HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL MINUTES 04211992 Meeting Sheet
11111 give 11111 gill gill 11111 Nile 9119
101341
Box: 19
Folder: PL MINUTES AND AGENDAS 1992
Document: PL MINUTES 04211992
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
4
5 APRIL 21 , 1992
6
7
8 1 . CALL TO ORDER
9
10 Chairperson Faust called the Planning Commission Meeting to
11 order at 7 : 30 p .m.
12
13 2 . ROLL CALL
14
15 Commissioners Present : Thompson, Franzese, Gondorchin , Murphy,
16 Werenicz, Madden , and Faust
17
18 Staff Present : City Manager Burt and Management Assistant
19 Urbia
20
21 Chairman Faust noted that this was Commissioner Thompson ' s
22 first meeting. He was welcomed by the Chairperson and
23 Commissioners .
24
25 3 . APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 18 , 1992 PLANNING
26 COMMISSION MEETING
Motion by Madden , second by Murphy to approve the minutes of
9 the February 18 , 1992 Planning Commission Meeting as presented
30 and there were no corrections .
31
32 Motion carried unanimously
33
34 4 . DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE APRIL 28 , 1992.
35 OR MAY 12 , 1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
36
37 Commissioner Madden will represent the Planning Commission
38 Meeting on either April 28th or May 12th.
39
40 City Manager Burt explained that the item which will determine
41 when a Planning Commissioner will have to attend a Council
42 Meeting is the conditional use permit being requested by Adel
43 Alwan for his Sheik' s Garden Restaurant..
44
45 At this point in the Planning Commission Meeting Mr . Alwan was
46 not in attendance. It was felt if he did not attend, the
47 request would not be discussed in any detail .
48
49
50 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
51
52 A. Adel Alwan (Sheik ' s Garden Restaurant ) , 3800 Apache
Plaza , Conditional Use Permit
f
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 2
4
5 The City Manager advised that this matter can be
6 considered in Mr. Alwan ' s absence.
7
8 Referring to the site plan, Franzese observed that there
9 were some differences in the location of some of the
10 amusement devices and fewer kiddy games .
11
12 Mr . Alwan -arrived at the Planning Commission Meeting at
13 7 : 35 p.m.
14
15 The Public Hearing was opened at 7 : 35 p.m.
16
17 Chairperson Faust stated that the purpose of this public
18 hearing is to consider a request from Adel Alwan for a
19 conditional use permit to allow for more than three
20 amusement devices at Sheik ' s Garden Restaurant , Inc . ,
21 3800 Apache Plaza .
22
23
24 The notice of the Public Hearing appeared in the April 1 , _
25 1992 edition of the Bulletin .
26
Urbia noted that Mr . Alwan had come before the Planning
is Commission in February requesting a conditional use
29 permit to allow up to thirty amusement devices . At that
30 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the
31 request under certain conditions . The City Council , at
32 its March 10th meeting, did not approve the request by a
33 three to two vote.
34
35 Mr. Alwan was advised at the March 10th Counci-1 Meeting
36 he could reapply for a conditional use permit .
37
38 The request before the Planning Commission tonight is for
39 twenty-three amusement devices . Eight amusement devices
40 will be solely for children. The remaining fifteen
41 amusement devices will be video devices for both children
42 and adults .
43
44 Mr. Alwan' s plan. is to locate the amusement devices in
45 the older, rear portion of the restaurant . His intent is
46 to generate additional revenue from this area.
47
48 Staff noted that all three conditions for a conditional
49 use permit have been met . Staff is recommending approval
50 of the request with the following eight conditions :
51
1 ) The arcade shall prohibit tobacco, alcohol , and
drugs on the premises .
I PLANNING COMMISSION
40 APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 3
4
5
6 2 ) The arcade shall prohibit individuals under the
7 influence of tobacco, alcohol , and/or drugs .
8
9 3 ) Proper supervision should be available at all times
10 to ensure appropriate conduct and behavior.
11
12 4 ) The access 'from the kitchen to the dining area
13 shall be segregated to ensure safety.
14
15 5) The number of amusement devices allowed will be
16 dependent upon the available number of amusement
17 device licenses and available space within the area
18 designated on the proposed plan .
