Loading...
03-1128Council File # � �`Z.0 Green Sheet # 3008815 RESOLUTION OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Presented Referred To Committee Date �3 WHEREAS, the Legislative Hearing Officer recommends that license application (ID # 20030001125) for Liquor On Sale, Liquor On Sale-Sunday, Liquor-Outdoor Service Area (Patio), and Restaurant (B) Licenses by Paul R. Bredemus, dba La Grolla, 452 Selby Avenue, be referred to an Administrative Law Judge; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby refers this license application to an Administrarive Law Judge. Yeas Na s Absent Benanav ✓ Blakey � Bostrom � Coleman ,�- Hams ✓ Lanhy �/ Reiter J � � � Adopted by Council: Date ��L ��3 � U� r Adoption Certified by Council Secretary � Approved � Requested by Department of: � Form Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council � � �3��1 � � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � Departmentlofficelcouncil: Date tnitiated: CO — Council , 05-DEG03 Green Sheet NO: 3008815 Contad Person & Phone: Deoartment Sent To Person Initial/Date I Marcia Mcermond 0 ouncii 266-8560 qu�gn 1 ouncil Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number y � Clerk For I Routing 3 � Order 4 5 Total # of Signature Pages _(Clip All Lowtions for Signature) Action Requested: Referring the Liquor On Sale, Liquor On Sale-Sunday, Liquor-Outdoor Service Area (Pario), and Restaurant (B) Licenses by Paul R. Sredemus, dba La Grolla, 452 Selby Avenue, to an Adminish'arive I,aw Judge. Recommendations: Apprwe (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contreets Must Answer the Following Questions: Planning Commission - 1. Has this persoNBrm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIS Committee � Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? � Yes No 3. Does this per5onffirm possess a skill not normalry possessed by any i curtent city employee? Yes No � Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why): AdvanWgeslfApproved: � DisadvanWges If Approved: . DisadvanWS�es If NotApproved: I Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: Transaction: Fundinp Source: Activity Number: Fi nancial InformatioA: - (Explain) p31�2� MINUTE5 OF THE LEGISLATIVE HEARII3G LA GROLLA - 452 SELBY AVENLJE Monday, June 2, 2003 Room 330 Courthouse Mazcia Moermond, L,egislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 3:02 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Hawkins, License, Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP) Mazcia Moermond stated this is an informal legislative hearing. At this hearing, she will be making a recommendation for the City Council to consider. There are tluee potential outcomes in terms of a recommendation: 1) grant the license application, 2) grant the license application with conditions attached, which have been agreed to by the owner, or 3) refer this matter to an Administrarive Law Judge if some accommodation cannot be reached. An Administrative Law Judge hearing is quite an involved process and can add three months to the granting of the license. Ms. Moermond will ask for a staff report first, then she will hear from the applicant, and finally she will hear from people who have objections or concerns. Ms. Moermond will also make sure the concerns in the letters she has received on this matter will be dealt with. Then, she will come up with a compromise, if necessary, after everyone has been heard from. 7eff Hawkins, Zoning Specialist in LIEP, explained that this is a license application for Zolbe, Inc., doing business as La Grolla, located at 452 Selby Avenue, owner is Paul R. Bredemus. The application is for Liquor on Sale, Liquor on Sale-Sunday, Liquor-Outdoor Service Area (Patio), and Restaurant (B) Licenses. One condition lhat needs to be on the license for the patio is as foliows: patio must be closed at 10:00 pm. on weekday and midnighf on weekends. Also, a letter was sent dated May 20 that also conditions the license on zoning approval, an updated floor plan and site plan for the property showing both floors and tenant spaces, and access to the parking lot. Whether that is an easement or another access, there needs to be proof that the license holder can provide parking for this appiication. Ms. Moermond stated this location used to be Tulips, which had some of these licenses. Mr. Hawkins responded they had beer and wine. Ms. Moermond asked if Tulips used the patio space. Mr. Hawkins responded there were conditions on the Tulips License that they could use the patio. Ms. Moermond asked was the parking sufficient for Tulips. Mr. Hawkins responded the documents on file showed 1,700 square feet, but Mr. Hawkins believes there are actually about 2,500 square feet they are measuring for the pazking requirement. The old calculation was using 1,700 square feet, which gave them 14 parking spaces, plas the upstairs which gave them 5 pazking spaces, for a total of 19 parking spaces. That was determined in 1994. A difference in the change of use, which would be the liquor, would bring the downstairs to 17 required parking p3-ttZ`� LEGISLATTVE HEARINCs MINiJT'ES FOR LA GROLLA, 452 Selby Avenue Page 2 spaces plus the upstairs which gaue them 5 pazking spaces, for a total of 22 spaces. That is what shows up on the current site plan. It is a land-locked properiy. Easements have never been required. When the FIRA (Housing and Redevelopment Authority) sold it, the recommendation was that easements be acquired itom the person who bought the parking lot. Ms. Moermond asked is there a map of the site. {Mr. Hawkins showed a plan and explained it.) Paul