Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
95-1513
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE /COUNCIL DATE INITIATED N 19925 City Council 12-18-95 GREEN SHEET CONTACT PERSON & PHONE INITIAUDATE INITIAL/DATE — DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL Marie Grimm ASSIGN CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK MUST BE ON COUNCIL AGENDA BY (DATE) NUMBER FOR ROUTING BUDGET DIRECTOR O FIN. & MGT. SERVICES DIR. ORDER n MAYOR (OR ASSISTANT) TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) ACTION REQUESTED: Denial of Appeal by Mark Pacheco to modify conditions of a special condition use permit for the property at 1414 Arcade Street. RECOMMENDATIONS: Approve (A) or Reject (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: PLANNING COMMISSION _ CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION 1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department? CIB COMMITTEE YES NO 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? STAFF YES NO _ DISTRICT COURT 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current city employee? SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? YES NO Explain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, When, Where, Why): Affirm decision of City Council made 12-13-95. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED: DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION $ COST /REVENUE BUDGETED (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER FINANCIAL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIN) NOTE: COMPLETE DIRECTIONS ARE INCLUDED IN THE GREEN SHEET INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL AVAILABLE IN THE PURCHASING OFFICE (PHONE NO. 298 - 4225). ROUTING ORDER: Below are correct routings for the five most frequent types of documents: CONTRACTS (assumes authorized budget exists) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (Amend Budgets /Accept. Grants) 1. Outside Agency • 1. Department Director 2. Department Director 2. City Attorney 3. City Attorney 3. Budget Director 4. Mayor (for contracts over $15,000) 4. Mayor /Assistant 5. Human Rights (for contracts over $50,000) 5. City Council 6. Finance and Management Services Director 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services 7. Finance Accounting ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (Budget Revision) COUNCIL RESOLUTION (all others, and Ordinances) 1. Activity Manager 1. Department Director 2. Department Accountant 2. City Attorney 3. Department Director 3. Mayor Assistant 4. Budget Director 4. City Council 5. City Clerk 6. Chief Accountant, Finance and Management Services ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS (alt others) 1. Department Director 2. City Attorney 3. Finance and Management Services Director 4. City Clerk TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNATURE PAGES Indicate the #of pages on which signatures are required and paperclip or flag each of these pages. ACTION REQUESTED Describe what the project/request seeks to accomplish in either chronologi- cal order or order of importance, whichever is most appropriate for the issue. Do not write complete sentences. Begin each item in your list with a verb. RECOMMENDATIONS Complete If the issue in question has been presented before any body, public or private. SUPPORTS WHICH COUNCIL OBJECTIVE? Indicate which Council objective(s) your project/request supports by listing the key word(s) (HOUSING, RECREATION, NEIGHBORHOODS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, BUDGET, SEWER SEPARATION). (SEE COMPLETE LIST IN INSTRUCTIONAL MANUAL.) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS: This information will be used to determine the city's liability for workers compensation claims, taxes and proper civil service hiring rules. INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY Explain the situation or conditions that created a need for your project or request. ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED Indicate whether this is simply an annual budget procedure required by law/ charter or whether there are specific ways in which the City of Saint Paul and Its citizens will benefit from this project/action. DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED What negative effects or major changes to existing or past processes might this project/request produce if it is passed (e.g., traffic delays, noise, tax Increases or assessments)? To Whom? When? For how long? DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED What will be the negative consequences if the promised action is not approved? Inability to deliver service? Continued high traffic, noise, accident rate? Loss of revenue? FINANCIAL IMPACT Although you must tailor the information you provide here to the issue you are addressing, in general you must answer two questions: How much is it going to cost? Who is going to pay? DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING G S (S 3 & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 40 SAINT PAUL CITY OF SAINT PAUL Division of Planning 41Pht Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Fourth Street Telephone: 612 -266 -6565 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Facsimile: 612- 228 -3314 AAAA maw November 16, 1995 Council %S,rtl Center Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office CE; `i 1 6 1995 Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday December 13, 1995 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision: Appellant: Mark Pacheco - Arcade Auto Sales File Number: 95 -260 Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving a special condition use permit to allow outdoor sales of used automobiles (appealing two of the conditions placed on the permit relating to number of cars for sale and hours of operation). Address: 1414 Arcade Street (east side between Sherwood & Wheelock) Legal Description of Property: Lots 14 thru 17, Block 2; Lane's Phalen Grove Addition Previous Action: Planning Commission Decision: Approval, vote: 13 -0 (one abstention) 11/3/95 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval, vote: 5 -1 (one abstention) 10/26/95 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the November 29, 1995 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266 -6582 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Kady Dadlez City Planner Remember The Saint Paul City Council will conduct a-public hearing on Wednesday, ty 18,1995, at 8:80 p.m. in the City Course l Chambers Third Moro City Hall, Zoning Section 4114m1nsider the appeal of Mark Pacheco (Arcade Auto Sales) to a decision -the it ilihing Commission approving a special condition use permit to alloy of sled automobiles (appealing two of the conditions placed on the pelt cc: File #95 - 260 levee number of cars for sale and the hours or operation) at 14 -14 Arcade Mike Kraemer 1tt lit side between Sherwood & Wheelock). ) M Donna Sanders d- November 17, 1995 NANCY ANDERSON Assistant City Council Secretary (November 22, 1995) cI - \S13 q 7[ D 0 ph 0 @n District Five Planning Council 1014 Payne Ave., Saint Paul, MN 55101 (612) 774 -5234 December 13, 1995 Marie Grimm Councilmember - Ward 6 320 -B City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Councilmember Grimm: We wish to take this opportunity to express our strong opposition to an appeal of the Planning Commission decision of November 3, 1995, granting modifications to a SCUP for Arcade Auto Sales, 1414 Arcade Street. During the time the owner, Mr. Pacheco, has held the SCUP(June '93), he has been in constant violation of numerous conditions • placed on the permit - specifically number of cars for sale and hours of operation. And in the fall of '94 flagrantly ignored the approved site plan by asphalting over an area at the rear of his building to accommodate more space for display of his cars. Contact from LIEP staff ordered him to comply with the conditions of his permit or apply for modifications. His response was to apply for modification of his SCUP and request an increase of cars for display from 28 to 50 and expansion of hours. The neighborhood was outraged, to say the least, and failed to comprehend why Mr. Pacheco should be "rewarded" for continued non - compliance of his present permit by approving any modification to his SCUP. In July, 1995, the Zoning Committee after listening to incriminating testimony by the community citing flagrant negligence on the owner's part in complying with current conditions of the SCUP chose to lay the matter over for three months allowing Mr. Pacheco time to comply with existing conditions of his SCUP. Did he comply during the three months? You bet he did. Why? Because everything was riding on his compliance and granting of the modifications requested. To the surprise of the neighborhood, the Zoning Committee chose to support the modifications and, we believe, based on his total compliance during the time "Big Brother" was monitoring him. However, when the matter came before the Planning Commission, members of the Zoning Committee having had time to reflect on their decision modified their action and unanimously supported a • modification that would allow a max display of 37 cars, some extension of hours and return of the illegally paved area to the lawn space on the original site plan. • Councilmember Marie Grimm December 13, 1995 Page Two The neighborhood reluctantly accepted this business and looked at the conditions placed on the SCUP as a safeguard to their community. This has not happened and instead has burdened them by putting them in the role of "babysitter ". While they are not happy over the recent modification to his SCUP, they are willing to accept it if he is willing to comply with the conditions set- forth. We, therefore, ask that you deny the appeal of Mr. Pacheco and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Thank you, Greg Copeland / President cc: Counoilmembers • • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Q5 1513 sa1NT CITY OF SAINT PAUL Division of Planning PAUL 1401t Norm Coleman. ,Mayor 25 West Fourth Street Telephone. 612 -266 -6565 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Facsimile. 