19
20 6 ) The hours of the arcade will be no later than 10 : 00
21 p.m.
22
23 7 ) The process of an annual review. consisting of City
24 staff , the Police Chief and the restaurant owner to
25 review complaints generated by the restaurant , both
26 inside and outside the establishment .
16 8 ) The arcade shall consist of twenty-three amusement
29 devices , of which eight will be solely for children
30 and fifteen will be video devices for both children
31 and adults .
32
33 Mr . Howard Knutson , 14300 Nicol let Court , Burnsville, Mn. ,
34 introduced himself as a personal friend of Mr. Alwan. He is
35 speaking in support of the approval of the conditional use
36 request . He stated he has known- Mr. Alwan since he came to the
37 United States . In his opinion , Mr . Alwan has indicated every
38 intention to operate his restaurant as a family-oriented
39 establishment . Mr. Knutson felt the amusement devices will
40 attract families and noted that there will be no pool tables
41 on the premises . Mr. Alwan has also indicated to him he may
42 consider hiring security personnel to maintain a family
43 atmosphere is it becomes necessary.
44
45 Werenicz commented on the reference made in Council Meeting
46 minutes to the review requirement of the Malt Shop which had
47 previously operated in the shopping mall . He noted that
48 members of the Planning Commission have never received any
49 feedback from these reviews and inquired if there had been
50 problems .*
51
52 The City Manager responded that there had not been problems in
the Malt Shop arcade only in the vicinity. There were also
problems with the slow response of. the shopping mall security
I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 4
4
5 �-
6 responding to requests for . assistance from the Malt Shop
7 owner . He noted that some of these problems are presently
8 being experienced with the bowling alley in the lower level of
9 the shopping mall as well as the vicinity outdoors .
10
11 Werenicz observed that problems in the vicinity outdoors ,
12 particularly ;near the bridge, are not new and may be
13 attributable to the shopping mall .
14
15 Franzese inquired if Mr . Knutson is a professional or personal
16 acquaintance of Mr. Alwan ' s . He responded that he is both ;
17 attorney and family to family . It was noted that he has had no
18 experience in a business similar to that of Mr. Alwan.
19
20 Mr . Alwan felt the intent of Bono ' s Malt Shop and the St .
21 Anthony Fun Center was to make considerable money on amusement
22 devices . There were no kiddy ridess in either business and no
23 attractions for families .
24
25 Franzese inquired how Mr . Alwan intended to "police" his
26 establishment and provide security. He responded that his
floor plan is quite open and the site lines are good. There
will be rules of acceptable behavior posted in the business .
9 He did not respond to his intentions regarding security.
30
31 Franzese noted he intends to be vigilant about behavior, but
32 inquired what his "plan of action" would be if there were
33 unacceptable conduct .
34
35 Mr . Alwan did not specifically address his "plan of action"
36 but referred to his methods of operation.
37 -
38 Franzese inquired if Mr . Alwan would object to closing his
. 39 restaurant at 9: 00 p.m which is the time the shopping mall
40 closes .
41
42 Mr . Alwan prefers to close at 10 : 00 p.m. noting that there is
43 a potential for business after 9 : 00 and in the summer months
44 it may still be daylight outside. It was noted that the
45 closing hour for the restaurant previously located in the
46 shopping mall was 11 : 00 p.m.
47
48 Mr. Knutson addressed the proposed floor .plan for the location
49 of the video devices and the planned - party room. The party
50 room will have a movie screen, a large television screen and
51 be available for children ' s, birthday parties . He felt the
52 location of the machines would afford the management some
advantage in monitoring their use.
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 5
.4
5
6 The seating capacity of the restaurant is approximately fifty
7 people. Franzese inquired what the anticipated proportion of
8 income would be from food and amusement devices . Mr . Knutson
9 noted this is a variable by location and has no hard facts
10 relative to income. He stated that the restaurant ' s present
11 income from food only is very poor.
12
13 Murphy noted that the restaurant ' s goal is to be family
14 oriented and inquired what the marketing strategies are .to
15 attract this type of clientele. Newspaper advertising and the
16 previously referred to party room will be part of the
17 marketing strategies .
18
19 Menu selections were discussed and there will be a special
20 children ' s menu.