R. Bredemus, owner, appeazed and stated there were strong beer and wine licenses when it was Tulips. When he took over ownership and changed it to La Grolla, he applied for an alcohol license. The Suulmit Area Council voted in favor of it. It seemed like they were going to get it until they found out about parking issues: the nuxnber of spaces per square feet and the landlock issue. He is not certain which issue is holding back the license. He asked was the 2,500 square feet including up and down. Ae does not have 2,500 feet of working space in the restaurant. Mr. Hawkins responded they measure outside brick to outside brick. Mr. Bredemus stated there is a huge area that is a stairwell going up. Mr. Aawkins responded if he saw that on a floor p1an, he might be able to el'uninate that. On the original floor plan, it just showed seating area and not the kitchen area. Ms. Moermond asked does he have floor plans. Mr. Bredemus responded he has rough ones. (Mr. Bredemus showed Mr. Hawkins his plan and explained it.) Mr. Hawkins stated the storage areas and everything else are included now. At one time, they took out the bathrooms, closet, etc. But as businesses evolve, they utilize that space and expand it, so now the gross floor azea is used. Mr. Bredemus responded that he came up with 2,364 or 2,264 by subtracting certain areas. Mr. Hawkins stated one of the problems is if there is not access to the parking lot through the adjacent property parking lot and there has to be alley access, that will eliminate a lot of parking. The owner will have to get a variance for the required parking they are going to lose; also they will haue to go through full site plan review. Ms. Moermond stated there is a parking issue and staff wants an updated site plan. There is a question of access to the pazking and whether there is appropriate easement and alley access. Ms. Moermond also indicated there was a letter about signage for available parking so that people Irnow where to pazk. She would deal with that whenever the parking issue was settled. The Suuunit-University Planning Council voted in support of the application with lnnited conditions on the license, which the owner agreed to, which is stopping the outdoor service at p3-1�12g LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR LA GROLLA, 452 Selby Avenue Page 3 10:00 on weekdays and midnights on weekends. Mr. Bredemus responded they have been stopping the outdoor service at 10:00 on weekends because of the weather. Ms. Moermond stated one neighbor menfioned music and flashing lights. Mr. Bredemus responded there are no speakers outside, nor flashing lights. They were tallting about mood music outside with individual speakers. If it is too loud, he will turn it down or not do it. He will work with the neighbors. If there is a light flashing, he will fix it. Ms. Moermond stated people are concerned about a bar atmosphere developing with inappropriate behavior outdoors. Mr. Bredemus responded it is 99% a restaurant. Everyone is coming there to eat and maybe haue a cocktail with their mea1. They do not have parties hanging azound. They close at 11:00. It is strictly for food. There is a bar azea inside the restaurant that was built so that people can sit and see how the food is prepazed. It looks into the kitchen. Mr. Hawkins stated the license is expired for Tulips. That would have to be renewed. He has a State renewal form for the wine and an invoice for $266, which is currently owed. He has the insurance statement. Michael C. Fleming, Attorney at Law, 4524 Highway 61, White Beaz Lake, representing Bellaire Properties, appeared and stated Bellaire Properties owns property east of and adjacent to 452 Selby Avenue. His basic objection is access to the property. They haue concerns about the applicant having the conect nusnber of parking spaces. That will depend on the floor plan. The floor plan is more than 1,700 squaze feet and the owner may require more than the 22 pazking spots. Mr. Fleming's basic objection is the property occupied by the applicant, located at 452 Selby, does not haue the legal right of access to the pazking lot located on that property. This access to the pazking lot has been a source of contention over a number of years. At this point of time when the license is being requested, this would allow for increased intensity in the use of that property. (Mr. Fleming put a plan on the easel and explained the plan,) Ms. Fleming stated the lot occupied by the applicant is owned by Saint Paul Development Corporation. Bellaire owns the properiy to the east, including the parking lot known as Blair Arcade. The property adjacent to 452 Selby is owned by the Saint Paul Curling Club. In terms of the basic use of this property, over the yeazs in order to access the parking spots behind 452 Selby, people had to come in over properry owned by Bellaire Properties, referred to as lots 1 and 2. That provides access to the parking lot at 452 Selby. Over the yeazs, Bellaire has leased some properties to the west of 452 Selby to Saint Paul Curling Club. There is no easement on record for either party. Marcia Moermond asked did the HRA (Housing and Redevelopment Authority) own the Curling Club. Mr. Hawkins responded no, the HRA developed the parking lot and sold it to Bellaire in the 1990's. t�� ��Z� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES FOR LA GROLLA, 452 Selby Avenue Page 4 Mr. Fleming stated the ownership issue is that Bellaire acquired the lots to 452 Selby in 1992 from the HRA. Lot 2 was owned by the City since 197Q by the HRA and Lot 1 since 1982. Gladrud brought them in 1992 and continues