:45 P.M. , reiterat-
24 ing for the benefit of anyone who had come late that, although lack of
25 a quorum would prevent official action, testimony would be taken from
26 anyone who wanted to be heard that evening.
27 The notice of the hearing which the Chair read aloud, had been publis-
28 hed in the November 4th Bulletin and mailed to all property owners
29 of record within 250 feet of the subject property. No one present
30 reported failure to receive the notice or objected to its content
31 although a difference in interpretation of the petitioners ' application
32 evolved during the hearing.
33 Manager Points Out Discrepancies Between Notice and Materials Submitted
34 by the Applicant That Evening
35 Mr. Childs said he had not personally taken this application and had
36 based the wording of the notice on the drawings and the sign company's
37 October 30th letter attached to the application. After viewing the
38 drawing for an 8 foot X 8 foot "Mickey D' s" sign, Mr. Gow had
39 indicated would be replacing one side of copy on the existing "Mr.
40 Hobo" sign on the building, and hearing that the letters on the front
41 sign would only be 36 inches and 18 inches high, the Manager said he
42 had concluded the information in the notice might not have accurately
43 reflected the applicant' s intent.
04
5
2
' 1 Signage Still Too Excessive for City Sign Ordinance
2 Further discussions with Michael Farrell, the new owner of the res-
3 taurant, and Mr. Gow indicated they wanted to keep all three signs,
4 including the ,64 square foot roof sign and the 32 square foot reader
5 board on the east side of the building.
6 As he had stated in his November 13th memorandum to the Commissioners,
7 Mr. Childs reiterated that the sign ordinance only allowed one sign
8 per building with perhaps, a variance for a second sign for a corner
9 building, but the total sign surface area must not exceed what would
10 be allowed for one sign, which in this case would be two square feet of
11 signage per foot of frontage or approximately 100 square feet.
12 The Manager reported staff had received no calls either for or against
13 the proposal and would therefore recommend the restaurant be allowed to
14 have two signs with total sign surface to meet the sign ordinance
15 allowance or whatever the Commissioners decide on after hearing from
16 the applicants regarding the hardships, etc. which might be involved in
17 this particular request.
18 His recommendation prompted the following discussions:
19 Gow: defended the request for three signs, saying the restau-
20rant is located between two heavily travelled roadways
01 where identification from both sides is essential;
22 indicated it had been his understanding that the entrance
23 sign he had proposed had been approved for that area;
24 reported a single sided sign would be replacing the double
25 sided neon sign currently on top of the building;
26 when Commissioner Werenicz pointed out the discrepancy
27 between the drawings for a 64 square foot sign he had dis-
28 tributed that evening and his October 30th application
29 letter which called for 27 feet of sign surface on one
30 side of the renovated roof sign, responded by saying he
31 had "different documents to reference that evening" .
32 Childs: insisted he had never personally approved 200 square feet
33 of sign surface for the entrance side;
34 Franzese: asked Mr. Gow *why, if the previous restaurant had done so
35 poorly with the current large roof sign, he thought retain-
36 ing that sign was essential to the restaurant' s success.
37 Gow: said his analysis of past businesses in that location had
38 to some degree attributed their failure to succeed to the
39 lack of identification which Mr. Farrell was attempting to
�40 overcome with the proposed signage;
3
' 1 added that the signage was intended to let the community
2 know that the restaurant was under new ownership and manage-
3 ment and was being completely renovated.
4 Franzese: questioned whether the roof top sign, which she assumed was
5 directed towards Highway 88 traffic, was really needed if the
6 major intent is to let the community know the new restaurant
7 is to be family oriented.
8 Wingard: acknowledged the absence of signage on the north and west
9 sides where there are homes , but nevertheless, said he
10 wouldn' t want to "go overboard" on signage for a restaurant
11 located so close to a residential neighborhood.
12 Gow: indicated most of the signage was directed towards the high
13 traffic and not residential areas for that very reason.
14 Wingard: suggested the 64 square foot roof sign might fulfill that
15 purpose on the Highway 88 side, but there might not be a
16 need for 200 square feet of signage across the front of the
17 restaurant which is located on a 30 mile an hour street;
18 proposed that by reducing that sign size, the applicants
19 might be able to meet the ordinance restrictions.