21
22 The Public Hearing was closed at 7 : 57 p.m.
23
24 Werenicz stated his support for granting the conditional use
25 permit and noted that Mr. Alwan is focusing very hard on the
26 family oriented spirit of his business .
He suggested that Condition #8 should include a reference to
9 changing the configuration of the devices dedicated to
30 children ' s entertainment . He felt if the number of kiddy
31 amusement devices is decreased the conditional use permit
32 would be cancelled. Mr . Alwan should be required to reappear
33 before the Planning Commission and the City Council if he
34 wishes to change the mix of children and adult amusement
35 devices .
36
37 Madden agreed with Werenicz regarding the change of the mix of
38 amusement devices and felt an annual review of the conditional
39 use permit should be added to the conditions .
40
41 Murphy had nothing to add other than he is supportive of
42 recommending approval of the request .
43
44 Gondorchin had not comments regarding the request .
45
46 Franzese still has a -concern regarding the closing time
47 staying at 10 : 00 p.m. She feels this time is too late and that
48 young children are not usually out that late.
49
50 Faust indicated he felt this latest request is an improvement
51 over the first request . He has no problem with the closing
52 time of 10 : 00 p.m as Daylight Saving Time adds to that part of
the day when families participate in activities together .
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 6
4
5
6 Franzese noted that her specific concern regarding closing
7 times is that everything else in the shopping mall closes at
8 . 9 : 00 p.m. If the restaurant is the only business open after
9 9 : 00 p.m there is a potential for young people to gather
10 there. The bowling alley closes at 11 : 00 p.m.
11
12 Faust observed that there is no eating establishment on the
13 north side� of the City where parents can take their children
14 which does not serve alcohol . He anticipates no problems with
15 the proposed 10 : 00_ closing hour and does not view this as a
16 problem.
17
18 Motion by Madden, second by Werenicz to recommend to the City
19 Council that the conditional use permit request of Mr. Alwan
20 for Sheik ' s Garden Restaurant , 3800 Apache Plaza, be approved
21 that the eight conditions as recommended by staff be included
22 in the conditional use permit approval ; that no one appeared
23 at the Public Hearing to speak against the request ; that all
24 three questions in the application for the conditional use
25 permit were answered in the affirmative ; and, that the mix of
26 amusement devices be approved by staff .
7
Some discussion continued regarding what constitutes kiddy
9 amusement devices and rides . The Chairperson suggested that
30 there was possibly an " industry standard" which could be used
31 as a guide by the staff .
32
33 Roll call : Thompson, Franzese, Murphy, Werenicz, Madden,
34 Faust - aye
35
36 Gondorchin - . nay
37
38 Motion carries
39
40 B. James Sarna and William Vogt (Stop-N-Shop Superette) ,
41 3813 Stinson Boulevard, Sign Variance
42
43 The Public Hearing was opened at 8 : 15 p.m.
44
45 Chairperson Faust stated that the purpose of the Public
46 Hearing was the consideration of the request for sign
47 variance from Mr. James Sarna and Mr . William Vogt , Stop-
48 N-Shop Superette, Inc. , 1847 Johnson Street Northeast ,
49 Minneapolis , for two gasoline brand signs on the canopy
50 at 3813 Stinson Boulevard, which -requires variances for
51 number of signs and location .
52
The notice of the Public Hearing appeared in the April 8 ,
1992 edition of the Bulletin .
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
0 PAGE 7
4
5
6 Management Assistant Urbia explained that a sign variance
7 had previously been approved for the applicants to have
8 a pylon sign with the Stop-N-Shop sign and gasoline brand
9 signs . Originally, the request was for two Phillips 66
10 signs ( 44" by 44" ) . The current request is for two Conoco
11 signs ( 2 ' by 6 ' ) to be placed on the north and south ends
12 of the canopy, on the side closest to the road.
13
14 He advised that there is no provision in the Sign
15 Ordinance for the type of canopy sign that is being
16 requested. The Sign Ordinance defines a canopy as a
17 permanent roof structure attached to and supported by the
18 building.
19
20 Urbia also stated that the Sign Ordinance allows for a
21 pylon sign for a gas station to have brand identification
22 signs . If the Conoco signs were to be allowed on the
23 canopy, there would be no brand identification signs on
24 the pylon sign and the pylon sign would be nonconforming.