to own these properties. The property at 452 Selby was owned by the McQuillan family from 1985 to 2002. At that time, a company called Saint Paul Development purchased that property, and they are leasing that property to the applicant. The reason Bellaire is concerned is because they haue had difficulty with the owners of the adjacent property in recent years. In 1999 or 2000, there was some dispute about access across their properry and across 452 Selby. At that time, the property was owned by McQuillan, and there was discussion about cross easements to benefit Bellaire properties and 452 Selby. For reasons he cannot get into here, those cross easements were never obtained. When the properry changed ownership, McQuillan sold to Saint Paul Development Company. When ownership changed, Bellaire had discussions with a Mr. McCarty of Saint Paul Development and informed Mr. McCarty that Bellaire intends to chazge them to cross over Bellaire's properly. So, they knew there would be difficulties to access the property. There was no discussion about what sort of access they would have onto Bellaire's properry. This is a serious issue because pazking is important to Bellaire's properties, said Mr. Fleming. It also has to be a concern to the owner and tenant of 452 Selby. Bellaire believes if there is no legal access to property, then the business does not have parking. There really is no azgument about adverse possession to obtain a prescriptive easement over this properry because the property was owned since 1992 by the City of Saint Paul. Under the statute 541 A2 of case law, it cannot adversely possess against a public property. There is no easement that exists for 452 Selby, but there should be. Bellaire is willing to work with the owners of that property if they aze willing to work with Bellaire to put together a workable solution. Their position is that this license application should not be approved, but if it is approved, it should be approved with the condition that appropriate access easement be provided. Mr. Fleming stated he has an outline of his findings including deed ind'acating the transfer of property. (Mr. Fleming submitted document to Ms. Moermond.) Paul Kuehn, Vice President of Ted Glasrud Associates, Inc., appeared and stated the Saint Paul Curling Club is not here to represent themselves. Ted Glasrud, Inc. has had a good relationship with the Curling Club. They have a lot of outings that create a lot of parking requirements. Earlier on, the HRA had leased the stalis from the McQuillans. They had developed Lots 3 and 4 far their benefit so they would have parking for the building. Of course, the owner was the Curling Club. When that lease ran up, there were other issues. They went directly to the Curling Club to lease those stalls on their property instead of going through an intermediary, which was the McQuillan Plumbing Company. One of the requirements of the development agreement was that they would draw up cross easement agreements for parking, access, drainage, etc. because the lots are intermingled. They need to work together. When they got it in 1992, Ted Glasrud was unawaze of any cross easement ageement, and that is where they aze today. 03 ��z� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINUTES FOR LA GROLLA, 452 Selby Avenue Page 5 Mr. Hawkins stated he has a letter from November 10,1497, to John McQuillan. The site pian was approved subject to conditions. Condition 1 is to provide easement. It does state they were required, but there was no follow through on it. Mr. Kuehn stated Ted Glasrud, Inc. has plowed all the snow, swept, striped, and did all the maintenance on the lot since 1992 free of charge to the other two property owners to be good neighbors and to put aside the disagreements. They would like to unprove the relationship with their neighbors and get the cross easement document written. They haue tried about two yeazs ago when the McQuillans owned the property. John McQuillan had passed away and his widow, daughter, and son were maintaining the property. They could not get the document accomplished. Ms. Moermond stated another issue in the letter is the consideration of the parking for the patio area, but that has been taken into account. Mr. Flexning responded they understand how that works. Regarding the parking requirements, stated Ms. Moermond, Mr. Fleming's letter indicates he has not seen the final report from LIEP. Mr. Fleming responded there has not been a final deternunation of the requirements based on examination of the correct floor plans. James Njus, Attorney at Law, 1100 Pillsbury Center, 200 South Sixth Street, representing Saint Paul Development Corporation, appeared and stated he is here to address any issues. The parking is partially in their court. It is accurate that the Saint Paul Development Corporation acquired the pazking on October 1, 1992, and Mrs. McQuillan was the owner of the property at the rime when Saint Paul Development acquired it. Ae has shown photocopies of leases. While it is a true statement that they plowed, striped, etc., it was part of the deal that they maintain the parking lot. Lots 3 and 4 were under lease to Ted Glasrud. The McQuillans were under the impression that they had a legal right of access to their lot coming off Selby Avenue. There is going to be a different set of facts. There is no question that there is no similaz right to Bellaire because their use was pursuant to lease and permissive. Mr. Njus' understanding was that the McQuillans refused to sign a lease. Until someone would take appropriate action to halt someone from accessing it, that