612 -228 -3314 AAAA December 4, 1995 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File #95 -260: Mark Pacheco - Arcade Auto Sales City Council Hearing: December 13, 1995 PURPOSE: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving a special condition use permit to allow outdoor sales of used automobiles (appealing two of the conditions placed on the permit relating to number of cars for sale and hours of operation). PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVAL 13 -0 (one abstention) ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL 5 -1 (one abstention) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL SUPPORT: Eight people spoke in support. OPPOSITION: Two people spoke in opposition. District 5 Planning Council opposed the permit modifications. Dear Ms. Anderson: • Mark Pacheco has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to grant modifications to his existing special condition use permit allowing outdoor sales of used automobiles at 1414 Arcade Street (east side between Arcade & Sherwood). The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held public hearings on the request on July 20 and October 26, 1995. The applicant addressed the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 5 -0 (one abstention) to recommend approval of the permit. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for approval on a vote of 13 -0 (one abstention) on November 3, 1995. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 13, 1995. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincere/ , Ken Ford Planning Administrator KF:kd Attachments cc: City Councilmembers q 5. l 3 ... Zoning .................... ............................... ....................... ............................... ....................... ............................... ....................... ............................... -- o f ce use only "'NI APPLICATION FOR APPEAL 10* Department of Planning and Economic Development MAMA Zoning Section E C 1\ F } i Tentatltte leaei date: 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 NOV 15 1995 266 -6589 APPELLANT Name Mark Pacheco / ttrcade Auto Sales Address 1414 Arcade St. City st . Paul StMn Zip 5510E Daytime phone 771 - 6070 PROPERTY Zoning File Name LOCATION Address /Location 1 414 n r ca d e s t. TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: 12 Board of Zoning Appeals 13 City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the F 1 R!^.n i nc- rnmmiscinn on Nov 3rd , 19 95. File number: 95 - 79 (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement., permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. 1 am acpa3lino ccriciition *2 regarding the blacktop area. This condition was added by the planning commission and was not presented by the zoning committee. This condition is unfair and causes undo hardship. I am also appealing the hour of operation to extended them to 8pm. I was not given an cprn tunit to presar_t my position to the planning commission. Attach additional sheet if = essa ) Applicant's signature � � , - Date/F City agent `` �v DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT S AI UNT CITY OF SAINT PAUL Division of Planning L Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 West Fourth Street Telephone: 6/2- 266 -6565 Saint Paul, MN 55!02 Facsimile: 612- 228 -3314 [AAA* DATE: DECEMBER 4, 1995 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: KADY DADLEZ RE: MARK PACHECO APPEAL Attached for your information and to help you with the chronology of this case are the following items: * Planning Commission resolution approving the permit modifications with conditions * Special condition use permit issued to Mr. Pacheco (current permit issued 11/3/95) * Planning Commission minutes from November 3, 1995 (current application) * Zoning Committee minutes from October 26, 1995 (current permit modification request) * Zoning Committee minutes from July 20, 1995 (current permit modification request) * Planning Commission minutes from June 25, 1993 (original permit application) * Zoning Committee minutes from June 14, 1995 (original permit application) * Complete staff report on the permit modification request g5 -1513 city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number, 95 -79 d ate November . 1 44r‘, WHEREAS, MARK PACHECO, file #95 -133, has applied for a Special Condition Use Permit under the provisions of Sections 60.544(2) and 64.300(d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to modify conditions of a special condition use permit issued in 1993 for outdoor sales of used automobiles, on property located at 1414 ARCADE STREET, legally described as Lots 14 thru 17, Block 2; Lane's Phalen Grove Addition; and • WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 20, 1995 and October 26,1995, at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant received a special condition use permit from the Planning Commission in 1993 to allow outdoor sales of used automobiles; the Planning Commission's resolution limited the number of cars for display to 22 with overflow space for an additional 6 vehicles. That permit included the following six conditions: 1. The applicant receive site plan approval. The site plan shall include and address a plan for snow removal, landscaping, lighting, fencing along the ally, the relationship of the site to the neighborhood traffic circulation, and striping and designation of the parking spaces showing how parking is provided for each of the businesses on the block face. 2 No lighting that adversely affects adjacent residential property is permitted. 3. All of the applicant's frontage along Arcade Street is landscaped similarly to the existing landscaping on Arcade Street. 4. A 6 foot 6 inch wood fence be installed along the eastern border of the site to serve as a visual screen between commercial and residential uses. No barbed wire fencing is permitted. 5. The hours of operation are 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturday 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; the business will be closed on Sundays. moved by Morton seconded by in favor 1 ( 1 abstention-Kramer) against 3 Zoning File #95-133 Page Two of Resolution 6. No flags will be permitted. Currently, the applicant is requesting a modification of the permit to allow: 1) display of up to 50 vehicles for sale; 2) expanded business hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday (Sunday hours would not be allowed until state legislation allows for it; 3) clarification of what the condition " no flags" means in order to allow for some type of display advertising; 4) modify the site plan to allow expansion of the outdoor display area since additional space is available as a result of the removal of a tree damaged by a storm. 2. The applicant states that when he initially applied for the special condition use permit his requirements were based on projections and ideas about how the business would operate ' efficiently and successfully. After operating for two years he has found that some changes are necessary. He added that due to competition and experience he is finding it necessary to offer a larger selection in order to sell the number of vehicles he had projected. He states that he also devised a much more efficient use of the display layout as illustrated on the site plan to allow for the increase in the number of cars on display from 28 to 50. 3. Through enforcement action by LIEP the applicant was told to comply with the conditions of the permit or apply to the Planning Commission for modifications of the special condition use permit. LIEP has received several complaints about the use over the past two years relating to the expansion onto a previously unpaved area, displaying more cars than permitted, and operating beyond the hours approved in the permit. 4. The conditions were originally recommended by staff and placed on the permit to address obvious land use conflicts certain to arise when commercial and residential uses exist side -by- side. The conditions also address the concerns raised by area residents in letters to the Planning Commission and testimony at the Zoning Committee public hearing in 1993. 5. Hours of Operation When the special condition use permit for the used car lot was originally approved in 1993 there was considerable neighborhood opposition. One of the conditions imposed on the permit were hours of operation. in an attempt to control intensity of the use and address neighborhood concerns about increased number of strangers into the area. Within weeks of the permit approval the Mayor and City Council Citizen Service Office (Information & Complaint) received a complaint that the applicant was operating until 10:30 p.m. almost every night. Several months later a similar complaint was made about the applicant operating beyond the hours permitted and on Sunday. When LIEP staff followed -up on the complaint they found a sign in the door showing Saturday hours until 5:00 p.m. Several letters were sent to the applicant ordering him to comply with the permit requirements or apply for modifications to the special condition use permit. To extend the hours of operation beyond 7:00 p.m. Monday - Friday would intensify the use and its impact on surrounding residential property beyond normal business hours However, allowing the applicant to begin operating at 9:00 a.m. Monday- Saturday and remain open on Saturday until 6:00 p.m. is within customary business hours and appropriate for the site. 4 q5I5(3 Zoning File #95 -133 Page Three of Resolution 6. Increase Number of Cars for Display, The applicant is gaining space through several different means: 1) a tree was damaged by a storm and removed leaving space for an additional vehicle; 2) two additional spaces are found between the rows of cars along Arcade Street; 3) six spaces are gained by stacking more cars along the alley; 4) eight spaces are gained in a portion of the lot once occupied by lawn. This lawn space was paved without site plan review approval and building permits. The newly paved area does not provide the required setback from the property line, nor the required fence or landscaping. As with the hours of operation, several complaints were made to the city about alleged violations of the special condition use permit relating to the number of vehicles for display on the lot. The applicant also received several letters from LIEP staff ordering him to comply, with the conditions of the permit or apply for modifications to the permit. While it is reasonable to allow the applicant to have additional cars on the lot for display purposes, the applicant should not be granted approval of the space which was illegally paved and used for the storage of eight additional vehicles. Therefore, approval should be granted only for an increase in the number of "For Sale" cars on the lot from the current 28 to 37. In addition, the applicant should be required to substantially restore the paved area to its condition prior to paving. 