HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 11301987 meeting' Sheet
k s 101686``
Boit: 21 =
Folder: ;PL MINUTES.ANDAGENDAS 1987.
D`ocum'ent:`PL-yMINUTES 11391987 . _
A.
• C 2 TY OF S T ANTHONY
P LANN=NG COMM= S S=ON M 2 NUTE S
NOVEMBER 3 O 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: London, Hansen, Wagner, Franzese, Werenicz,
4 Madden.
5 Also present: David Childs, City Manager.
6 MINUTES
7 September 15, 1987 Planning Commission Minutes
8 Motion by Wagner, seconded by Hansen to approve as presented.
9 Motion carried unanimously.
10 November 4 , 1987 Special Planning Commission Minutes
�11 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Wagner to approve as presented.
12 Motion carried unanimously.
13 November 17 , 1987 Planning Commission- Minutes
14 Motion by' Werenicz, seconded by Wagner to approve with the following
15 changes:
16 . . Page 8 , line.. 6: Strike "to be" after "considered" .
17 Page 8, line 26: Substitute "east" for "west" at end of line.
18 Motion carried unanimously.
19 MADDEN TO REPRESENT COMMISSION AT DECEMBER 8TH COUNCIL MEETING
20 PUBLIC HEARINGS
21 Confusion Over Staff Direction Prompts Commissioners to Recommend Only
22 One Sign Variance for Mickey D' s. Restaurant
23 Testimony had been taken during the public hearing on the request from
24 Michael Farrell for the necessary variances to the City Sign Ordinance
25 to allow three signs on the remodeled Mickey D' s Restaurant at 2905
26 Kenzie Terrace. However, because there was a lack of quorum of.
27 Commissioners to make a decision, the hearing was continued to the
*8 November- 30th Commission meeting.
i
1 Manager Indicates Sign Erected on Front of Restaurant Since Hearing Is
2 41 Square Feet Larger Than City Ordinance Allows
3 The Chair continued the November 17th hearing at 7: 42 P.M. by
4 requesting a staff report on the issues which were involved.
5 Mr. Childs said he understood the sign company had come to see Mr.
6 Hamer the day following the hearing when the Manager was not in his
7 office and the Building Inspector had issued a permit for an 82 square
8 foot sign based on calculations the sign company had made that they
9 needed 42 square feet for "Mickey" ; 6 square feet for "D" ; 4 square
10 feet for " 'S" ; 10-1/2 square feet for "Family" and 19 square feet for
11 "Restaurant" .
12 The Manager then read that portion of St. Anthony' s Sign Ordinance
13 which states that signage should be calculated on the square footage
14 of the rectangle enclosing all the sign lettering, which in this case,
15 he said would bring the sign surface up to 141 square feet, 41 square
16 feet more than the Ordinance would allow for this building with
17 approximately 50 feet of frontage and calling for a variance of that
18 much for the sign.
19 As he had stated at the hearing, the Building Inspector had consulted
20 him about the signage early in October when the applicant were in Mr.
�1 Hamer' s office. Without knowing the front dimensions, Mr. Childs said
22 he had advised Mr. Hamer the building would be allowed 2 square feet
23 for every front foot. If the applicant wanted to keep the roof sign or
24 put additional signage on the side of the building in addition to the
25 front sign, he would have to apply for variances for that additional
26 signage because the City Ordinance only allows one sign per business
27 with sometimes a variance for a second sign granted for a corner
28 business.
29 The November 17th minutes indicated that Tim Gow, the sign represen-
30 tative that evening, had given the Commissioners a drawing of an 8 X 8
31 foot sign reading "Mickey D' s" which the applicant wanted to put up
32 over one side of the "Mr. Hobo" roof sign and had been specifically
33 informed that sign surface should actually be 64 square feet, accord-
34 ing to the ordinance calculations and not 27 square feet as indicated
35 in the October 30th letter from his company.