properly was accessed in that fashion for more than 15 years. There is an alley in the back. The Code does provide for access off an aliey if there are extenuating circumstances. (Mr. Njus showed where the alley is located.) All that would be required is a half day's work to do a curb cut and have access off the alley, stated Mr. Njus. Saint Paul Development had Peter Carlson do some quick drawings. With bike spaces, there is credit for 22 parking spaces with stacked parking and without stacked parking, it would drop down. They would be willing to do that with a cut off the alley, and that could be a condition on the license. Mr. Njus does not believe parking access is an issue. There may be underlying issues between the rivo businesses which can be sorted out, but it does not need to o3-��z� LEGISLATIVE HEARING MINiJTES FOR LA GROLLA, 452 Selby Avenue Page 6 fault La Grolla. Mr. Hawkins stated that stacked pazking would not be atlowed. This would have to go through full site plan review. Tom Beach (LIEP) is the site plan reviewer. To use alley access for over eight spaces, the neighborhood would have to be norified. There will be less than 22 spaces, so they will require a variance from the pazking requirement. It would be the same if Saint Paul Curling Club wanted access through the alley: they would have to go through site plan review and go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Njus responded there is access and they have a right to access their pazking lots. In 1987, stated Mr. Aawkins, the parking lot did go through full site plan review. The document does state that they had to provide documentation of access easement at that point. Mr. Njus responded he hates to see La Grolla dragged into this process. The intent would be access to 452 Selby through that parking lot. For whatever reason, the City did not get the easement signed off. Mr. Hawkins responded that would have been the private properiy owner's responsibility. Robert Gausman, 451 Selby Avenue, appeazed and stated he lives directly across from this property since 1980. There was a heated discussion in the City Council Chambers about when this property was built. The City put millions of dollars into the Bellaire Arcade convinced that this would be a big development for Selby Avenue. After that, they put in the parking lot. Mr. Gausman stated he never believed the grandiose claims. It failed and the City lost millions of dollars on it. He was on the Selby Avenue Task Force when Selby Avenue was the Number 1 issue of the Planning Council. He has some concerns: 1) Noise - Tulips would increase the voluxne in their mood music, and Mr. Gausman would have it in his living room. 2) It is a densely populated community. The City street was taken away for this project. The whole concept was that the lot would be screened. 3) There was a vaziance on green space. In the last couple of yeazs, every time they trim [he hedges, it gets trimmed lower and lower. It has become an eyesore. It is detrimental to the cohesiveness of the community and goes against the promises that were made. 4) They were told at the City Council meeting that the owner could not deny access because they took a City street. The Fire Department stopped the process when they first tried to develop it because they had to allow fire hucks to go through. Then, they came up with knock down barriers on the back of the lot. The development went through. Since then, they put up a permanent sign and piled snow 20 feet high there. He is concerned about screening. It is time to visit the original promises that were made. Ms. Moermond asked are sites ever revisited to determine if they aze still in compliance with the approved site plans. Mr. Hawkins responded they can revisit on a complaint basis. For a parking area, it would be 4'/z feet for screening. Ms. Moermond stated it does not seem they can get to the issue about screening with the license issue in front of her now; however, the letter talks about the screening concerns. 5he asked would he like the letter to be considered a request for service that a site plan recheck be done. Mr. Gausman responded yes because the screening was critical to the concept. p3-��� LEGISLATIVE HEAR.ING MIlVUTES FOR LA GROLLA, 452 Selby Avenue Page 7 Mr. Gausman stated there is nothing about the restauraut that he objects to. They may want to revisit the fence issue and get something that is historic because this is the biggest historic community in the country. If the business reached out to the community and vice versa, a lot of business would come from the commuxuty. Hal Janney, 177 Aiundel Street, appeared and stazed he lives across the street. He welcomes the restaurant to the neighborhood. He has been there twice and tivnks its great. He supports the liquor license in general. His main issue is pazking. He also would like signage linked to that. He is also concerned about it tuiuing into a baz scene. Mr. Hawkins responded 50% of the receipts must be for food. With the Sunday liquor, it has to be served with food. In addition, liquor licenses cannot be transferred. The beer and wine is still in Tulips name. La Grolla has applied for a license, but it has not been approved yet. Jeff C:ardner, 428 Dayton Avenue, appeazed and stated he lives half a block away. He was not aware of the parking issue. He has lived on Dayton for seven yeazs. The pazking lot behind the McQuillan property is rarely used. He sees many of his neighbors in the restaurants. La Grolla adds to the community and he would like to see it there with the licenses. (No one else wished to be heazd.) Ms. Moermond