7. Clarification of the "No Flags" Condition This is a condition which was imposed by the Planning Commission when the permit was approved. Staff believes that the intent of the commission in imposing the condition was to prevent the use of flags, pennants, or banners for advertising purposes. However, the Planning Commission now believes that this is an unnecessary regulation and that the condition should be eliminated. 8. Site Plan Modification The applicant has made changes to the approved site plan without approval from staff. The most significant change is to the area shown on the approved site plan as "lawn ". This area has been paved and is currently used for the display of eight vehicles Planning Division staff reviewed the proposed site plan with LIEP staff. The applicant should go through formal site plan review for the expansion area and the new configuration of the site. The site plan at a minimum should include a 4 foot setback from the property line with appropriate landscaping and a wood privacy fence of at least 4 1/2 feet in height along Sherwood Avenue; there should also be a 6 foot high wood privacy fence along the eastern boundary of the newly paved area to screen the display vehicles from the residentially zoned property to the east. The 6 foot high wood privacy fence along the alley should be extended from the south end to the west to screen the cars from residential property. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED. by the Saint Paul Planning Commission. that under the authorit\ of the Cit■'s Legislative Code. the application to modif conditions of a special condition use permit issued in 1993 for outdoor sales of used automobiles. at 1414 ARCADE STREET is hereby approved. subject to the following conditions: 5 Zoning File #95 -133 Page Four of Resolution 1. The total number of "For Sale" vehicles on the lot shall not exceed 37 at any time. There shall be 14 off - street parking spaces available for employees and customers at all times. At no time shall the total number of vehicles on the lot exceed 51. 2. The area which was paved without permits and approvals shall be substantially restored to its condition prior to the paving. The asphalt shall be removed and the area shall be planted with grass. This shall be completed by June 1, 1996. 3. A 6 foot high wood privacy fence shall be installed along the southern edge of the display area along the alley, as shown on the site plan as modified by staff and dated July 10, 1995. 4. The permitted hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday- Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday; the business will be closed on Sunday unless Minnesota State Laws change to allow Sunday hours. In addition to the above conditions, the conditions listed below were attached to the special condition use permit when it was approved in 1993. These conditions still apply. 5. The applicant shall receive site plan approval. The site plan shall include and address a plan for snow removal, landscaping, lighting, fencing along the alley, the relationship of the site to the neighborhood traffic circulation, and striping and designation of the parking spaces showing how parking is provided for each of the businesses on the block face. 6. No lighting that adversely affects adjacent residential property shall be permitted. 7. All of the applicant's frontage along Arcade Street shall be landscaped similarly to the existing landscaping on Arcade Street. 8. A 6 foot 6 inch wood fence shall be installed along the eastern border of the site to serve as a visual screen between commercial and residential uses. No barbed wire fencing is permitted' b CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT 1 )5 ZONING FILE #95 -133 APPLICANT: MARK PACHECO (ARCADE AUTO SALES, INC.) PURPOSE: To allow outdoor sales of used automobiles. LOCATION: 1414 Arcade Street (northeast corner of Arcade & Sherwood) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14 thru 17, Block 2; Lane's Phalen Grove Addition ZONING COMMITTEE ACTION: Recommend approval with conditions PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Approval with conditions CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT: 1. The total number of "For Sale" vehicles on the lot shall not exceed 37 at any time. There shall be 14 off - street parking spaces available for employees and customers at all times. At no time shall the total number of vehicles on the lot exceed 51. 2. The area which was paved without permits and approvals shall be substantially restored to its condition prior to the paving. The asphalt shall be removed and the area shall be planted with grass. This shall be completed by June 1, 1996. 3. A 6 foot high wood privacy fence shall be installed along the southern edge of the display area along the alley, as shown on the site plan as modified by staff and dated July 10, 1995. 4. The permitted hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday - Friday and from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday; the business will be closed on Sunday unless Minnesota State Laws change to allow Sunday hours. In addition to the above conditions, the conditions listed below were attached to the special condition use permit when it was approved in 1993. These conditions still apply. 5. The applicant shall receive site plan approval. The site plan shall include and address a plan for snow removal, landscaping, lighting, fencing along the alley, the relationship of the site to the neighborhood traffic circulation, and striping and designation of the parking spaces showing how parking is provided for each of the businesses on the block face. 6. No lighting that adversely affects adjacent residential property shall be permitted. 7. All of the applicant's frontage along Arcade Street shall be landscaped similarly to the existing landscaping on Arcade Street. 8. A 6 foot 6 inch wood fence shall be installed along the eastern border of the site to serve as a visual screen between commercial and residential uses. No barbed wire fencing is permitted. APPROVED BY: David McDonell, Commission Chairperson I, the undersigned staff to the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission for City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with the original record in my office; and find the same to be a true and correct copy of said original and of the whole thereof, as based on minutes of the Saint Paul Planning Commission meeting held on November 3, 1995 and on record in the Saint Paul Planning Office, 25 West Fourth Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota. This permit will expire one year from the date of approval if the use herein permitted is not established. The decision to grant this permit by the Planning Commission is an administrative action subject to appeal to the City Council. Anyone affected by this action may appeal this decision by filing the appropriate application and fee at the Zoning Office, 1100 City Hall Annex, 25 West Fourth Street. Any such appeal must be filed within 15 calendar days of the mailing date noted below. Violation of the conditions of this permit may result in its revocation. M. Sanders Secretary to the Saint Paul Zoning Committee Copies to: Applicant File #95 -133 Zoning Administrator License Inspector - District Council 5 Mailed: November 3, 1995 1 PLANNING COMMISSION OF SAINT PAUL City Hall Conference Center 15 West Kellogg Boulevard Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 3, 1995, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Bader, Faricy, Geisser, Maddox, Morton, Treichel and Wencl and Present: Messrs. Field Jr., Gordon, Kramer, Lee, McDonell, Schwichtenberg and Vaught. Commissioners Mmes. Carter and *Lund- Johnson and Messrs. *Chavez, *Gurney, • Absent: *Mardell and Riehle. *Excused Also Present: Jerry Segal, Assistant City Attorney; Ken Ford, Planning Administrator, Jean Birkholz, Kady Dadlez, Nancy Frick, Allen Lovejoy and Larry Soderholm of the Planning Staff. I. Approval of Minutes of October 6 and 20, 1995 ItiIOTION Commissioner F &�eld'rrx ver approval of the mtrtutes of October 6 and 20 Commissioner Miiddox seconded <tl�e mption which catr ;ed >;matumousIy on a voice vfe II. Chair's Announcements None. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements - The metropolitan council has made public its three alternatixe scenarios for reeional de∎elopment: the planning commission may want to respond. - The letter to the Mayor transmitting the planning commission's recommendation regarding the 60 day requirement for action on zoning issues has been distributed. IV. Zoning #95 -133 Prime Imports - Special condition use permit to modify the conditions of a special condition use permit issued in 1993 for outdoor sales of used automobiles. The applicant requests modifications to allow business hours to be extended to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Frida. and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturda. and Sundae. and to allow 50 displa. vehicles on the lot instead of 28. District 5 Planning Council voted to oppose this special condition use permit. C ommissioner Morton explained that a public hearing for this SCUP ■■as before the zoning committee on Jul■ 2U. 1995 As the applicant had not complied Uith the conditions of a 4 q5I5I3 1993 SCUP, the zoning committee voted to lay the matter over for three months to give the applicant an opportunity to comply with the conditions of his existing SCUP before considering approval for expanded use of the property. In these three months, the applicant did comply with the conditions of the existing SCUP and on a vote of 5 - 1 with one abstention the zoning committee recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The total number of "For Sale" vehicles on the lot shall not exceed 45 at any time. There shall be 14 off - street parking spaces available for employees and customers at all times. At no time shall the total number of vehicles on the lot exceed 59. 2. The applicant shall submit a site plan for review for the expansion/paved area and new configuration of the lot by November 20, 1995; the site plan shall be approved by December 11, 1995. All improvements required by the site plan shall be made by May 15, 1996. Any proposed changes to the site, once the site plan is approved, must be approved by the city before changes can be implemented. The site plan shall include and address a plan for snow removal, landscaping, lighting, fencing along the alley, the relationship of the site to the neighborhood traffic circulation, and striping and designation of the parking spaces showing how parking is provided for each of the businesses on the block face. 3. There shall be three wood privacy fences installed: 1) a fence of at least 4 1/2 feet in height to be installed along Sherwood Avenue; 2) a 6 foot high fence along the eastern boundary of the expansion area; and 3) a 6 foot high fence along the southern edge of the display area along the alley. 