36 The minutes had also indicated that Commissioner Werenicz, noting the
37 discrepancies between what appeared to be a 200 square foot sign from
38 the drawings submitted by the sign company and the applicant's
39 testimony that much less signage was being requested, as well as the
40 disputed size of the roof sign, had suggested the applicant and his
41 sign company sit down with staff to ascertain just what would
42 constitute acceptable signage for St. Anthony.
.40
2
• 1 Mr. Childs recalled specifically suggesting to the applicant that
2 because the City in the past had granted a variance for a second sign
3 for a corner business, he might want to split the copy he was propos-
4 ing for the front sign into two separate signs with a 3 X 20 foot ( 60
5 square feet) "Mickey D' s" sign to be - put up on the front of the
6 building and a 2 X 20 foot ( 40 square feet) "Family Restaurant" sign
7 could be placed on the east side since both signs would meet the
8 total 100 square feet of signage the ordinance allowed a building
9 within a 50 foot frontage.
10 The Manager reported he had noticed the front sign was already up when
11 he returned from his Washington D.C. trip and when he looked for the
12 permit in the files found. a drawing for a front sign which was
13 designated as having 82 square feet and on which Mr. Hamer had written
14 "sign per sketch, 82 square feet, one sign on front of building"
15 before signing.
16 Mr. Childs indicated he was not aware of any municipal ordinance in
17 any city which allowed signage to be calculated the way E.S.I. had
18 calculated the dimensions of this sign ad said he thought most sign
19 people knew that was not the way to calculate signage. He also
20 recalled that Mr. Farrell and the sign company representative had
21 been specifically advised that the City ordinance did not allow
22 signage to be calculated that way during the hearing.
23 Gow Testifies Not Unusual for City Ordinances to Allow Signage to Be
04, Calculated The Way He Does It
25 Tom Gow, who had signed the October letter to Mr. Hamer specifying
26 what signage was being requested for the restaurant, said it - had been
27 he and not his brother, Tim Gow, who had appeared with Mr. Farrell
28 November 17th, who had worked with Mr. Farrell on his sign package.
29 He also said it had been he who had met with Mr. Hamer early in
30 October and it was during that meeting that "calculations for the
31 front sign were made for each word specifically and how the sign
32 would be laid out was clarified for Mr. Hamer" , leading to the
33 Building Inspector approving the permit for the sign November 18th.
34 He explained that this type of business sign consists of internally
35 neon lighted columns, known as "channel lettering" , and, in fact, each
36 letter is .,a fixture which can be considered to be a sign in some
37 cases. He recognized `; that- this differed from the City Ordinance as
38 stated by the City .Manager, -but wanted , it understood that the original
39 calculations were made "under the supervision of Mr. Hamer" .
40 Mr. Farrell said before, he had signed a check for $5 ,000 for that one
41 sign he had personally gotten verbal assurance from Mr. Hamer that it
42 was O.K. Mr. Gow added that the Building Inspector had also told them
43 the new copy on the roof sign and the reader board on the east
44 required variances for which they had applied and paid the required
45 fees.
•
1 The sign company representative indicated he thought his October 30th
2 letter to Mr. Hamer accurately described the specific items he was
3 looking for in this particular business. He added that the size of
4 the letters was determined from a chart designating what size
5 characters would be required to attract business from the local
6 traffic which was the real reason these variances were so important to
7 the owner.
8 When Commissioner Hansen asked whether Mr. Gow hadn't thought it might
9 be unusual to compute signage surface by lettering, including the
10 apostrophes, Mr. Gow indicated it was typical for other cities to use
11 channel letters, especially for malls in the Twin Cities where signage
12 is a continuous band and signage is calculated by words identifying
13 individual tenants.
14 Commissioner Werenicz told him he failed to see the connection between
15 mall signs and signage for an isolated building.
16 Mr. Gow said he would check his files for the names of other cities
17 whose ordinances calculated signage in this manner but when pressed by
18 Commissioner Hansen, gave the names of Blaine and Moundsview. The
19 sign company representative also conceded that "individual words were
20 usually measured and it might be unusual to measure the "D" and " ' s"
21 separately as was done in this case. Mr. Farrell reiterated his
22 experience in the restaurant business and said he had "actually
23 turned around one million dollar business" , so certainly knew how
•24 important signage was.