stated one of the things mentioned in the beginning of this heazing was that there was no zoning sign off. She asked what Mr. Hawkins is looking for. Mr. Hawkins responded he is looking for an updated floor plan and site plan. He will then do his calculations for the parking. If there is not going to be any cross easements, they will have to develop the parking. The license was contingent on them developing the pazking, and he will have to deny the license if they do not develop it. Ms. Moermond stated she was told these matters have to be done in a reasonable amount of time. She hates to make a recommendation con6ngent on staff sign-of£ that has not occurred. She would like parties to come to a conclusion or go to the Planning Commission to seek a variance, have a revised site plan, etc. to move it forward. She cannot be happy with this issue if staff is not. This can be resolved at the Legislative Hearing level without sending it to an Administrative Law Judge. Ms. Moermond would like to lay it over if there is any possibility that the parties can meet and come to an arrangement about the pazking. It is not in anyone's interest to send this to an Administraflve Law Judge because it is expensive, time consuming, and not a definite win far either party. She asked if people wanted to go before an Administrative Law Judge or solve this issue on their own. Mr. Bredemus responded he is caught in the middle of this. He is trying to start a restaurant. Mr. Fleming responded Ms. Moermond has heard his presentation. Mr. Njus responded this will haue to get resolved. He would like the La Grolla license to proceed. The parking spaces are clearly there. Ms. Moermond responded they are not cleazly there. Mr. Njus responded there can be access through the alley. p3-��Z� LEGISLATTVE HEARING NIINiJT'ES FOR LA GROLLA, 452 Selby Avenue Page 8 Mr. Kuehn stated the Curling Club would also need to be involved. Ms. Moermond asked can she rely on the people at the hearing to send timely invitations to the Curling Club. They and their counsel should be involved in ttus. She also asked could this be settled in two weeks or four weeks. Mr. Fleming responded if they could enter into discussions about cross easements, that process could take a few weeks. They would like to see that happen. Mr. Hawkins stated he could send out a letter accommodating 30 days to resolve the problem or he could start the process for adverse action. Ms. Moermond stated she will lay this over to Monday, July 7, 3:00 p.m. If it cannot be resolved at that point, it looks like the Admnustrative Law Judge is the only option. The hearing was adjourned at 4:06 p.m. r�x� 03� Yt'L� NIII�TLJTES OF THE CONTINUATION LEGISLATIVE HEARING LA GROLLA - 452 SELBY AVENi.JE Monday, July 7, 2003 Room 330 Courthouse Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 3:02 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Tom Beach, Office of License Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP); Kristine Schweinlex, LIBP OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Bredemus, applicant, 815 Westview Circle, Mendota Heights; Michael C. Fleming, attorney for Saint Paul Development Company, 4524 Highway 61, White Bear Lake. Marcia lvloermond stated this is a continuation hearing for La Grolla Restaurant at 452 Selby Avenue. They are applying for Liquor On Sale, Liquor On Sale-Sunday, Liquor-Outdoor Service Area (Patio), and Restaurant Licenses. The purpose of this hearing is to come up with a recommendation on the license applicafion to the City Council. This hearing is being held because people have objected to the application. At the previous hearing for La Grolla, there was testimony from neighbars which covered a lot of concerns. Everything got straightened out to everyone's laking, except for the parking issue. Ms. Moermond asked is that consistent with 1V�. Bredemus' recollection. Mr. Bredemus responded that is consistent. Ms. Moermond continued and said that this was laid over for a month to allow the owner of 452 Selby and the owner of the adjacent property to come to an arrangement about easements and access to the pazking lot. She received letters from attorneys on both sides. Conversations took place with the Curling Club, but not the Saint Paul Development Company. She asked is that correct. Mr. Fleming responded yes. His client, Bellaire Properties, has talked to the Curling Club who are aware of the situation and indicated an openness to working out a cross easement for all three pazcels. The only contact Mr. Fleming has had with Saint Paul Development was a letter from James Njus (their attorney) indicating that they are not interested in cross easements and were going to pursue another access. Ms. Moermond sta#ed she woutd like to first hear from stafF on the status of the parking sihxation, then heaz from the applicant, then hear from anyone who would like to provide testimony, and finally Ms. Moermond will make a recommendation. Ms. Moermond would like to first heaz from Tom Beach about the parking shorifali and his office recommendations. Tom Beach reported that his understanding is that in order to go from a beer and wine license to a full liquor license, La Grolla would need four additional parking places, although Kristine Schweinler is not yet here to verify that. He is not sure where the applicant is going to provide those four spaces. The zoning code says that he can find another parking lot within 350 feet that has extra spaces and arrange a lease. In the meantime, 5aint Paul Development Company came in with an alYernative site plan, which proposed to cordon