4. The hours of operation shall be between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday - Friday and 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Saturday; the business will be closed on Sunday unless Minnesota State Laws change to allow Sunday hours. . 5. No lighting that adversely affects adjacent residential property is permitted. 6. All of the applicant's frontage along Arcade Street is landscaped similarly to the existing landscaping on Arcade Street. - A 6 foot 6 inch wood fence be installed along the eastern border of the site to ser' e as a visual screen between commercial and residential uses. No barbed wire fencing is permitted. MOTION: 'Commissioner moved approval of requested special condition use permit `with the above conditions: Commissioner Maddox explained that the "flags" were plastic banners which have been frowned upon because they cheapen a site, especially in conjunction with car lots; there are no banners on Grand Avenue. She also said she ;is,having difficulty coming to terms with the idea of rewarding someone who has gone against the conditions that had been set. Commissioner Field stated that he had seconded the motion to appro\e at the zoning committee meeting. for the purpose of advancement. In reflection. it disturbs him to reward someone who has ' iolated the previous SCUP. QTfON Cornmissivner F..teld movedtra amend the Moti on nn the;#Tour :SO that Ithe SCUP would ,provide for 37 uehtcles for sale and a to €at of not more than ;51 ost the la: a t one time so as not to reward tie applicant for the space that was created in icilatton of the e r1 acUP Commissioner Kramer noted that he had a conflict of interest on this issue so he would not participate in this item on the agenda. Commissioner Treichel asked if there was enough space on the lot to accommodate 45 cars. Commissioner Morton responded that the applicant tore up some lawn space and paved it over without permit in order to get 8 more spaces. Commissioner Field said he believes there is enough space on the lot. Commissioner Vaught stated that he is troubled by the characterization of "rewarding."' rewarding. In further explanation, he added that there were two trees on this lot that had been damaged by a storm. He removed the trees, and without benefit of the proper permits, he paved it over. He said he would vote for the amendment to reduce the numbers of spaces from 45 to 37 because he thinks it fair. Commissioner Morton contended that removing the trees was a different issue; that he picked up the 8 extra spaces from lawn space that he tore up. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the commission had the authority to condition any increase in space by restoring the green space and replanting trees, there or somewhere else in the neighborhood. Mr. Soderholm answered that the commission had authority to do that on site only. Commissioner Lee commented that he didn't see room for any additional green space. The amendment to the nibtton to'`rediice thei urnber'of sate •to . 37.and no more than 51 total vehicles on the lot at one time carried on a voice vote with one abstention (Kramer). Commissioner Vaught commented on the "flag" rule. making it a condition on each used car lot not to have plastic flags is a silly rule even though he doesn't like them either. He said that plastic flags may be in bad taste, but the point is that the commission doesn't routinel> attach this condition to every used car lot, it seems to have been done selectively, mostly on the East Side. He feels that such a rule is way beyond what the commission has been charged to do. He feels that it's unfair to single out individual places and tell them they can't fly plastic flags /pennants, etc. Commissioner Vaught reminded commissioners that Mr. Pacheco did do what the zoning committee asked him to do three months ago. and that was to clean up his act and compl■ ‘Aith the rules. He said he will support the amended motion Commissioner Schtiichtenberg asked if the applicant Has no'■ in conformance s,ith the 199; SCUP. (0 05-15(3 Ms. Dadlez responded that during the past three months he has conformed with the 1993 SCUP. Commissioner Schwichtenberg asked whether the applicant had removed the illegal improvements. Commissioner Vaught answered that the applicant did not. MOTION:: Commissioner Gordon moved to amend t se motion to require.tbe app scant to ?estore the area that was paved Av er Ctimmisstoner Maddox seconded €he motion. Commissioner Field asked that if the applicant restores the space in its entirety, will the site plan still accommodate 37 vehicles. Ms. Dadlez answered that it would. Commissioner Field asked if the motion maker would consider saying "substantially restore," so that it would still accommodate the number of vehicles in the SCUP. Commissioner Gordon agreed. Chair McDonell restated the amendment to the motion on the floor: to bstantially restore the space that was inappropriately paved over Commissioner Vaught noted that he would vote against the amendment because he does not know what restore means. He added that he might vote for this if he had a clearer definition of restore. Commissioner Gordon replied that to him restore means to put back into its previous condition; if it was a grassy area with trees then it means to re -sod and plant trees. Commissioner Vaught assured commissioners that now he would definitely vote against it. More discussion ensued. • The amendment on the floor to substantially restore the space that was inappropriately paved over carried on a voice vote with one abstention (Kramer). Commissioner Schwichtenberg stated that he will vote against the motion to approve the requested special condition use permit. The amended motion on the floor to..approve the requestedspecial condition use permit with conditions carried on a voice vote wvith one abstention (Krasner). October, 1995 Minor Zoning Amendments MOTION: Commissioner Morton moved approval of the October;1995 Minor Zoning Amendments concerning side yard requirements in residential zones parking requirements for auto repair and auto body shops, Grand Avenue Sign Plan, home occupations in multiple family residential zones, personal service establishments in office service zones, and the river corridor, which carried unanimously on a voice vote. 4 ll MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON OCTOBER 26, 1995 PRESENT: Mmes. Morton and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gurney, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Segal, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Planning Division. ABSENT: Faricy Time: 3:32 - 4:30 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairperson. Arcade Auto Sales, Inc., 1414 Arcade Street; northeast corner of Arcade and Sherwood, #95 -133, Special Condition Use Permit. To modify conditions of a special condition use permit issued in 1993 for outdoor sales of used • automobiles. Applicant requests modifications to allow business hours to be extended to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. M -F and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sat. and Sun and to allow 50 display vehicles on the lot instead of 28. Kady Dadlez, Planning Division staff, briefly reviewed that in 1993 the Planning Commission granted a special condition use permit for the used car lot, and that at this time the applicant was requesting approval of extended business hours and approval of additional cars for sale on the lot. On July 20 the Zoning Committee laid this item over to give the applicant an opportunity to comply with the existing conditions on the permit before it would consider granting him additional use of the property. Ms. Dadlez reported that both she and Tom Beach had inspected the site a couple of times during this period and did not observe any violations and that no complaints were received by the Mayor's Information and Complaint Office during this period. A letter of opposition was received from the District 5 Planning Council, and was distributed at the meeting. Mr. Pacheco disputed a neighbor's testimony that was documented in the July 20, 1995 meeting minutes, that the two trees were removed from the property although the damage to the trees was not directly related to their removal. He said that the trees had been damaged by a storm and blocked the alley and re traffic ffrom. Qe:t_nc :.rough. He referenced a ° - - °- from Zane s Tree Service that documented the emergency tree removal of twc trees as they were blocking the alley. This action precipitated Mr. Pacheco's actions of the removal of the stumps and subsequent decision to asphalt the grassy area. Mr. Pacheco stated that the July 20 meeting was a real wake -up call that he must comply with the conditions of the SCUP. He reviewed the steps he has since taken to assure compliance. He reported that he has leased more than adequate storage space on Frost Avenue and has instructed his employees that there will at no time be more than 28 cars on the lot. He also indicated that if allowed to go forward with the expansion that he will continue with his leased storage space and that it will be more than adequate for his future needs. Mr. Pachecc presented evidence that his business has been successful in sales as well as in its relationship with and the support of other local businesses Reber_ Brown, 1025 Bradley Street, spoke in support. Mr. Brown said that ne has been a very satisfied customer of Arcade Auto Sales. ►L q5 - 1513 Steve Geske, 1848 E. Arlington, spoke in support. Mr. Geske is employed by Arcade Auto Sales as a car detailer and enjoys his job, and said that Mr. Pacheco provided him with a good opportunity for employment when other dealerships did not. Greg Grady, 6048 Lakeland Avenue, Crystal, owner of Premier Motors spoke in support. Mr. Grady said he has sold Mr. Pacheco $500,000 worth of vehicles and spoke of Mr. Pacheco's good business practices and that he is honest and credible. Allen Hart, 6720 W. 134th Street, Apple Valley, spoke in support. Mr. Hart said he has had a very positive experience being employed by Mr. Pacheco for the past two years and has nothing but good things to say about him. Monica Colpac, 841 Grand Avenue, spoke in support. Ms. Colpac, the bookkeeper for Arcade Auto Sales for the past two