25
26
Originally , staff had determined this request could be
approved administratively. It was later determined that
29 the request required a Public Hearing.
30
31 A letter was received from Mr . Sarna and Mr. Vogt giving
32 the history of why they had changed from Phillips 66 to
33 Conoco. A new policy at Phillips 66 would not allow their
34 brand sign to be placed below that of the Stop-N-Shop
35 sign . Conoco has . indicated they want their brand sign
36 placed on the canopy and not on a pole. The proposed
37 Conoco sign would be smaller in size than the proposed
38 Phillips 66 sign .
39
40 A letter from Conoco to Mr. Vogt stated that Conoco brand
41 requirements mandate the installation of the Conoco
42 capsule sign on a canopy fascia. The policy does not
43 permit co-mingling of their trademark sign and any
44 proprietary sign on a shared basis .
45
46 Urbia noted a contradiction in the Conoco letter which
47 would not allow co-mingling on a canopy sign but would
48 allow accommodations for local. signage codes whereby
49 pole-mounted capsule signs would be allowed over canopy
50 or building capsule signs .
51
52 The City Manager noted that the owners of the Stop-N-Shop
had not completed the sign request application.
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
0 APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 8
4
5 .
6 Madden inquired why the Public Hearing had been published
7 if these proceedings are not a legal Public Hearing.
8
9 The City Manager stated he felt this was a legal Public
10 Hearing and noted that the owners had been given over a
11 month to complete the application . He recalled that there
12 had been a very good relationship between the City and
13 the owners and proceeded on the basis that the legal
14 publication notice deadline be met to accommodate a
15 Public Hearing at tonight ' s Planning Commission Meeting.
16
17 The City Manager stated that originally staff had
18 considered an amendment but then realized that the sign
19 being considered was an entirely different type of sign
20 and would be non-conforming. He is concerned that if a
21 pylon sign without brand identification were allowed
22 there would be many more requests from local businesses
23 for similar variances .
24
25 Faust stated that pylon signs are allowed only when the
26 gas brand is identified on them.
Murphy observed that the Conoco specifications do not
29 exactly agree with the request . Urbia explained the
30 differences . Mr. Vogt noted that the canopy was
31 originally designed for Conoco.
32
33 Thompson thinks the City should be pleased to have this
34 business in the City and it would be a real asset . He
35 referred to other similar signs located at Don ' s Car
36 Wash, Pizza Hut and Firestone. It was Thompson ' s
37 observation that the other operations run by these two
38 owners had good prices and good products .
39
40 Faust felt the issue was not how good the businesses were
41 but rather how to deal with the sign problems .
42
43 Mr. Vogt advised that Phillips 66 previously had a policy
44 where they - would co-mingle signs but the policy has
45 changed. He noted that his businesses have handled
46 Phillips 66 products for eight years at their other
47 outlets . Conoco wants their capsule sign on the top of
48 the gas pumps . He expressed concern that they may not be
49 able to secure a major gas company for their operation on
50 Stinson Boulevard.
51
2 Franzese inquired if any contracts had been .signed with
Phillips 66 . Mr.. Vogt responded there have been no
contracts but he and his partner had presumed they would
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 9
4
5
6 go ahead with that company. He advised that Phillips 66
7 is also requesting they remove their Stop-N-Shop signs at
8 their other two locations .
9
10 Urbia observed that if the Stop-N-Shop signs they may
11 have a less difficult time getting the gas brand signs in
12 place on the canopy sign. This would result in no non-
13 conforming signs .
14
15 Werenic2 felt removal of the Stop-N-Shop sign would
16 impact negatively in the visibility for the store which
17 was a major concern of the strip mall . Gondorchin also
18 felt this proposed removal would adversely affect the
19 marketing strategy .
20
21 Madden recalled that the Standard Oil sign was not
22 approved to include "Food Shop" but this verbiage remains
23 as staff has not followed through to have it removed.
24
25 Gondorchin inquired what Mr . Vogt' s preference would be
26 on the sign , to identify the business or the brand of
0 gasoline. .