off their lot and the adjacent lot and 03 ��z� CONTINUATION LEGISLATIVE HEAIZING FOR LA GROLLA, July 7, 2003 Page 2 have cars come in from the alley. That plan was submitted about a month ago. In arder to provide alley access, Mr. Beach would have to notify the neighbors. He has not denied the site plan yet, although he is leaning in that direction. The lot they were proposing wouid have 18 or 19 spaces, which would maintain the status quo, but would not give them the spaces they need to go from beer and wine licenses to a fixil liquor license. (Kristine Schweinler arrived.) Ms. Moermond asked for fiirther information from Ms. Schweinler. Ms. Schweinler responded that LIEP's recommendation is approval. It was their understanding that there were not going to be any parking differences between liquor, wine, and beer. It is still a restaurant and has always been a restaurant so there was no need for additional parking spaces. Ms. Moermond stated it seems to her there were a certain number of parking spaces. She requested to see minutes from the last meeting. (Ms. Moermond looked at the minutes from June 2.) According to the minutes, stated Ms. Moermond, they were looking at the total of 22 spaces, which was based on the number of square feet in the building and what the uses were. Mr. Bredemus responded that sounds correct. Ms. Moermond went on to say that the problem that Mr. Hawkins (LIEP) brought up was alley access which would remove four spaces from the usage and bring the spaces below the required number. Ms. Schweinler stated there is a problem when there are two zoning inspectors working on an issue. Her understanding is that Chapter 409 covers both wine and liquar. Liquor and strong beer aze covered under the liquor ordinances; therefore, it was LIEP's recommendation to approve it because it was an exisring use. The problem started when the parking debate came up. Changing that formation would cause them to lose some parking spaces. It is his understanding from the zoning code, stated Mr. Beach, going from beer and wine to liquor, there is a requirement of additional parking; however, there is another provision in the code that says if there is an addition of parking that is five or fewer spaces, LIEP won't "nickel and dime" the situation and bother with small increases in pazking as a result of changing the use. According to the minutes, stated Ms. Moermond, she asked was the parking sufficient for Tulips Restaurant, and Mr. Hawkins responded that the documents on file show 1,700 square feet, but Mr. Hawkins believes there is actually 2,500 square feet. The old calculation used 1,700 square feet which gave them 14 parking plus the upstairs which gave them 5 parking spaces, for a total of 19. This was determined in 1994. The difference in the change of use, which would be the liquor, would bring the downstairs to 17 spaces plus the upstairs would give them 5 for a total of 22, which showed up on the current site plan. It is a land-locked parking lot. Easements had not been required in the past. b3 CONTINLJATION LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR LA GROLLA, July 7, 2003 Page 3 Mr. Fleming stated that his position is that there is no access plus the number of spots. Mr. Hawkins said that he needed more information, but Mr. Fleming never got a final decision from him. Mr. Bredemus stated the first issue was the easements and access to the pazking. If there was access to the parking, then they were going to get the exact square footage. Exterior calculations gives them 2,500 squaze feet, and interior calculations gives them about 1,930. Mr. Hawkins has to really look at it to determine the exact square footage. Ms. Moermond stated it seemed to her the position of Mr. Njus was that it didn't matter because they could access the parking through the alley, but that has not been done and would require a variance. Mr. Njus indicates in the June 301etter that he has applied for a parking variance. Ms Moermond asked has an appiication been received. Not that he is aware of, responded Mr. Beach. It can be done one of two ways: 1) Mr. Beach has the authority to approve alley access as part of the site plan xeview, 2) the owner could apply far a variance after neighbors are notified. (Ms. Moermond gave Mr. Beach a copy of the letter.) Ms. Moermond stated the letter says they have "filed the appropriate applicaiion with the City to gain access to the parking area in the rear of its building off the alley." Also, they expect the situation to be cleared up by Labor Day. At the Legislative Hearing, the neighbors were concerned about ailey access and that there would be too much traffic in their residential alley for commercial purposes. Ms. Moermond asked is there a record of an application. Mr. Beach responded he thinks that Mr. Njus is referring to his application for site plan review. Mr. Beach does have the authority to approve alley access if he notifies neighbars. The application for the site plan review was submitted on June 6. He is mulling it over, but he is not inclined to recommend approval. Mr. Njus is being optimistic when he says access will be in place by Labor Day. Staff is not going to recommend the altemative site plan that has been submitted, so they are back to the status quo, which seems to work okay if access easements can be arranged. When the site plan was approved for the development on Western and Selby, there was a condition that the applicant provide documentation to the City that an access easement had been obtained. The owner then, John McQuillan, apparenYly did not follow through on that. Mr. Fleming