years, said that she and family and friends have purchased cars from Mr. Pacheco and believes him to be honest and responsive to any problems with the vehicles. Bob Plaster, 1694 Ivy, spoke in support. Mr. Plaster is employed by Arcade Auto Sales and does repair and inspection and stated that if a car needs repair it gets it and that safety is a priority at Arcade Auto Sales. He said that he sees many happy customers, that the business is very well - established and is growing. Joe Pederson, 1861 Raymond, spoke in support. Mr. Pederson, a student at Johnson High School, has worked for Mr. Pacheco since July, and said that this has been a very positive influence on him. Jeremy Hoffman, 1415 York, spoke in support. Mr. Hoffman said he enjoys working for Mr. Pacheco and that he has been a good employer. Sue Vannelli, Community Organizer for the District 5 Planning Council, spoke in opposition. Ms. Vannelli referenced the letter from the District 5 Planning Council that was distributed, requesting that the committee deny any modification to the SCUP. Ms. Vannelli said she believes it is an issue of land use, congestion at the corner of Arcade and Wheelock, and that more than 28 cars will be a major disruption to the immediate area. Ms. Vannelli said that District 5 feels that Arcade Auto Sales has not been in compliance with the SCUP almost from the start, and acknowledged the three months of compliance, however expressed great doubt that the compliance will continue. Ms. Vannelli suggested that Arcade Auto Sales has outgrown their site and perhaps should consider relocating the business. Mr . Pacheco suggested _hat the reques: for a maxinlurr of 45 oars on the :c: will provide growth potential, but that he does not intend to have 45 cars on the lot initially and that he is extremely confident that he can work within those conditions. Mr. Pacheco asked that if there are concerns about future compliance that the committee impose an additional condition that provides the committee some control to overturn the decision in case of non - compliance. Commissioner Gurney established that Mr. Pacheco had a clear understanding of what is meant by staff's recommendation of condition #5, that "No flags, pennants, or banners shall be permitted." Mr. Pacheco pointed out that they have a need like other businesses to attract attention and has wondered why other businesses, especially those located nearby, are allowed to have banners and his business is not. The p:h_: hearing was closed 2 t# Commissioner Kramer indicated that he had a conflict of interest with this matter. Commissioner Field asked whether this case was subject to the 60 day rule, with Ms. Dadlez indicating that it was not. Commissioner Field asked if the zoning committee approved the SCUP, whether the committee could attach some type of bond to it, with violation of the SCUP resulting in a penalty of a significant sum of money. Mr. Segal, Assistant City Attorney, suggested that it would not. He said the zoning code allows conditions that could be placed on a SCUP for the purpose of protecting the adjacent properties and the public peace, health and safety, and that what has been suggested would be more of a fine or a penalty, and it would be doubtful that such a penalty could be imposed. Commissioner Vaught asked whether the special condition use permit could be sunset. Mr. Segal responded that the enabling state legislation would restrict the committee from doing that, and that the law says that the conditional use permit will remain in effect as long as the conditions agreed upon are observed. Commissioner Vaught established that a special condition use permit can be revoked if the conditions of the permit are not observed. Mr. Segal concurred, and said that a special condition use permit can be either suspended, revoked or conditions can be modified for non - compliance. Commissioner Gurney moved approval of the staff recommendation for approval subject to conditions 1 through 5 outlined in the staff report, and to include a modified date by staff for condition number 2. Commissioner Field seconded the motion. Commissioner Vaught expressed concern regarding condition #5, that no flags, pennants, or banners shall be permitted. He suggested this condition to be unduly restrictive and said that clearly all manner of used car lots all over the city are allowed to do what the committee is attempting to prohibit this applicant from doing at this site. Vaught saw nothing unique about that particular site that should require the committee to prohibit flags, pennants, or banners in their entirety. Commissioner Vaught recommended a friendly amendment to strike condition . #5 from the motion. Commissioners Gurney and Field accepted the friendly amendment. Commissioner Field requested that if the SCUP was granted that staff set up some method of monitoring compliance of this business, and acknowledged that it will likely be monitored by the neighborhood as well as the District 5 Council. Chair Morton said that she would vote against the motion. Paving over the lawn was an issue which concerned her and she did not believe he should be allowed to put cars in that location; she believed that 45 cars are too many for the site and was concerned that this property is the entrance to Phalen Park which the City has recently made a substantial investment in its improvement. The motion carried with a role call vote of 5 to 1 (Kramer abstaining). 3 (4 (15-1513 Mr. Segal addressed a housekeeping issue, stating that the language as it relates to establishing hours of operation, so as to avoid the appearance of mandated hours, should be stated that hours are "permitted ". This was to apply to condition number 4. Mr. Segal also addressed the Sunday hours, noting that there is currently a court challenge in the state regarding the Sunday closing law. Mr. Segal suggested that an addition be made to condition #4: "... closed on Sunday, unless the state law should be changed to permit opening on Sunday." 144 Submitte by: Approved by: (ea__ //11� 2Z-1/7- Kady Da lez . Gladys Mo on, Chairperson 4 t5 MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON JULY 20, 1995 PRESENT: Mmes. Faricy and Morton; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gurney, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Segal, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Dadlez and Traeger; and Mr. Ryan of the Planning Division ABSENT: Wencl, excused Time: 6:50 - 7:30 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Ms. Morton. PRIME IMPORTS, 1414 Arcade Street; northeast corner of Arcade and Sherwood, #95 -133, Special Condition Use Permit. Modify conditions of a special condition use permit issued in 1993 for outdoor sales of used automobiles. Applicant requests modifications to allow business hours to be extended to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. M -F and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sat. and to allow 50 display vehicles on the lot instead of 28. Commissioner Kramer reported a conflict of interest indicating that he would not participate in the discussion or the vote. Kady Dadlez, Planning Division staff, reviewed the staff report and presented slides. Staff recommended: 1) approval of the following hours of operation 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday- Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, the business will be closed on Sundays; and 2) approval of up to 45 vehicles on display at any one time, subject to five conditions in the staff report and based on findings 5 and 6. Four letters were received and distributed in opposition of the SCUP. The District 5 Planning Council voted to oppose the SCUP modifications. Mark Pacheco, Arcade Auto Sales, (previously Prime Imports) the applicant, spoke.. Mr. Pacheco said that when he'd originally gotten the approval to go ahead with the business, with the approval of the initial SCUP, that he made projections with no previous experience to base the projections on. He pointed out that inventory and hours of operation are critical issues for his business. Mr. Pacheco briefly clarified why the area behind the building was paved. He said that there were previously 2 trees located there and that d•.._ -nc a sto_.. one t- _e was totally lost and the other damacec. He said the trees pulled the eleotrioal poles off of the ba:f. of building the building and caused a small fire. Subsequently, Mr. Pacheco said he had both trees and stumps removed and he paved the area. The area was graded to allow the water to run- off to remedy the water problem in the basement. With regard to the request for expansion Mr. Pacheco asked to expand the number of cars on space that he already has available and said it is a matter of using the space in a more efficient manner and taking advantage of the area behind the building. Mr. Pacheco said he feels it is extremely important that the hours of operation be increased. He said that the evening hours are currently too restrictive for conducting car sales in the evening. Mr. Pacheco asked that if 9:00 p.m. cannot be granted that the committee consider an extension to 8:00 p.m., especially in :he summertime He further stated that 12:00 noon tc 2:00 p.m. would also be more favorable. He sa:d he didn't believe the extended hours outs that ^.u_: more stress on the neighborhood. He suggested the neighborhood issue is more cf their adversity to the nature of his business. He pointed out that the Holiday Gas Station across the street from Ib % his business has extended hours to 2:00 or 3:00 a.m. and that extending his business hours by one hour should not add too much additional stress to the neighborhood. Mr. Pacheco addressed a complaint noted in the staff report that his business has been open until 10:30 p.m. He said that on two occasions inspectors have been out and have not found them to be doing after hours business. He admitted that business has been conducted between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. as customers come in right before closing. Mr. Pacheco clarified the difference between being open, and lights being on in his office. He said he is quite often in the business at night, with the closed sign posted and the drapes drawn, doing office work. He clarified that his business has not been open until 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. on a regular basis, but more so between 7:00 to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Pacheco pointed out that as he is in the reconditioning business, oftentimes he has a number of cars that need work before they can be presented. Addressing