60 Gow: persisted in his belief that the existing signage had not
1 provided adequate identification of the previous restaurant
22 with heavy traffic flowing from two different directions
23 which the new owner wanted to rectify with this proposal.
24 Werenicz : pointed out that the City might be willing to allow two
25 signs for a restaurant which fronts on two streets but
26 would have a hard time justifying a tripling of the total
27 sign surface allowed by the ordinance.
28 Gow: said he was glad the Commissioner recognized the need for
29 signs for two identification areas, but;
30 pointed out the difficulties the applicant was facing trying
31 to work with a sign which is tied into the building itself;
32
33 indicated he perceived, that to derive any benefit from the
34 existing sign it would be important to provide a sign like
35 the one he had provided to avoid creating an unattractive
36 appearance which would "stick out" if the sign were not tied
37 in with the rest of the building.
38 Mr. Farrell said he had been in the restaurant business for quite a few
39 years after retiring from the military, having worked at the Sheraton
40 Park Hotel in St. Louis Park as well as several other restaurants in
41 the vicinity. He pointed out that the previous restaurant had done
4
• 1 nothing for the past ten years; had been a shame for the community
2 because of various illegal dealings conducted there; and had "hurt
3 rather than benefitted the community" .
. The applicant said he
4 perceived the signage he was requesting would help remove the stigma
5 attached to that business. He indicated the signage he was proposing
6 would be tastefully done and would not "stick out" or be gaudy and had
7 been designed to consider the residential neighborhood adjacent to the
8 restaurant. Replacing the existing "ugly" sign on the roof with one
9 copy only on the side facing away from that neighborhood and planning
10 no signage on that side at all would achieve that purpose, Mr. Farrell
11 indicated.
12 The applicant said he considered signage one of the most important
13 parts of his business concluding that without signage the business
14 would continue to go down hill and would never change from what it had
15 been. He indicated he considered the signage would be a big factor in
16 letting the community know there is an entirely new operation going
17 into that location and that the interior is being completely renovated
18 for a family type restaurant.
19 In reference to the removal of the sign altogether, the restaurant
20 owner said he doubted that could be done without ruining the renova-
21 tions he had already made inside the building. Mr. Farrell
22 said he needed the exposure he would get from both the front and roof
23 sign being easily seen from the top of the St. Anthony Boulevard
24 bridge and Highway 88 and, although the reader board was intended to
65 benefit the business, the applicant said he also perceived it would let
6 the community know what was going on in his business.
27 The applicant concluded by indicating he considered his situation to be
28 "unique" in that his signage was intended to benefit rather than hurt
29 the community because it would be bringing the right kind of people
30 into the area rather than the type who had patronized the "Mr. Hobo"
31 restaurant.
32 When Mr. Farrell asked for Commission questions, Chair Franzese told
33 him she perceived a difference in values might be involved because she
34 found his objectives to have a nice, quiet, family type restaurant to
35 be in conflict with the amount of signage he was asking for the
36 business. the Chair said her own value judgement would be that a
37 "gaudy" roof sign wouldn' t fit in with or would do nothing to enhance
38 the renovation going on farther down on Kenzie Terrace where an attempt
39 is being made to upgrade the appearance of that whole area.
40 Mr. Farrell reiterated how important he perceived signage was and said
41 he would ask for more if he could afford to put up more because he did
42 not think the signage he was requesting would be out of proportion to
43 that utilized by other restaurants or diners he has seen.
44 However, he concluded that the drawing the Commissioners had been
45 provided made the front sign look a lot bigger than it actually would
•46 be with the letters the size he was proposing.
5
1 The other Commissioners had the following to say about the proposal:
2 Wingard: stated that it would be his recommendation to allow the
3 business to retain the pylon sign on the roof as proposed
4 with a 64 square foot copy and to design the front sign to
5 encompass only an area which would bring the signage to
6 into conformance with the total sign surface allowed by
7 the ordinance;
8 perceived, however, that the advertising on the side facing
9 Highway 88 would be better done by newspaper or some other
10 form of advertising.