stated they began drafting a cross easement after the last hearing, but they had no one to submit it to as Saint Paul Development never responded. Ms. Moermond asked did anyone want to offer testimony. (No one responded.) Ms. Moermond stated everyone seems to like the application, but there is this parking issue. She can recommend approval pending the parking issue being addressed. Or, she can lay this over c� o3-�iz� CONTINUATION LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR LA GROLLA, July 7, 2003 Page 4 and not recommend anything. This parking issue is not something the City can force a settlement on. Mr. Schweinler added that the applicant can get parking in other ways. They could rent parking from other businesses. Ms. Moermond stated a six or eight week layover would be okay. If tYris parking is solved eazlier, they can schedule a hearing earlier. Mr. Fleming stated that contingency does require the appropriate number of parking spots and access to those spots. Ms. Schweinler responded the owner can get access to other people's parking during off hours. It does not haue to be adjacent to the building. Mr. Fleming stated they are willing to grant that access, but they need to talk to someone. Ms. Moermond stated the applicant is an interested party and can file an appeal as well. Ms. Moermond asked when the license expires that the applicant is operating under. Ms. Schweinler responded they will continue to prorate it until after September. Mr. Bremedus responded they expire in about a month. Ms. Moermond laid over to September 15, 2003, 3:00 p.m. (Note: at this hearing, Ms. Moermond laid this matter over to September 8, but Mr. Bredemus called later and requested to be heard on another day.) The hearing was adjourned at 3:22 p.m. rrn b31\Z� NIINT JTES OF THE TfiIRD LEGISLATIVE HEARING LA GROLLA - 452 SELBX AVENLJE Monday, October 6, 2003 Room 330 Courthouse Mazcia Moerxnond, Legislative Hearing Officer The hearing was called to order at 3:07 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Hawkins, Office of License Inspections, Environmental Protection (LIEP); Racquel Naylor, City Council Offices Ms. Moermond stated there were two previous legislative hearings on 3une 2 and 3uly 7. On June 2, she heard from ali the neighbors, the attorney for Saint Paul Development Corporation, and an attorney for the adjacent Biair Arcade, owned by Bellaire Properties. The nei�bors' concerns about La Crrolla were addressed. The outstanding issues were pazking and screening of garbage. The screening of garbage did not show up in any of the letters objecting to the issuance of the license, but it does show up in site plan reviews from 1987 and subsequendy. Mr. Hawkins responded it was the screening of the parking lot in general. The parking lot was suppose to get situated first. Then, they could go out and look at who would be responsible for any screening taken down or not maintained. Ms. Moermond stated she was looking at specifically the gazbage concerns. The site plan, which is a component of the license, means that the applicant needs a zoning sign-off. Zoning won't sign off unless there is pazking appropriate to the use and accessible to the property. Without the adjoining property owner's permission through the form of an easement, there is no access to that parking. The site plan that proposed altemative access to the parking that would use the a11ey behind the building, was denied by City staff for a variety of reasons. The staff decision was appealed to the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, and later the Planning Commission in whole denied the appeal of staff's decision. Ms. Moermond heard from Mr. Hawkins that the owners are intending to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. Mr. Hawkins responded that is correct and they haue until October 16 to do so. Saint Paul Legislative Code Chapter 64, Section 206 says the City Council will conduct a hearing within 30 days after receipt of the appeal. The following appeared: Paul Bredemus, applicant; Thomas P. Harlan, Attorney at Law, Dunkley, Bennett, Christensen & Madigan, Suite 700, 701 Fourth Avenue South, Minneapolis, representing Mr. Bredemus; Michael C. Fleming, Attorney at Law, 4524 Highway 61, White Bear Lake, representing Bellaire Properties. Ms. Moermond asked has anything changed since the last legislative hearing. Thomas P. Harlan responded no. The parties are still talking. It is uncertain if they will come to a resolution. They started to explare different alternatives. They are hying to make this work for all the parties. There are still avenues open for discussion. a3-uz� MINi7TES - TfIIRD LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR LA GROLLA - 10-6-03 Page 2 Michael C. Fleming stated nothing has changed. The applicant has Mr. Hazlan working with him now. As Mr. Fletning has indicated in the past, Bellaire Properties is open to talking to La Crrolla and their Counsel to see if there is a reasonable solution to the parking problem. Also, there is another pariy involved that is a little more difficult to communicate with. Bellaire Properties is open to exploring creative solurions, if there are some. It sounds like this matter will not be fuily resolved with respect to access untii after the City Council hearing. Given the number of reasons that the Planning Commission gave for denial of the site plan, Ms. Moermond stated, it would be unusual for the City Council to overturn the denial of the appeal. Mr. Hazlan stated La Grolla is not appealing this; it is the landowner. Unfortunately, stated Ms. Moermond, the applicant