25 When Commissioner Hansen questioned why if signage was so important,
26 they had waited until the last thing to bring the sign package to the
27 City, Mr. Farrell indicated he had checked with Mr. Hamer the first
28 day he walked into the building to take it over, either October 1 or
29 2, " having already gone to 7 other sign companies for estimates before
30 that time. Mr. Gow said they already had the sign package decided on
31 when they first saw Mr. Hamer and had ordered the signs, which took 8
32 weeks to make, right after the interview, sometime around the first or
33 second of October.
34 Applicant to Drop Reader Board but Perceives Roof Sign Important
35 Mr. Farrell indicated the "vibrations" about the sign being "tacky" ,
36 etc. he had gotten at the hearing had convinced him that he would
37 probably have to "eat" the $1,200 he had spent on the reader board for
38 the east side. He said he was therefore only looking for a variance
39 that evening for a sign which would "replace the 'Mr. Hobo' atmosphere
40 from that area. "
41 He indicated the sign surface had been cleaned up and painted over to
42 look much better and was now requesting to put up the "Mickey D' s"
43 sign to face away from the neighborhood. He reiterated that the sign
44 "would be much less signage" and would give off less light for the
45 closest home in which the previous Mr. Hobo owner lives.
• 4
• 1 Mr. Farrell indicated he had "already spent $100,000 fixing the
2 building up" and said he would have never spent that kind of money
3 without believing he would get adequate signage. Mr. Gow indicated he
4 perceived the Commission should take the fact that the signs were
5 made locally, weren' t "chintzy" and were "the best in the country"
6 when deciding on the variance.
7 No one else was present to provide further input and the Chair
8 closed the hearing at 8:09 P.M. for development of a recommendation to
9 the Council.
10 Franzese: perceived the applicants had negotiated in good faith for
11 the front sign which is already up;
12 indicated it might be a matter of educating staff further
13 regarding the sign ordinance so miscommunications related to
14 signage could be avoided in the future;
15 said as she saw it, by ordinance calculation, there were
16 already 141 square feet of signage where the ordinance only
17 allows 100 and the applicants were now asking for a variance
18 for an additional 64 square feet by the City' s calculations,
19 27 by their own;
20 reiterated that the community was glad to see the new rest-
*1 aurant come in but there was a definite conflict with the
22 Sign Ordinance.
23 Madden: said he felt if the applicants were given approval for 82
24 square feet of signage by their calculations unless there' s
25 a reason for doubting their word, the Commission should
26 start from that premise.
27 Childs: indicated he had confirmed that 82 square feet was what Mr.
28 Hamer had approved with the permit dated November 18th, the
29 day after the hearing;
30 again read the City Ordinance which he thought sign com-
31 panies usually consulted before proposing signage;
32 considering that the drawing for the roof sign talked about
33 borders, etc. , indicated he thought the Commission had to be
34 considering a variance for 64 square feet of signage;
35 reiterated that the notice of the hearing had said 27
36 square feet of roof signage based on the sign company' s
37 October 30th letter, but the drawing for the 8 X 8 foot
38 sign had not been seen before Tim Gow distributed it at the
39 hearing and told exactly how the City Ordinance would
40 calculate the surface.
•
5
�1 Gow: interjected that Mr. Hamer had seen the drawing of the
2 sign drawn to scale but without dimensions indicated on it.
3 Wagner: agreed that the Commission had to accept the front sign as
4 a "legal approved" sign but did not have to agree it was
5 "an 82 square foot sign, but rather whatever size our
6 ordinance says it is. "
7 Madden: said that was right, but in considering a variance, "the
8 City had to consider 82 square feet is up there now. " ;
9 agreed 64 square feet in addition to the 82 would be "too
10 much" but didn't have a firm feel for approving or dis-
11 approving a variance for a second sign.