11 Werenicz: concurred with Commissioner Wingard' s suggestion that the
12 reader board be eliminated altogether;
13 advised that he would never vote for that signage which he
14 personally considered to be "very tacky" and "of little
15 value" when it came to attracting business to any type of
16 establishment;
17 agreed that well placed newspaper ads would do more towards
18 informing the community that a well run, family oriented,
19 restaurant would be opening in that location than the
20 "tremendously large and gaudy" signs illustrated in the
1 drawings the sign company had provided the Commissioners
2 that evening;
23 noting the discrepancies between the drawings and the origi-
24 nal application letter, suggested the applicant and his sign
25 company should sit down with staff to ascertain just what
26 constitutes acceptable signage for St. Anthony, so the Com-
27 missioners would know what they are talking about at the next
28 meeting.
29 Welcome Extended to Restaurant Owner
30 Chair Franzese apologized for not extending a welcome to the community
31 to Mr. Farrell at the beginning of the hearing, telling him St. Anthony
32 does need a new family type restaurant and that she perceived his best
33 advertising would more likely come from word of mouth of his customers.
34 Hearing Tentatively Continued to November 30th
35 No residents were present to provide further input to the discussion
36 and at 8 : 10 P.M. the Chair announced the continuance of the hearing
37 November 30th based on a quorum of Commissioners being able to attend
38 that evening. The applicant was assured that he would be notified if
39 there was any change in the meeting date.
is 6
1 At 8 :.12 P.M. , the Chair opened the public hearing on the request from
2 Rapid Oil Change, 3701 Silver Lake Road,. for a variance to the City
• 3 Sign Ordinance to allow the business to retain the pylon sign permitted
4 only to gas stations now that all gas pumps have been removed from the
5 property. No one present reported failure to receive or objected to
6 the content of the notice of the hearing which had been published in
7 the November 4th Bulletin or mailed to all property owners of record
8 within 250 feet of the subject property.
9 Proponents Argue Condemnation Led to Loss of Gas Business
10 Mark Gilbertson and Steve Moldenhauer, Project and Regional Managers
11 for Rapid Oil Change argued that:
12 *the reason Rapid Oil had gone out of the gas business had basi-
13 cally been because the condemnation and widening of 37th Avenue
14 had physically removed one pump island and created so much con-
15 gestion around the remaining island it became unusable for them
16 for a long period of time;
17 *although the gas business admittedly was a second business for
18 Rapid Oil, it had been a profitable one which was lost to them
19 when the company decided not to pay for replacing the deteriorat-
20 ing tanks, which might have been done, if four pumps had remained
21 on the property;
22 *the City by its own action in 1984 had "grandfathered in" the
03 the pylon sign when it granted the variances for the existing
4 square footage on that building;
25 *the City' s sign ordinance allowing only gas stations to have
26 pylon signs might be out-of-date today when most gas stations
27 have dropped auto repair services substituting the sale of food
28 and other merchandise to make a profit;
29 *because the loss of land along 37th Avenue caused a stacking
30 problem in front of the building, Rapid Oil was now .forced to
31 change the access to the rear which necessitated a remodeling of
32 the building.
33 Mr. Gilbertson reported they already had a building permit for the
34 installation of double doors in the rear as well as for fixing up the
35 exterior, doing some painting, and updating the existing signage to the
36 company' s new image. He anticipated having to shut the business down
37 completely for three weeks in February during which time, Mr. Gil-
38 bertson said, without signage the public might get the idea Rapid Oil
39 had gone out of business and customers might be lost.
40 The Project Manager assured Commissioner Werenicz there were no plans
41 to level the structure or to exceed the 128 square feet of signage the
42 City had allowed them in 1984. Mr. Gilbertson added that studies
0 7
1 have shown that most businesses operate at only 80% capacity for a
' 2 year after being shut down for remodeling.
3 In response to questions about whether the variance met the conditions
4 established in the petition, Mr. Gilbertson indicated he couldn' t see
5 how a sign which had been in that location for so long could now be
6 considered to be a detriment to the community.
7 The Rapid Oil spokesman then repeated the suggestion he had previously
8 made to staff, that a ten gallon container of gas might be kept in the
9 back room for sale to customers to meet the gas station criteria.
10 Childs Reiterates Staff Recommendation for Denial
11 In his November 13th memorandum to the Commissioners, the City Manager
12 had indicated he perceived Rapid Oil should be required to remove the
13 pylon sign because:
14 *they no longer had gas pumps;
15 *a second sign had been allowed by variance because this was
16 a corner business and that had caused the business to exceed by
17 24 square feet what the ordinance would normally permit;
18 *next door businesses, Auto Traac and Paul Revere, have much less
19 signage.