29 Mr . Vogt responded that quite a sum of money has already
30 been spent to identify the Stop-N-Shop. Murphy inquired
31 if the partners would consider the option of having no
32 gas brand identified on the signs . Mr. Vogt felt gas
33 identification was necessary and very beneficial for the
34 credit card business .
35
36 Conoco will allow 120 days for the business to accept
37 Phillips 66 credit card charges .
38
39 Madden felt this matter was at an impasse with the
40 present proposal .' He suggested that staff and the owners
41 meet and try to work something acceptable out . He also
42 observed that. there are already many signs at this
43 business in place.
44
45 Faust agreed there appeared to be an impasse and that the
46 Planning Commission is attempting to negotiate something
47 that ultimately could not be supported for approval as
48 there is no basis to approve.
49
50 The City Manager felt a change to the Sign Ordinance
51 could be a possible solution as the present draft does
not address this situation . He noted that the City
Attorney has been out of town , but intends to discuss
this matter with him. Burt felt there is no basis for a
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 10
4
5
6 hardship in the findings .
7
8 Franzese requested staff to contact other gas service
9 centers with pylon signs regarding the arrangements made
10 with their suppliers .
11
12 Burt noted there are no other operations similar to this
13 one in St . Anthony.
14
15. Thompson felt the location of this operation requires
16 signage for visibility.
17
18 Gondorchin inquired if all of sign allowance funding had
19 been spent on the pylon sign . Mr. Vogt responded that all
20 that is remaining to be done are the footings and they
21 are not very costly. He also noted that any oil suppliers
22 will bear the cost of a pylon . Franzese inquired if the
23 pylon signs presently in place could be used at any of
24 their other locations or be sold . Mr. Vogt felt this
25 would not be the case.
26
Faust stated that the pylon sign will remain only if
there is a gasoline brand sign on it .
29
30 Burt stated that as the ordinance is written staff has
31 come to its interpretation. If the Planning Commission
32 arrives at some Findings the request can be granted.
33
34 Murphy felt this decision would be based on a
35 "condition. " Werenicz felt this may not be workable as
36 the strip was not dependent on a gas station being
37 located in it .
38
39 Werenicz observed that the Planning Commission really
40 does not want to be in the position of re-writing the
.41 Sign Ordinance based on one situation. T.he pressure to
42 approve a non-conforming sign is being brought by the
43 suppliers .
44
45 The Public Hearing was closed at 8 : 41 p.m.
46
47 Faust requested that the three conditions for granting a
48 variance be read. Urbia read the three conditions for the
49 granting of a variance. They are as follows :
50
51 1 ) The granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other property' in .the neighborhood or
4 village .
I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
0 PAGE 11
4
5
6
7. 2 ) A particular hardship to the applicant would
8 result if the strict letter of the regulations
9 are adhered to.
10
11 3) The conditions upon which the application for
12 a variance is based are unique to the parcel
13of land for which the variance is sought and '
14 are not applicable, generally, to other
15 property within the same land-use
16 classifica.tion.
17
18 Madden felt the only action which could be taken by the
19 Planning Commission was to table the matter for thirty
20 days .
21
22 Faust felt the Planning Commission is in a position where
23 it could not make a recommendation based on the three
24 conditions to the City Council .
25
26 Motion by Franzese , second by Werenicz to deny the
request for a sign variance for the Stop-N-Shop because
the request does not meet the three conditions necessary
2 for a variance .
30
31 Franzese expressed her regret at having to deny the
32 request , noting that it may meet two of the conditions
33 but not all three .
34
35 Murphy felt the situation was created. by the oil
36 companies and not by the ordinance. Faust observed that
37 the request has not as yet been viewed by legal counsel
38 and after it is , the request may not have moved forward.
39
40 Madden felt tabling would have afforded staff and members
41 of the Planning Commission an opportunity to get
42 additional information .
43
44 Franzese observed that- the, City Council functions
45 independently and if the request were tabled it could
46 have been two months before it was reviewed.
47
48 Roll call : Franzese, Gondorchin, Murphy, Werenicz,
49 Madden, Faust - aye
50
51 Thompson - nay
52
The Chairperson felt it was painful forthe members of
the Planning Commission to deny this request but the
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 1992
0 PAGE 12
4
5
6 Commission is bound by rules and guidelines to which it
7 must adher .