has to have these pazking spaces as the leasee of the space of the restaurant, even though these parking spaces are not under his control. Ms. Moermond is thinking about recommending to the City Councii that this matter should be sent to an Administrative Law Judge. If this can get resolved by the time it goes through the City Council, she will recommend that her resolution comes forward at the same meeting on November 5, so the City Council will make both decisions at the same time regarding the Planning Commission � and the Legislative Hearing matter. So, the Council can have one discussion. Mr. Harlan asked if an alternative would be to lay this over one more time, so the City Council can listen to the site pian to allow the parties to have an opporhuiity to wark this through. La Grolia finds itself ]n a difficult position. It has a landlard that is viewing its rights relative to access to the properiy and how the world should wark one way, it has a neighbor that is looking at it another way, and La Grolla is caught in the middle. They are exploring all the alternatives. They have explored alternatives relative to the site plan and hoping the landiord and Bellaire Properties can work their differences out. That has not been the case. Now, they aze exploring discussions with Bellaire directly to somehow find the pazking spaces necessary. Ms. Moermond stated she does not have any reason to believe that the City Council meeting will be the end of Saint Paul Development Corporation's appeal. Mr. Hazlan responded La Grolla can draw an artificial line in the sand to say roll it over one more time. If they cannot take care of it at the City Council level, then they will move Yorward with the ALJ. At that point, they will have other discussions about what will happen. If the City Council does not overlurn the Planning Commission decision, then this licensing matter should go forwazd to an ALJ. Mr. Hawkins stated that if the City Council hears the Planning Commission's decision and they do not overturn it, then it would go to an ALJ anyway. Ms. Moermond responded she would not want the license to precede the zoning appeal. The fact that his business is hanging in the balance might force resolu6on. This property has been used for several businesses. Fundamentally, it affects the usefulness and value of the property that Saint Paul Development is warking with. If there is no pazking, stated Mr. Hawkins, there cannot be a restaurant. The parking has been taken away in essence. The 22 spots that were there in 1987 are not there now because there is 03 �1�,$ NIINIJTES - TFIIRD LEGISLATTVE HEARING FOR LA GROLLA - 10-6-03 Page 3 no access tk�rough the azcade nor tt�rough the alley. Technically, the restaurant should not be operating. Mr. Hawkins understands what Mr. Bredemus is going through, which is why he has tried to work hard with the two parties concerned. The more involved you get with all the administrative responses, the longer it goes on and on. All of a sudden, there will be barriers up there tomonow and there is no pazlang in back of 452 Selby. Without the parking, he cannot sign off on the license and the City cannot continue extending the new license application. There has to be a point where it goes forwazd to an ALJ to make that determination. Ms. Moermond stated that if she were to make a recommendation to the City Council right now, it would be to send this to an ALJ. There is no alternative. She does not have the sign-offs necessary for her to make any other kind of recommendafion. Again, she has three options in front of her: 1) send this to an ALJ, 2) recommend it be granted, 3) recommend it be granted with conditions that Mr. Bredemus agreed with. Some of these conditions that she would be asking him to sign off on—screening of parking, screening of gazbage cans—are only partially under his control. Ms. Moermond stated Racquel l�Taylor will follow up and schedule another legislative hearing. Also, a letter should be send out to Mr. Njus with minutes from today's hearing. The hearing was adjourned at 3:32 p.m. rrn Note: A fourth legislative heazing has been scheduled for November 24, 2003, 10:00 a.m. �.Gt2Y�0 FF. , e a � � � > a � November 21, 2003 Paul R. Bredemus La Crrolla CITY OF SAINT PAUL OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL 452 Selby Avenue Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: Cancellation of Fourth Legislative Hearing for La Crrolla, 452 Selby Avenue Mr. Bredemus: �3-�`2`d Per your request, I have cancelled the legislative hearing for November 24. This was cancelled because I was told by you and your representative Thomas Hazlan that there is a pazking agreement that is being worked out among the attomeys involved in this case. Given the above, Marcia Moermond is requesting the following by Tuesday, December 2, 4:30 p.m: 1) the signed pazking agreement is in her office; 2) you have signed the condition in the Office of LIEP discussed at the first legislative hearing, which is that the "patio must be'closed at 10:00 pm. on weekdays and midnight on weekends";and 3) you have signed any other conditions you may have discussed with the Office of LIEP and already agreed to. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely, ����;�,��������.�. Racquel Naylor Secretary to Mazcia Moermond, Legislative Hearing Officer 651-266-8573 c: Councilmember Jerry Blakey Speakers at the previous Legislative Hearings LIEP staff Virginia Palmer, City Attorney's O�ce = CITY HALL THIRD FLOOR 15 WEST KELLOGG BOULEVARD '�' AA-ADA-EEO Employer SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102-1615