the issue that the number of cars has been over the 28 car limit, he said oftentimes he may only have 18 to 20 cars ready to sell. Mr. Pacheco reviewed his business' accomplishments to date. He reported that he bought a piece of property on Arcade Street that was vacant for three years and turned that into a repair center where car repair is done to get the cars ready for sale. He has created seven new jobs. He summarized that he knows that there is some opposition from the neighborhood, but he believes his business is benefiting the community, and that after two years in business, he needs the proposed changes to continue to be successful. Commissioner Field asked whether Mr. Pacheco was aware of the 28 car limit permitted by the SCUP, and asked him how many cars were currently on his lot. Mr. Pacheco responded that he is aware of the limit and that there are approximately 35 cars currently on his lot, pointing out that 7 to 10 of the 35 cars are in need of repair. He attributed the over the limit problem to be associated with the process in which he purchases cars, explaining that when he purchases cars he purchases them from car dealers who require him to buy a package of cars in numbers that are never consistent. Commissioner Chavez acknowledged that Mr. Pacheco appears to be experiencing some success. However, he questioned why he cannot operate in compliance with the regulations that are in place, and asked whether Mr. Pacheco has an explanation of how he will operate differently if granted changes in his SCUP. Mr. Pacheco assured Commissioner Chavez that he will be happy to operate in conditions attached, if granted the requested „-:antes t., ..__ He pointed out that he has learned a great deal about operating his business since the original SCUP was granted. Commissioner Gurney also shared similar concerns and asked if the number of cars permitted on the lot was changed to 45 whether Mr. Pacheco wouldn't accept a package that would bring him over this limit as well. Mr. Pacheco assured the committee that this will not happen, and said he would be agreeable to a condition stating that if at any time he had over 45 cars on the lot he would lose his SCUP. Commissioner Field also expressed dismay over the fact that the applicant expanded beyond the scope of the SCUP, operating outside of compliance, without coming back and revisiting the SCUP. 2 11 Mr. Pacheco pointed out that initially this business was all new to him but now things are clearer to him where he is at and believes he can conform to the strictest conditions imposed. Commissioner Vaught pointed out that Mr. Pacheco made changes and operated out of compliance, without requesting changes to his permit until LIEP became aware of his situation and forced compliance. Vaught said Mr. Pacheco would have had more credibility with the committee had he come forward when he realized changes were needed and before he made them. Commissioner Vaught asked what is different with the limit of 45 cars and his ability to comply with this number. Mr. Pacheco said that the difference in inventory between 20 -25 cars versus 35 -40 cars for sale on the lot is significant and provides more of an opportunity for sales. He pointed out that the number of cars is relative to what can be sold and that there are also financial limitations. Commissioner Vaught said that if he supports this proposal it will be with the strictest enforcement controls, including perhaps some substantial monitoring of the business. Douglas Callais, 839 Sherwood Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Callais alleged that the storm damage was on the trees referred to by the applicant when he applied for his first SCUP. Mr. Callais said that the first year half the problems he had anticipated with the business had not occurred. However, he now had several complaints. Mr. Callais complained of power washing occurring on the property before business hours, at 6:30 and 7:30 a.m. on Sundays and has seen the business open until 9:00 p.m.; he said that the applicant took approximately one year to remove graffiti from his fence and building; he said that an employee has claimed that the applicant has said that there isn't enough room for his employee to park on his lot and the employee has asked to park in front of his house; he complained of customers driving in the lot, with loud music coming from their cars at 11:00 - 12:00 a.m. because cars are lit up by the security lights; and said that his wife's day care is suffering as a result of being located next to the used car lot. Mr. Callais said that there is not room on the car lot for the 45 cars proposed and that the parking will spill onto Sherwood Street. He said he counted 38 cars on the lot on July 11 and 32 cars on the lot on July 19, in violation of the permit. Mr. Callais asked that the committee deny the request. He further requested that Mr . Pacheco ce re" _red r instal: and use chains across a:_ of the driveways when the business is closed -c prevent customers from entering :he Lot after hours. Sue Vannelli, Community Organizer, District 5 Community Council, said that the District 5 Community Council is in opposition to the modifications to Mr. Pacheco's SCUP and a letter was distributed to that effect. Ms. Vannelli questioned why his requests should be granted when he has not complied from the beginning with the SCUP and conditions that were attached to it. Ms. Vannelli said that the neighbors did not support the business initially, but believed the conditions that were placed on the SCUP would assure compliance, which was not the case. Ms. Vannelli said that Mr. Pacheco should not be rewarded and allowed to modify and expand his SCUP. Mfr. Pacheco said that he would install and use chains across the driveways regardless of the outcome of the meeting. He also said he would be happy to Atrf. with .. -_ ne ighbor regarding his parking concerns. 3 q5 - 1513 Commissioner Vaught said he is not satisfied with the applicant's past behavior and he had questions about the applicant's sincerity regarding future compliance. He proposed that the applicant agree to layover this matter for a 3 month period, until October, with the current SCUP restrictions in place. He further stated that if this proves to be agreeable with the applicant, and if the motion passes by the committee, that enforcement action shall take place during that three -month period to monitor compliance. Commissioner Vaught said he would like to see some behavior on the part of the applicant that he can live with the regulations. If Mr. Pacheco is in compliance that he could look with more favor on the application. He pointed out that the committee cannot require the 3 month layover. Mr. Pacheco said he would accept the proposal if it were acted on. Commissioner Gurney pointed out that he goes by the lot approximately four times per month and will be stopping and counting vehicles. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught, given the consent that was given by the applicant, moved a three month layover, until October 26, 1995, and that the matter be revisited at that time. Commissioner Gurney seconded the motion. Mr. Segal advised that the applicant be requested to submit something in writing to the City before the July 28 Planning Commission Meeting requesting that the Planning Commission continue the hearing on his application until October 26. Commissioner Vaught asked that a condition be added to the motion that the applicant would have to request a continuance until October 26 in writing. Commissioner Gurney agreed to this addendum. Commissioner Field supported the motion. He indicated that had a vote been taken at this meeting he would have voted against because of the conduct of the applicant over the past two years. Chair Morton said she would not support Commissioner Vaught's motion, and that she would have voted against the request for the modification. The motion for a 3 month layover to October 26 carried on a voice vote of 5 to 1 (Morton against, Kramer abstained). Submitted by: Approved by: Kady Deal z Gladys ‘ton, Chairperson 4 v\uk s fro►M - Plod Cam.afv-p(tAn Me " `' 06 Jure 2S, l'63 the permit and she so moved. Some discussion ensued regarding expansion of a principal use versus expansion of an accessory use. MOTION: Mr. Schwichtenberg moved to amend the motion to read, "to approve the permit because of an earlier error." Ms. Morton stated she would oppose that because there need to be findings of fact. MOTION: Mr. Howley moved to amend the motion to include a requirement for them to have a 10 -year lease for two parking spaces from Cherokee bank. Ms. Geisser seconded the motion which carried on a unanimous voice vote. - MOTION: Ms. Nash moved to call the question. Mr. Howley seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. The motion now on the floor was to approve the amended motion to grant the application for a nonconforming use permit. On a roll call vote of 11 - 6, the Planning Commission accepted the staff recommendation and approved expansion of the nonconforming use. College of Associated Arts #93 -116 - College Special Condition Use Permit (344 Summit Avenue - RT -2) MOTION: Ms. Morton stated the Zoning Committee voted 7 - 0 to recommend approval of the permit and she so moved. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Prime Imports #93 -084 - Special Condition Use Permit to allow outdoor sales of used automobiles. (1414 Arcade Street - Zoned B -3) MOT1Oti: Ms. Morton said the Zoning Committee voted 5 • 2 to recommend approval with conditions as listed in the staff report and she so moved. MOTION: Mr. Tully moved to add a condition of "no flags ". The motion was seconded by Ms. Wencl and carried unanimously on a voice vote. MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved to add a condition that a barrier clearly divide the used car lot from the neighboring parking lot (Josephine's). Mr Tully seconded the motion. Mr. Soderholm assured the Commission that site plan review would find a way to keep the properties separate, while still allowing track maneuvering for deliveries to Josephine's. Mr. Johnson withdrew his motion. The motion to approve the request for a special condition use permit was carried on a voice vote of 12 - 4. 