8
9 6 . MISCELLANEOUS
10
11 A. Concept Review - St . Anthony Dry Cleaners , 3005 37th
12 Avenue Northeast
13
14 The site at 3005 37th Avenue Northeast was recently
15 purchased_ by Mr. Yash Patel . He plans to open a dry
16 cleaning service at this site. Mr . Patel is proposing to
17 have a drive through service at the current site.
18
19 As the site is presently situated, the proposed drive
20 through is not a viable proposal . Staff has met with Mr.
21 Patel to discuss solutions for the proposed drive through
22 concept . These solutions would address staff concerns
2,3 regarding parking requirements and traffic flow.
24
25 Urbia advised the following solutions have been proposed
26 to Mr . Patel :
1 ) The back of the lot be filled in
29
30 2 ) Obtain an easement or ownership to approximately
31 six feet of Rapid Oil Changes ' property
32
33 3 ) Move an utility pole
34
35 4 ) Provide parking in the rear portion of the
36 building which would require this area 'be filled in
37
38 Urbia noted that out of courtesy. to Mr. Patel this
39 request was brought to the Planning Commission. Staff
40 felt this could be a drycleaning business but not with
41 drive through services .
42
43 Burt advised that the "grandfathered" parking privileges
44 of the previous business no longer apply. Faust also
45 . observed that some accommodations must be considered for
46 employee parking.
47
48 Burt stated that the newly-installed overhead door
49 already has eliminated two parking spaces .
50
51 Murphy inquired if 'the building were torn down would
52 there be enough property to include a drive through on a
new building. Burt felt this was a possiblity, but
observed that Mr . Patel probably does not have enough
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 13
4
5
6 capitol for a venture of this kind as he has already
7 purchase the building and done some remodelling.
8
9 Franzese felt staff should make recommendations to Mr .
10 Patel for some other site in the City. Burt; advised he
11 has already purchased this site and building as well as
12 installed some drycleaning equipment .
13
14 Franzese suggested the service could address patron
15 comfort by "taking out" the product rather than having . a
16 drive through . Burt said he will pass this suggestion on
17 to Mr . Patel , but a parking variance may be needed to
18 accomplish this type of service.
19
20 B. _Review of Proposed Revisions to Parkina Ordinance
21
22 Residents have been calling City Hall to express their
23 concern with the parking of recreational vehicles and
24 equipment in the yards of their owners .' By some, these
25 have been considered visual pollution and invasions of
26 the aesthetic appearance of the City.
40 In response to these concerns , staff has driven
throughout the City videotaping some of the situations
30 where this type of problem exists .
31
32 Burt noted that some of the problems have developed from
33 the ordinance requirement to have these vehicles and
34 equipment parked on a paved surface . Many of these items
35 were parked on the back of the lot or in the back yard
36 but were not on a paved surface. Recreational vehicles ,
37 mobile homes , boats and wood piles are some of the
38 examples which were videotaped.
39
40 Also, some of these vehicles are parked in the right-of-
41 way. The City Council has requested staff to develop a
42 recommendation to alleviate these perceived nuisances .
43
44 Burt read the staff recommendation , which is as -follows :
45 "No commercial , recreational vehicles , recreational
46 trailers , watercraft or utility trailers will be
47 permitted to be parked in front of the front yard in any
48 R-1 , R-lA, R-2 , or R-3 district for more than any forty-
49 eight hour period.
50
51 The City Manager stated the City Council wants feedback
52 from the Planning Commission on this matter .
Franzese inquired if the reason behind the parking
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 14
4
5
6 prohibition was because of clutter , safety hazards , etc .
7
8 The City Manager responded that some felt the City is
9 beginning to have a "cluttered" appearance .
10
11 Gondorchin noted he has never been bothered with the
12 parking of recreational vehicles in his neighbor ' s back
13 yard but another neighbor has . He questioned what the
14 criteria might be for determining what vehicles would be
15 addressed with this ordinance revision . Burt noted that
16 height and weight had been considered as criteria.
17
18 Franzese felt this ordinance revision is trying to
19 pinpoint some specific matters , yet is using a
20 "broadbrush" approach and has a very narrow approach.
21 She felt it may be difficult to enforce.
22
23 Madden is of the opinion that large boats and
24recreational vehicles . parked in front yards are very
25 ugly. He felt there is some very affordable storage space
26 ' available and is supportive of the ordinance revision.