12 Werenicz: found it "irritating" that this was almost a repeat of what
13 happened at the Dairy Queen where a businessman had spent
14 money on signs based on erroneous information from a City
15 official;
16 indicated he would consider the existing sign to be 141
17 square feet, which exceeds the City ordinance and not
18 grant a variance for any more signage.
19 Wagner: agreed the existing sign might be a "legal" sign which is
20 141 square feet, according to our ordinance and therefore
On more than the 100 square feet allowed that business, making
22 it "in effect a variance, and all we should grant for this
23 building. "
24 Hansen: agreed with that assumption, saying he had driven all around
25 the area and perceived the exposure is there and saw no
26 location from which identification would be missing;
27 said signage would be a key factor in the redevelopment of
28 that particular area and the city was in fact talking about
29 decreasing the amount of retail which would be replaced with
30 housing;
31 indicated he perceived it would be a mistake to start in-
32 creasing signage from what the ordinance allowed now and
33 could be a detriment to the new development going into the
34 shopping center;
35 concurred that an error had been made but said he didn' t
36 find the sign which had gone up to be offensive. But stated
37 does find the pylon structure on the roof offensive even
38 without signage.
39 London: generally agreed with Commissioners who have said the Com-
40 mission should acknowledge this to be a legal sign which is
•41 already approved by the City Building Inspector;
6
1 perceived the City' s options were limited by the fact the
2 sign is already up and paid for;
3 wouldn't vote to bring the signage any further over the
4 amount allowed by the ordinance;
5 said he would approve the sign as it sits and that would
6 be it.
7 Wagner: said he could go along with staff' s recommendation to split
8 the front sign into two signs with one put on the east side
9 if the owner really felt the need for two exposures.
10 Hansen: indicated he could go along with that suggestion;
11 added that if the sign company had taken more time for more
12 discussions with the City, that could have been done from
13 the start, eliminating some of the work which is already
14 done.
15 Franzese: agreed the City had to accept the front sign as approved,
16 however, perceived the Commission' s charge was also to
17 encourage commercial activity; and
18
19 perceived there might be a need for signage on the east
20 side as well as the front of the building to catch the
01 attention of anyone driving south on 88 or coming across
22 the bridge from St. Paul who cannot see the sign which is
23 already up;
24
25 but did not see the need for the big sign on the top
26 because any sign on that side of the building would have
27 visibility;
28 believed that whether moving the words "Family Restaurant"
29 to the east side, or what, some identification was neces-
30 sary within the realm of helping them do a good business
31 and succeed in that location.
32 Childs: reiterated for the benefit of the sign company representa-
33 tive that the way he saw it was that the Planning Commission
34 had met on the 17th and discussed fully just how the ordin-
35 ance would calculate the square footage on the drawing they
36 had presented for the front sign, pointing out to them that
37 perhaps their calculations were wrong and the next day they
38 went in and applied for a permit for a sign, using the
39 same calculations.
40
41 indicated he was willing to take the responsibility for
42 the staff error and for handling it with the Building
• 7
1 Inspector but wanted the record to show there had been full
• 2 discussions on the subject the prior evening.
3 Franzese: indicated she had the same recollections and was just trying
4 to bend over a bit to let the proprietors know the Commis-
5 sion was glad to have them in the community.
6 Hansen: said from reading the minutes, he agreed that the applicants
7 had ignored the Commission' s recommendations to clear the
8 matter up before putting up the sign.
9 Werenicz: asked whether the restaurant would be open to splitting the
10 front sign to put "Family Restaurant" on the east side for
11 better exposure because he would be opposed to recommending
12 anything else on the side as long as they retained the
13 signage on the front.
14 Mr. Farrell said he "would have to tear down the whole front to do
15 that and it would cost him $17 ,000 to tear down the existing pylon
16 sign on the roof , and it would only cost about $2,300 to put the
17 proposed sign up instead. He said he had not even connected the front
18 sign yet because "the pylon is where all the power is" . He told
19 Commissioner Werenicz the letters in the front sign are specially
20 constructed to connect to the mansard roof.