20 4 q5 -1513 MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE AUDITORIUM, 15TH FLOOR -CITY HALL ANNEX, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON JUNE 14, 1993 PRESENT: Mmes. Hirte, Morton, Nash, Treichel, Wencl and Messrs. Howley, and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Sullivan, Assistant City Attorney; Messr. Soderholm; Mmes. Dadlez, Drummond, and Monno of the Planning Division. ABSENT: Kajer Excused • The meeting was chaired by Gladys Morton, Chairperson. Time: 5:25 - 6:30 PRIME IMPORTS, #93 -084, 1440 Arcade Street (Special Condition Use Permit) To allow outdoor sales of used automobiles. Ms. Dadlez showed slides and reviewed the staff report with the committee. Staff recommends approval, based on findings 1 through 4, subject to the following additional conditions: 1) The applicant receive site plan approval. The site plan shall include and address a plan for snow removal, landscaping, lighting, fencing along the alley, the relationship of the site to neighborhood traffic circulation, and striping and designation of parking spaces showing how parking is provided for each of the businesses on the block face. 2) No lighting that adversely affects adjacent residential property is permitted. 3) All of the applicant's frontage along Arcade Street is landscaped similarly to the existing landscaping on Arcade Street. 4) A 6 foot 6 inch wood fence be installed along the eastern border of the site to serve as a visual screen between commercial and residential uses. No barbed wire fencing is permitted. 5) A structural barrier is created between the car lot and Josephine's parking lot to preclude customers from accessing the car lot via Josephine's entrance. 6) The hours of operation are 10 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday and Saturday 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; the business will be closed on Sundays. Ms. Dadlez received two calls for information, twelve calls in opposition, one letter in opposition which was not included in the staff report, and a packet of information regarding the applicant's auto sales licenses with the State of Minnesota. Ms. Hirte moved to lay the case over to the next Zoning Committee meeting so the Committee would have the opportunity to review the letter and packet of information about the applicant's license. • Mr. Vaught asked what the packet of information contained. Ms. Dadlez said it consists of: correspondence between the applicant and the State of Minnesota, i.e., the applicant changed the business name but did not apply to the state to change it; correspondence regarding bad checks; and use of incorrect plates for cars in transit or parked on the lot. Zl Prime Imports, #93 -084 Zoning Committee Meeting June 14, 1993 Page Two Mr. Vaught asked if there was anything in the packet of information that relates to the zoning issues as opposed to the operation of the business. Ms. Dadlez said the last two pages contain a fax from the applicant to the State of Minnesota requesting information about getting the required sign -off on zoning. She said all that is attached is a copy of the zoning code that relates to outdoor sales with, what she assumes, is the applicant's handwriting. Most of it consists of how the applicant is operating his business. The motion died for lack of a second. The applicant, Mr. Mark Pacheco, 6201 North St. Croix Trail, Stillwater, MN., addressed the committee. He proposes a used car lot at 1440 Arcade Street. He stressed two areas of concern. First, there seems to be a dispute over how wide the secondary entrance to the lot is. One entrance is via Josephine's Interiors and the other runs directly into the proposed car lot. The requirement is 60 feet, but he measured 67 feet from the northern most part of the entrance to the intersection. Second, the information contained in the packet was taken from the State of AAN Minnesota. He explained it pertains to correspondence that is in his dealer's file. The file contains his accounting processes, checks that bounced but were taken care of, and a $25,000 bond that is required by any dealer in business to protect the citizens from misuse. He also said there is no information regarding the Better Business Bureau or the Attorney General for filings of fraudulent business practices. He said the last two copies in the packet regarding zoning issues represent the state making a mistake issuing him a license. Because of that mistake his license was cancelled until the proper zoning had been fulfilled or denied. He talked about the conditions on the structural barriers between Josephine's Interiors and the proposed used car lot. The entrance to Josephine's is separate. He presented a schematic to show where the entrances are to the lot and the distances, and the traffic access and the flow. He compared the amount of traffic that his business would have to the businesses located across the street. His business will present the lowest amount of traffic flow in the area. He said he has invested heavily into the business. The cars will be 1988 and newer. He owns an auto body and mechanical shop in Minneapolis where all the reconditioning is done. When the cars are brought to the lot, they will be cleaned and waxed, no rust, scratches or dents, they will not be junk. Mr. Pacheco also talked about the concern the neighbors have that the street will become a "used car alley ". He said there is not one automobile sales business along Arcade. This is a small business and a small car lot. ." Mr. Howley asked Mr. Pacheco if he had any concerns with the other conditions on the staff report. Mr. Pacheco said he plans to have approximately 20 - 2Z q5I5/3 Prime Imports, #93 -084 Zoning Committee Meeting June 14, 1993 Page Three autos on display for sale rather than the 28 autos that would be permitted. Snow removal plans have been submitted to him by several snow removal businesses showing how the snow will be removed and no snow will be stacked on the premises as was done in the past. The present landscaping will be retained but extended to include additional landscaping. The present lighting will be changed to shine on the car lot and not on the alley. He agreed with the condition to have a 6 foot 6 inch fence. Whatever kind of fencing the neighbors want he will abide by that. The parking spaces will be designated with stripes. He said he does not see a need for a structural barrier to divide the used car lot and Josephine's Interiors. He doesn't feel that people will be driving through Josephine's to get to the car lot. It could also impede deliveries and snow removal. No one spoke in support. Mr. John Kuderka, 852 E. Wheelock, spoke in opposition. He is concerned the lot does not provide adequate egress and ingress because there is a heavy concentration of traffic in the area, and the entrance is less than 60 feet from the Wheelock- Arcade intersection. He said there is a lot of pedestrian traffic on the foot path around Lake Phalen. The location of the car lot is poor because it is not aesthetically pleasing to the entrance of Phalen Park. He is also afraid the value of the homes in the area will decrease because a used car lot is in close proximity to the neighborhood. Mr. Robert Knobbe, 841 Sherwood Avenue E., spoke in opposition. He is concerned the additional traffic generated from the proposed used car lot will pose a safety hazard to the children who live in the area, the children at the two day care centers nearby, the school buses traveling east and west, and'the school crossing at Wheelock Parkway and Arcade. He is also concerned with home values deteriorating and locating a used car lot by the entrance of a major city park. He asked who made the original measurement of 50 feet as opposed to staff's measurement of 67 feet. He said this should be looked into. Mr. Howley asked how this commercial use would differ from other potential uses. Mr. Knobbe responded that he is concerned with having adequate entrances and exits for the lot. Mr. Doug Kelly, 839 Sherwood Street, who operates the day care center across the street from the proposed used car lot, spoke in opposition. He is • concerned about the additional traffic, the safety of the school children and pedestrians, and vandalism to the cars and theft of hood ornaments that will occur. Ms. Kitty Solberg, 834 Sherwood Street, spoke in opposition. She is concerned with the safety of the people in the area. She asked where the snow will go because she has had snow dumped in front of her house before. She is also 23 Prime Imports, #93 -084 Zoning Committee Meeting June 14, 1993 Page Four concerned about the effect a used car lot will have on the aesthetics of Phalen Park. She asked the Zoning Committee to deny the request. Mr. Ray Sammons, 1205 Westminster, spoke in opposition. He distributed a letter of opposition. He requests that a barrier be constructed between Josephine's Interiors and the proposed used car lot. He is concerned with the driveway size and the safety of the people in the area. Mr. Pacheco addressed the committee with a rebuttal. He clarified he did attend a neighborhood meeting to answer questions from the neighbors. But he was unprepared for the opposition. The neighbors just do not want a used car lot regardless of what the situation is. He did not get a chance to get into a discussion about what the neighbors would like or how they can work together. The traffic pattern seems to be important, but this is commercial property -- although the concerns of the neighbors are they don't want this used for commercial purposes. He said his family has invested $500,000 into the corner of Arcade Street and Wheelock Parkway and has improved the area. For instance, on the corner a decrepit drive -in, that changed hands several times before it was purchased from the original owner, has been rehabilitated into Josephine's Interiors. His family's investment in that area should be proof that his family has done some good for the neighborhood. He said quality cars `' from 1988 and beyond will be sold. Mr. Pacheco is willing to meet any condition the neighbors want. He feels he has the right to operate the used car lot there, which is the business of his choice. He asked the Committee to review the schematic because there is a concern for the safety of the children. He said the alley across the street has a heavy concentration of traffic, not at all like the alley behind him. He said he interviewed neighbors on either side and behind the business who he thought might be unbiased. He asked them several questions with regard to traffic accidents in the alley, children getting hit by cars, and traffic congestion in the alley. The results indicated that there is no problem with these kinds of situations He also added that staff said they walked off the distance of 67 feet for the driveway, so that measurement may be inaccurate. The public hearing was closed. Ms. Hirte moved to recommend denial of the special condition use permit based on finding 3c. Mr. Vaught seconded the motion. He said he did not find that the testimony given today complied with finding 3c of the staff report. Chair Morton asked if the finding Mr. Vaught stated is sufficient for a finding? Mr. Sullivan explained if there are findings that substantiate a determination it does not mean the findings have to be the same as the staffs'. Findings, based on everything presented, will be direct evidence when they are submitted. If there is any evidence that establishes a position that would be sufficient. Mr. Sullivan answered that Mr. Vaught's finding was sufficient. 