7
Burt will pursue the "weight" criteria with the Police
Chief .
30
31 Faust noted that a forty-eight hour limit could not apply
32 on a long weekend.
33
34 The Public Works Director sent out forty violation
35 letters on parking violations recently. These violations
36 were noted in a very small area of the City so the
37 practice appears to be widespread.
38
39 Werenicz inquired when a citation is actually issued.
40 Burt gave the timeframe for violations . First a letter is
41 sent to the owner advising him of the violation and ten
42 days is given to contact the City and to comply. If there
43 is no response in ten days , a second letter is sent to
44 the violator and if there is no acknowledgement , then a
45 citation is written. The whole process takes about forty-
46 five days .
47
48 Werenicz stated his support for more active enforcement
49 of the ordinance.
50
51 Franzese felt the issue of safety, . especially for
52 children, should be a consideration .
1 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 15
4
5
6 ' Murphy inquired if staff has contacted other cities with
7 regard to their ordinances for parking of recreational
8 vehicles and equipment . Burt responded some cities have
9 a prohibition of parking of commercial vehicles in
10 residential areas .
11
12 Gondorchin felt the length criteria would be more
13 effective to write the ordinance revision on. He thinks
14 the larger units are more irritating.
15
16 Werenicz suggested that the Police Department be made
17 aware of some of the community concerns in this matter
18 and to concentrate on enforcement . Burt noted that if the
19 Police Department were responsible for enforcement there
20 would be the added dimension of better record keeping.
21
22 C. Review of Proposed Revisions to Sian Ordinance
23
24 The proposed revisions to the Sign Ordinance were
25 distributed at the Planning Commission Meeting.
26
7 The proposed revisions were briefly scanned by members of
the Commission . The document had not been proofread and
9 there were some paragraphs left out .
30
31 Burt noted that the Management Assistant had added to or
32 redefined some of the language of the current Sign
33 Ordinance rather than that drafting an entire new
34 ordinance. He felt the Commission members should be aware
35 that the City is expecting some sign requests which may
36 not have been made in the past . Some examples are for the
37 CUB Store if the project goes ahead, a movie theater and
38 monument signs .
39
40 Urbia recommended that a * subcommittee be formed from
41 among members of the Planning Commission, representatives
42 of the St . Anthony Chamber of Commerce, business people
43 in the City, and representatives of the two shopping
44 malls in the City. He suggested this subcommittee plan to
45 meet in the next couple of weeks .
46
47 Faust inquired what regulations would have to be
48 considered regarding this subcommittee to be in
49 compliance with the Open Meeting Law. It was determined
50 that it could be served by two or three members of the
51 Planning Commission . Burt advised that the subcommittee
52 meetings will be posted in compliance with the Open
Meeting Law.
I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 16
4
5
6 Faust polled the Planning Commission members and it was
7 unanimous to support the forming of a subcommittee to
8 review. the sign ordinance revisions as presented by
9 staff .
10
11 Franzese inquired what the process would be for the
12 recommendations and comments which will be forthcoming
13 from the subcommittee . Burt responded this information
14 will go to the Planning Commission who will then hold a
15 public hearing on the matter .
16
17 Franzese and Faust indicated an interest on serving on
18 the subcommittee and will set up meeting dates for about
19 three meetings . It was recommended that Councilmember
20 Wagner also serve on the subcommittee .
21
22 Faust requested input from all of the Planning Commission
23 members regarding the sign ordinance revisions .
24
25 There is a joint meeting scheduled between the City
26 Council and the Planning Commission for 7 : 00 p.m. on May
16 19th .
29 D. Update on South End Study
30
31 The BRW consulting firm presented three concepts to the
32 South End Task Force .
33
34 The City Manager advised that the original purpose in
35 placing a development moratorium on the south end of the
36 City was to discuss the land use plan and the traffic
37 patterns .
38
39 He noted that all three plans presented by BRW have the -
40 same street alignments . The Council is considering
41 extending the Tax Increment Financing District to include
42 this area.
43
44 The City Manager reviewed all three plans presented by
45 the consulting firm and the fourth plan as formulated by
46 the South End Task Force.