21 During the development of a motion the City Manager indicated he
�22 perceived that the fact that the permit had been granted in error
3 would not make the front sign a non-conforming sign, and, even though
24 there had been a staff error in this case, a variance to allow the
25 excessive signage to remain would probably be in order. Mr. Childs
26 recalled that case law had already ruled that administrative error
27 didn' t make something legal or necessarily make the City liable for
28 the error. He therefore disagreed with Commissioner Madden that a
29 variance was unnecessary.
30 The Manager also pointed out that he knew the Commissioners didn' t
31 intend to let the Dairy Queen keep all the signage the owner con-
32 tended had been approved by someone in the City offices without a
33 variance and it would not now be fair to treat this business any
34 differently. Mr. Childs told Mr. Farrell the copy on the pylon could
35 not be considered to be "grandfathered in" since it had been turned
36 off a long time now since the restaurant had been closed.
37 Commissioner Hansen told Commissioner Madden he perceived the Commis-
38 sion would have protested the excessive signage even if no. further
39 variances were sought.
40 Commission Recommendation
41 Motion by Werenicz , seconded by Wagner to recommend to the Council
42 that a variance be granted to the business known as "Mickey D' s
43 Family Restaurant" at 2905 Kenzie Terrace for the signage which has
0 8
1 already been erected on the front portion of the building for the 41
• 2 square feet over the 100 square feet the City Sign Ordinance allows
3 that building and that no additional variances be granted for addi-
4 tional signage on the structure.
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6 Before the applicants left, Mr. Childs clarified the question of the
7 pylon sign further by telling them that since the ordinance only
8 allowed them one sign when they got permission to put up the front
9 sign, that was given in lieu of the roof sign and the reader board
10 for which they had been advised they would have to seek variances.
11 They had, in effect, given up their right to keep the pylon sign when
12 they put up the front sign.
13 Welcome Reiterated
14 Commissioners Hansen and Wagner told Mr. Farrell they were glad to
15 have such a good business replace the unsuccessful one which had
16 previously been in that location and they anticipated they and their
17 families would be among the many St. Anthony residents who would take
18 advantage of home style cooking.
19
20 All Commissioners Concur That Rapid Oil' s Pylon Sign Has to Come Down
21 At 8 : 35 P.M. , the Chair continued the November 17th hearing to
22 consider a Petition for Sign Variance from Mark Gilbertson, Project
03 Manager for Rapid Oil Change, to allow the business at 3701 Silver
24 Lake Road to leave in place an existing, non-conforming, free-standing
25 sign on their property at the corner of 37th Avenue and Silver Lake
26 Road.
27 Staff Mr. Childs recalled the sign in question had been allowed
28 Report: Rapid Oil when they took over this property in 1984 and
29 while they were still selling gasoline as an auxiliary to
30 the quick lube service Rapid Oil Change normally offers
31 its customers at its other locations;
32 read aloud the portion of the ordinance which indicated
33 free-standing signs were only permitted to gas stations
34 which "shall be allowed in addition to all other authorized
35 signs, one pylon sign to identify the gasoline brand" ;
36 reported that at some point this summer Rapid Oil had
37 ceased to sell gasoline, having removed the last two pump
38 islands. This had resulted in the City telling them to
39 remove the pylon sign and the company' s decision to apply
40 for a variance to retain the signage;
41
42 reiterated that because of the company' s concern that people
43 might think they had left that corner when the business is
44 shut down for remodeling, he was recommending removal not be
• 9
. s
• 1 required until after the reconstruction is completed which
2 the company representatives have said could take 90 days;
3 however, thought it was important that a firm date for re-
4 moval be placed on that allowance.