&0 In response to the proponents ' arguments for retention of the pylon
21 sign, Mr. Childs added that:
22 *he couldn' t see where having to remove leaky gas pumps could be
23 considered to be a viable hardship on which another variance
24 could be based;
25 *this business already had more visibility than its two neighbors
26 to the west;
27 *the current sign ordinance had only been in existence since 1982
28 at which time a distinction had been made between gas dispensing
29 and auto service operations.
30 Childs Suggests Rapid Oil Retain Sign Until After Remodeling Is
31 Completed
32 The Manager indicated he thought the Council might accept this
33 compromise with a May 1st deadline, the Manager indicated.
34 The Commission response to his recommendations and to the proponents '
35 statements were as follows:
36 Werenicz: indicated he sympathized with the problems posed by condemna-
37 tion but expected all the businesses along 37th Avenue to
• 8
1 prosper in the long run because of improvements in that road-
' 2 way,
3 suggested resiting the signage on the building closer to the
4 corner of the building to provide better visibility, which to
5 his way of thinking, "was already quite good on that corner" ;
6 indicated he would go along with the delay in sign removal;
7 suggested the establishment ' s managers might want to seek
8 permission from the City to utilize window ads which would
9 let the public know the business was only temporarily closed
10 for remodeling;
11 advised proponents that he knew of several cases where
12 several businesses in the same area with less visibility than
13 this store, had been denied pylon signs because the City
14 code says that type of signage is allowed only for businesses
15 which sell gas;
16 in response to Mr. Gilbertson' s claim that Rapid Oil had
17 always continued to provide full automobile services, indi-
18 . cated he perceived the services they offered to be only one
19 segment of the auto repair industry.
20 Franzese: said establishing a precedent like this one might thwart the
21 purpose of the sign ordinance to keep St. Anthony signage
W2 low key;
23 disputed the claim that the condemnation had made this situ-
24 ation unique pointing out all the other businesses, with
25 perhaps the exception of the gas station across the street,
26 who had much less signage than Rapid Oil;
27 told Mr. Gilbertson she thought he would have to admit his
28 business enjoyed a lot of exposure on that corner even with-
29 out the pylon sign;
30 also indicated she perceived gas stations to be more "spur
31 of the moment" type of businesses, concluding from her own
32 experience as a regular customer, that most visits were
33 planned well in advance.
34 Wingard: disagreed with the conclusions the other two Commissioners
35 had come to, saying that in spite of the City regulations
36 against Rapid Oil retaining the sign, he would hate to see
37 the company have to spend $500 to tear down a sign he per-
38 sonally thought was fairly attractive and "not a nuisance
39 at all. "
40 Hearing Tentatively Continued to November 30th
• 9
1 Chair Franzese apologized again for the Commission' s inability to take
' 2 official action on the two requests because of a lack of a quorum of
3 members present. She said this was a very unusual occurrence, but one
4 that couldn' t be helped. The applicants were again advised to assume
5 their request would be considered again November 30th unless the City
6 Manager notified them to the contrary.
7 NEW BUSINESS
8 Mr. Childs reported he had gotten in touch with the American Monarch
9 Manager -in time to delay his appearance, which was not essential
10 because only a request for concept review and not a public hearing was
11 involved.
12 Commissioners Alerted to Water Contamination Meeting November 18th
13 The Chair reported the notice she had gotten that the Army would be
14 sponsoring the meeting to be held in the New Brighton City the follow-
15 ing evening. Mr. Childs said he wasn' t sure whether he would be able
16 to go and asked Chair Franzese to call him before he left for Washing-
17 ton D.C. Thursday morning, where he would be meeting with Army
18 representatives on the same issue.
19 ADJOURNMENT
20 Before the meeting was closed at 8 : 30 P.M. for continuance November
S21 30th, Mr. Childs indicated just what he was looking for when he had
22 provided them with copies of sample questions which might be included
23 in the upcoming community survey. He indicated he was looking for
24 suggestions related to ' issues which had not been covered in those
25 questions which the Commissioners thought should be added to the final
26 survey.
27 Respectfully submitted,
28 Helen Crowe, Secretary
29 :cjk
10