47
48 Miles Lindberg, " a consultant with BRW, will be attending
49 the May Planning Commission meeting to discuss his firm' s
50 concepts regarding the South End .
51
52 Gondorchin inquired if the City Manager had a priority
list would he be including this development of the South
End. The City Manager responded he most likely would be .
I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 17
4
5
6 focusing on the environmental issues regarding Silver
7 Lake.
8
9 E. Review Housina Maintenance Ordinance
10
11 Urbia advised that this version of the Housing
12 Maintenance Ordinance includes the recommended changes
13 requested by the Planning Commission. He noted that the
14 "Truth In Housing" section has been removed as it cannot
15 be enforced.
16
17 Some discussion followed regarding errors which are fn
18' the draft and some paragraphs which were omitted.
19
20 Commissioners Gondorchin and Madden felt they needed
21 additional time for review of the draft ordinance.
22
23 Urbia stated that the goal of the City Council is to hold
24 a public hearing on the ordinance in September.
25
26 Faust requested that copies of the corrected draft are
7 sent to members of the Planning Commission.
30 7 . STAFF UPDATE
31
32 Apache Plaza
33
34 The City Manager met with representatives of Super Value last
35 week. He felt the article which appeared in the Bulletin
36 erroneously reported the situation as to the delay in the CUB
37 decision. The article made it appear as though the City is
38 causing the delay.
39
40 Super Value representatives were upset by the article but have
4.1 found out why the incorrect information was printed.
42
43 The City Manager noted that Dennis Cavanaugh has not been
44 cooperative with Super Value and has changed both of the
45 proposals received for the CUB Store . The City Manager felt
46 this proposed store is the last hope for Apache Plaza.
47
48 Demographics in the St . Anthony area were supportive of this
49 store. If Super Value were to put a CUB store at both Apache
50 Plaza and at 18th and Central Avenues , both of the stores
51 would be smaller . If only one CUB store were built , and it was
52 located at Apache Plaza, it would be larger .
I PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
APRIL 21 , _ 1992
PAGE 18
4
5
6 Pirino Property
7
8 The City Manager contacted the attorney handling the Pirino
9 case for the City ' s insurance company. The attorney stated he
10 had thought the case had been closed. The judge had ruled that
11 Pirino could build the garage on the front portion of his lot .
12
13 Pirino has not begun building the garage and the permit has
14 expired.
15
16 Staff inspected the exterior of the property and found twenty-
17 six violations . Pirino must submit plans for 'the property and
18 pay for permits . A home which has been moved into the City
19 must also be inspected inside. This has not been done yet .
20
21 The City Manager stated that a letter was received from Pirino
22 today. The City' s response letter will state the time
23 deadlines for doing the work. If these deadlines are not met ,
24 tags will be issued for the violations .
25
26 8 . COMMISSIONERS ' .COMMENTS
27
is Faust thanked staff for the activities calendar .
30 Madden inquired if there . is a report on. the St . Anthony Self
31 Storage issue yet . He was advised that this has not been done.
32 The City Manager observed that the owners fo this building
33 appear to be waiting until the sign ordinance is completed.
34 Faust suggested that Madden bring this matter up at the next
35 Council Meeting.
36
37 The City Manager stated he will bring the matter up at the
38 next Council Meeting. He feels the issue will be resolved by
39 this summer .
40
41 Faust and Franzese both attended the "Beyond the Basics"
42 seminar and found it very interesting.
43
44 Franzese inquired if there have been any reports of finding
45 raydon in the community. The City Manager responded he has not
46 heard of any but noted there are self-testing kits available
47 to conduct raydon tests in homes .
48
49 Commissioners were requested to have their comments regarding
50 the Sign Ordinance to the Chairperson by next week.
51
52
1 PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 21 , 1992
PAGE 19
4
5
6 9. ADJOURNMENT
7
8 Motion by Madden, second by Gondorchin to adjourn the Planning
9 Commission meeting at 10 : 55 p.m.
10
it Motion carried unanimously
12
13
14
15
16 Respectfully submitted,
17
18
19 Jo-Anne Student , Planning Commission Secretary
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0
29
30
31 -
32
33
34
35
36
37
38 _.
39
40
41
42
43
_ 44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
#4