5 Proponents: Mr. Gilbertson, who reiterated that an important justi-
6 fication for retaining the sign had erroneously been
7 omitted from his "Statement of Hardships" which had
8 accompanied the petition;
9 said that involved the loss of gas sales profits Rapid
10 Oil had experienced when condemnation and reconstruc-
11 tion of 37th Avenue had made it economically unfeasible
12 for the company to make the investment necessary to re-
13 place and continue with only two pumps after the two
14 islands had to be taken out to widen that intersection;
15 told Commissioner Hansen they would be reducing the
16 total signage on the building during remodeling which
17 would require them to completely close down the
18 business for around three weeks.
19 Steve Moldenhauer, Regional Manager for Rapid Oil
20 Change, also reiterated testimony he had given Nov-
21 ember 17th related to the effect the loss of land had
�2 on his company' s ability to continue in the gas busin-
23 ess, including the property congestion which followed
24 the widening of 37th;
25 told Commissioner Hansen Rapid Oil sells gas in a
26 couple other locations in the Twin Cities;
27
28 in answer to questions related to the tanks having to
29 be removed even if the roadway had not been widened,
30 said the environmental conditions of the tanks were
31 still all right although there was always a possibil-
32 ity for leaks in tanks 15 or 20 years old.
33 Commissioners Perceive Insufficient Justification for Allowing Pylon
34 to Remain
35 No one else was present to provide further input to the discussion and
36 the Chair closed the hearing at 8:45 P.M. for the following Commis-
37 sioner comments:
38 Hansen: indicated he had always been concerned about the proximity
39 of the gas pumps to that intersection and he foresaw there
40 might be problems with leaving that pylon sign on that
41 corner now that the whole intersection had been widened;
•
10
�1 noted that the pylon didn't even match the color or letter-
2 ing on the existing building.
3 Wagner: questioned whether condemnation proceedings might not have
4 already started when Rapid Oil took over the property;
5 was told by the Manager that with public hearings starting
6 way back in the 70 ' s on the project, he was quite certain
7 references to the widening would have had to be included
8 in the title investigation which preceded Rapid Oil' s acqui-
9 sition of that property;
10 indicated he agreed with other Commissioners' observations
11 during the November 17th hearing, that even without the
12 pylon, Rapid Oil enjoyed better visibility than the
13 neighboring businesses;
14 concluded by stating he perceived the pylon had to come down
15 because the business is not a gas station and the sign is
16 now in violation of the City Ordinance relating to free-
17 standing signs.
18 Commissioners Madden, Werenicz, and London concurred that the pylon
19 sign should be removed in the following motion:
400 Commission Recommendation
21 Motion by Hansen, seconded by Werenicz to recommend the Council deny
22 the request from Rapid Oil Change for a variance from the provisions
23 of the City Sign Ordinance which allows free-standing signs for only
24 gas stations but to allow them to retain the non-conforming free-
25 standing sign at 3701 Silver Lake Road until their remodeling is
26 completed sometime in the early spring with the stipulation that the
27 sign must be removed upon completion of remodeling but no later than
28 June 1, 1988. In recommending denial, the Planning Commission finds
29 that since the business no longer sells gas, the pylon sign would be
30 in violation of the exceptions for gas stations stated in the Sign
31 Ordinance.
32 Motion carried unanimously.
33 Commission Concurs With Concept of Low Profile Development of American
34 Monarch Property
35 In their agenda packet, Commissioners had been provided with copies of
36 the October 21st request from American Monarch manager, Ed Fiore; site
37 drawings of the plant property at 2801-37th Avenue N.E. ; and minutes
38 of the meetings early in 1979 where both the Planning Commission and
39 Council had extensively explored further development of the property
40 with a large number of the neighbors.
•
11
• 1 As they had in 1979, the major thrusts of the informal discussion with
2 Mr. Fiore centered around American Monarch' s year-to-year lease of
3 .land from the Soo Line Railroad for parking and the "gentlemen' s
4 agreement" reached that year relative to the retention of about 1-1/2
5 acres of unused property to the east for additional parking in the
6 event of plant growth in the future.
7 Mr. Fiore indicated, as he had stated in his letter, that was not
8 likely to happen now that his company' s owners in the East had made a
9 corporate decision that no further expansion would be made in Min-
10 nesota because of what was perceived to be a "poor business climate"
11 in the state.
12 When Chair Franzese indicated a concern there might not be enough
13 parking potential for the company who might replace American Monarch
14 if the corporate misgivings about Minnesota made them decide to move
15 the entire company, Mr. Fiore assured her there was very little
16 likelihood that would ever happen because he said his company had too
17 much invested here to move the whole plant and, even when the number
18 of employees reached the 200 cap, in five years or so he would expect
19 only a portion of the plant to be moved.
20 Mr. Fiore also assured the Chair that, as a member of American
21 Monarch' s Board of Directors, he would be vigorously lobbying against
22 any such move, having moved his whole family from the East and having
23 bought a home in Andover and a place up north.
•
24 The plant manager recalled the furor with which the neighbors had
25 greeted a suggestion in 1979, the first year he was in St. Anthony,
26 that a Country Kitchen Restaurant be erected on the company property
27 just west of the gas station on the corner which had prompted him to
28 tell the realtors and land speculators who were looking at the
29 property that nothing more active than a low visibility professional
30 building with traffic compatible to a residential neighborhood would
31 be acceptable.
32 Mr. Fiore indicated they had returned to tell him there was a market
33 of between $160 ,000 and $250,000 for that one and one and one-half
34 acres between the plant building and the Amoco station which would
35 leave the plant 128 parking places on plant property and an additional
36 100 spaces on land for which the company now pays $7,800 a year to
37 lease from the Soo Line. The ordinance requires 170 parking spaces
38 for this building.
39 Mr. Childs pointed out that there was also space available for parking
40 on the 150 X 70 foot grassy area on the west side which was not being
41 utilized, where it might be possible to fit in 50 additional parking
42 spaces without encroaching the area currently used for a truck
43 driveway.
44 Commissioner Wagner pointed out that large car sizes had probably
•45 been used in determining the number of parking spaces on the property
12
1 which could probably be downsized today to match the prevalence of
2 compact cars.
3 Mr. Fiore restated for the benefit of Commissioner Werenicz that "we
4 have to live here and would want to make sure something attractive
5 which the neighbors would not oppose would go into that space.
6 Commission Reaction
7 Wagner and no opposition at all.
8 Hansen:
9 Franzese: would like to see a type of business in there which
10 would give St. Anthony a younger look;
11 might attract younger families to live in the City.
12 Werenicz: liked the concept of professional building.
13 Madden: would favor the development of unused property for
14 something "tasteful" .
15 London: would like to see the land used for an attractive
16 building rather than to sit empty.
17 The following was formulated as a "vote of confidence" for the
&8 proposal:
19 Motion by Franzese, seconded by Hansen to indicate the Council the
20 Planning Commission' s unanimous approval of American Monarch Cor-
21 poration' s concept for developing the unused property they own to the
22 west as proposed by the plant manager, Ed Fiore.
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24 Mr. Childs indicated he would not expect Mr. Fiore would have to be
25 present at the Council meeting where the above was presented since
26 only a concept review was involved and staff would be able to let him
27 know if any opposition to his proposal developed on the Council. He
28 would be surprised to see that happen, he said, since the property is
29 zoned industrial and "hopefully something will be developed there
30 which will please everybody. "
31 Brief Manager reports on the development of the final phases of the
32 Kenzie Terrace Redevelopment Project; the traffic signal on Kenzie
33 Terrace; the community survey which would be taken from December 14th
34 through the 18th and the opening of Mannings Restaurant in the
35 Stonehouse preceded adjournment.
36 Commissioners were advised there was no business to be considered at
37 the December 15th meeting, which would be cancelled.
•
13
• 1 ADJOURNMENT
2 Motion by Madden, seconded by Wagner to adjourn -the Planning Commis-
3 sion at 9: 10 P.M.
—
4 Motion carried unanimously.
5 Respectfully submitted,
6 Helen Crowe, Secretary
7 :cjk
8
•
14