24 q5 -15(3 /- Prime Imports, #93 -084 Zoning Committee Meeting June 14, 1993 Page Five Mr. Howley spoke against the motion. He has not been persuaded by the testimony that this particular use is any different than any other commercial use at this location. Ms. Treichel spoke against the motion. She said she drove into the parking lot, sat there, looked around, and drove back out again. She asked what the problem was getting in and out of the parking lot? She had no problems. Mr. Soderholm answered one problem is that 15,000 cars are travelling each day on Arcade Street. It may be a little hard getting in and out of Arcade, but any business will have the same problem. The other question raised by the neighbors is that used car shoppers are reluctant to take in a potential trade -in vehicle and park on the lot. Possibly used car shoppers are more likely to park in the neighborhood than to pull onto the commercial property. The staff didn't find those to be big problems. Ms. Hirte said she is in and out of those businesses on a regular basis and the traffic is a huge issue. Ingress and egress at those places, particularly any time after 3:30 p.m., is very difficult. It becomes more difficult to drive, particularly when there are school buses, the street is very narrow, there is not a lot of parking, and the corners are essentially blind corners. You can feel the fear factor when approaching that area. On a roll call vote of 4 -3 the motion to deny the special condition use permit failed. Mr. Howley moved to recommend approval of the special condition use permit, subject to conditions 1 through 4, and 6. Condition 5 should be eliminated. Ms. Treichel seconded the motion. On a roll call vote of 5 -2 the Zoning Committee will recommend to the Planning Commission approval of the special condition use permit. Submi•-• by: Ap roved by: K uk' A I •1 4 Kady Da ez Gladys Morton, Chairperson .25 t til 10 -� C coo ; . 8 �� r� AIN ` y ..d'� , .....%. kt 0 wct • 11111 i I®1■ - .. 4 b-%'` . 11 IMIUMN- '11 Ipmr 1 NW ' . 1 11.... allaktri . z roin - 11&41, . i L. 7 11111610- Mat ■ .... $ i ir.,,,,; ®t���� - ! T ...„..... ik , Trw ozre _., ..., - .,,, t , ,,, „.., 14l g / i dr , 1 .1 i ( 1 i " " I 1 I A re ''' : S ' I );11,!1' ..--.-.-„,--- f .:, i i , .. - ' i. A 2 15 a 1 F° / mil Si nt i0 ... y , - 4- I h . 4:V , _ .. _ V . ' c..4.. \ ' \\ Ni ' s='''' \ CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS 1. SUNRAY- BATTLECREEK- HIGHWOOD 2. HAZEL PARK HADEN - PROSPERITY HILLCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF (5. PAYNE-PHALE1j) 6. NORTH END 7. THOMAS -DALE 8. SUMMIT - UNIVERSITY 9. WEST SEVENTH 10. COMO 11. HAMLINE- MIDWAY 12. ST. ANTHONY PARK 13. MERRIAM PARK - LEXINGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAMLINE 14. MACALESTER GROVELAND 15. HIGHLAND 16. SUMMIT HILL 17. DOWNTOWN ZONING FILE -1' l 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . I I 1 L: j i . , 1- ;-' -. • :---%-- r",(___,1 j : 7,7L_______:, ., • • • ; q5- ,;„ 1 3MB . i r 'r i --- .' EIH. R En H Z Tn i ) 7 :k77 .: ,1:'.1 1 7 :1- ' '' l ' ), .. ! mot - t!..021)rnHHHE PA LE c C . ILTI r i " 1, 1 ' ..... I l,..11 LI 4 L ■ Jl... H . r ___ LI E1 PARK " - ) 1 1 1 ..; ,/::: ii. j I n . , q11 11 ^1 i L i j i ...i , r MEM , / , I P - .-..----- .,1, ,,, \\\ ( .s. . ....0 ' I H 1 H-....u fi 7 F - a ,'- r ..„,__ . , • ,..1, . • ,i .. _,..c„,,,,_____,.._,,,..., H .• . _.. e e -... ‘; •. \ I , r — i ; • . -4. ;-----2. --s: - ' a Lo El 1 FED E Hi I i I p=■■••■t • =7.. ;.. , 4 .:. 1 i • . 1 i . , i . = Li OHO EE] HH 'EH r--1 1 1 .,.... .E=L-1 L--- ',---,.; ..-1' ' — I T] - no 11 F H = r f r —I= r 1 inscr.:::1 : ' 11 ' 1- :Jr. i• ; , I L Firl o o---iHiffH-1 ii L Li_L______ , , , , , E, r„, ! it , ------- z==z _Lil ' "" --- . L=------ , - k F--: • ..!. - .. 1 i, L.: c --.,-' .—r ._ - __ . ' [ II' 1.-i-- 4- - ft. - . 7 ,1 r. ei-77 .e;Wimill'AmillTh" ,,______:. ; ____':H.- : i ,;--- . -,- _IL----' ,! ____ 1 r _____ .. ."---- F ---/ ,41 :7__ ow= = HH IH 1 1 - , y 1 / ; iF-.1 i LiO , ,_ ______, L______, , L____, _ . e _ , ,., „ „ /Th. -----1 ' 7 r— F T 'j TF11 H H l =■11 Di__T H I LH ,•'; , \ 41 Li ;., FL ! , I 1 - r=f ,, ... :,„ -.,..- 17ffilti INN■ 1 0. _ r-- :/ : :..r / , 1 ‘ . ':. 1 F r LI L HL__,' — = •-- ■lembi 7.* 1 fr --•". 0 -,-.- ,-- • . _ z; 7.. L.-Lill .. . . .....›..... ., ; i - - - ...0- -- L-1 -1-, .-1 -. . -.—: : / • - ' • Zilil . . j Tin 1 i: -1--:4-is- , 1-1 r - -).- si . , 11- ,.i 14 A • ':•.- - .--- - s.•, :.1 i _ -.- - - - - -- - - - --- - -: _ , 1 P - . ct } firri ii_i I [ ---ii -qr.---,F i=1 1. i 1 ie .._, 1 ,,.2.,__:: L. 1 1= r-I.r; u ,,, ,_ ,,,,r.,_ T- ,,Q 111= i ! H 5 r.._11 ...,. :. ... .. ....! . r 1 ----Tr 11 MI i.--i •■ -=-_-_ i'c ij i: F- - — . : mmi z ../ :: .,, 5i'll .-Zji: i i. .- •11.7 *,, : ; __ \,7?- . Aa. .1 1 ,---- I IlleIMI NINNIMI ' h (.--- ' . '' ..; b. 4 • a r- I --, 1 ( . - ‘); ,. .:.,., ..... j 4l i t , --- IF it r ',.:.f ili LI :r: L :.. \ . k ' ,0 s z opp!.• am 1171\0 L---•'. , I t . -, . , - ,t, e,- •'.. i _Ie... .. 4.-2.-- 7.i iir_. iir•-:4,„,.,cit.,-, vsti_:, .F.ti s.:.:::,‘,....c.=.......\ # ._,=. . _ 1,i 1 ,r-- •.. ‘, ....#„)..#4..w.210.. anrs:_p_orearmampv.....,•, " „,...., . ___. 7-- -- . i 7 • - _. • A . - ir, „ .r° . ??" 'r° •F.„ YAYNE-PHALEN DISTRICT 5 Q scALE of rm • - -.— . - . .- . . . . - - - . • _ , . Vairmaxii - - mispfeja i . 1.. - . . . . ZONING .FILE - gc .16 )° _ . • 21 � J 1 " 1 ` I . , I 1 -1'l 1 - i - - 1 1 1 1, I C.-c, ` •, •, ,. �. %-� ` ref , L. ► c 1 s . _ r. t" � ,, . ;L o!oo;o�ololo0 0000000 � • � .. , � C_...C r -. •�Gc�, �;., 1 i I �� ,, G.• t C t . ; r c;. , .4 � l"'(d t_ 0 000010 �� -� ,� : a te �c of o 0000_0_0 I 1::.% . t : L " .: C Nt AS - 4 " < ' , • )0010010000 0 000000 � 6 0 c. C U ?' 1,., Q c., ` ,:. bb000000 00000 ' : ( ) c , c . - .: . � - ^. c 1 ti I v DA AVE. ii` 1 r, 7s C `- a • ' f; i - ti--i .I-' b • o I o o¢ o w o a o - � d / � � . , �' L J, `• C; ; •' C t� E C ,...-L • r ., • V • .: , 0 0000 010 O U a ` , J . /. '0 LI [oj T L.__)' ••oo 0 0000 odo o p 0 ILII 1 - ' CP 1 io o o 0240101010 010 0 40 • 1 � 0 00 000s*' 0 • 1 0 i 0 0 1 0 © 4HER.u400p O OU VQ f b 1 o l o 1 01 0 • . • • o • • o 0 0 0 O O • 0 O • ILL il•l!lili 1 1111 I i - T i 1 k0joio00 .r � _ 1 _ .� I I � I �OI I I I I �• ; 1 o01000 0000�� o o , 1 1 oTTAGE , 1 : I 0 01 ■ 01 101 0I b?o'o'ojo o 1 p l Q o 4 P e? 000/0 010 10 [c0000 . 1 i , : I i I . I I t I � I l � 1 1 , l i 13 , _ I l , i i 1 ; - 0 a Fi , C`�-- 10000 +0�100 0 0 [ HIGH 1 I s 9.— APPLICANT N e LEGEND PURPOSE, li _J.. zoning district boundary /\ FILE # 1 ;' 2,t�V DATE 11' 11 '1 7 % / / / / / / //. subject a property __h_► PLNG. DIST MAP # CO o one family _ • • r+ commercial ism *amity • industrial SCALE 1' •400' $S4 9 mullipie family V vacant .PiPi= q5 - J513 ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT _____ FILE # 95 -133 1. APPLICANT: MARK PACHECO DATE OF HEARING: 07/20/95 2. CLASSIFICATION: Special Condition Use 3. LOCATION: 1414 ARCADE STREET (northeast corner of Arcade & Sherwood) 4. PLANNING DISTRICT: 5 5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 14 thru 17, Block 2; Lane's Phalen Grove Addition 6. PRESENT ZONING: B -3 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §60.544(2) & 64.300(d) 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 7/13/95 BY: Kady Dadlez _ = =__= _ A. PURPOSE: Modify conditions of a special condition use permit issued in 1993 for outdoor sales of used automobiles. Applicant requests modifications to allow business hours to be extended to 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday (and Sunday if state law changes) and to allow 50 display vehicles on the lot instead of 28. B. PARCEL SIZE: The property consists of four parcels which have 178 feet of frontage on Arcade Street and are 125 feet in depth for a total lot area of 22,250 square feet. C. EXISTING LAND USE: The property is occupied by a two story commercial building and associated surface parking. Half of the first floor is used for office space and the other half is used by a chiropractor. The second floor is occupied by a single residential dwelling unit. D. SURROUNDING LAND USE: North: Commercial uses along Arcade Street including Josephine's Interiors and an old filling station used for used car sales and auto repair in a B -3 zoning district and Phalen Golf Course in•an R -3 zoning district. East: Primarily single family homes in an R -4 zoning district. South: Commercial uses along Arcade Street including Holiday gas station and convenience store in a B -3 zoning district. West: Commercial uses along Arcade Street including professional offices and Romolo's restaurant. E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 60.544(2) and 64.300(d) of the zoning code require that before the Planning Commission may grant approval of a principal use subject to special conditions, the commission shall make the required findings. The required findings were met when the permit was issued in 1993, but there were six conditions attached to the permit. The applicant is requesting modification of several conditions placed on the permit by the Planning Commission. F. HISTORY /DISCUSSION: There are three previous zoning cases concerning this property. The most recent is the special condition use permit granted to allow the sale of used automobiles in 1993. The other two cases involve a permit in 1940 for a driveway and parking lot and a permit to expand and remodel a drive -in refreshment stand in 1954. Both permits were approved. Zoning File #95 -133 Page Two G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The District 5 Planning Council had not taken a position on the modification of the special condition use permit at the time the staff report was drafted. The Land Use Committee meets July 12th and the full board meets July 27th. H. FINDINGS: 1. The applicant received a special condition use permit from the Planning Commission in 1993 to allow outdoor sales of used automobiles; the Planning Commission's resolution limited the number of cars for display to 22 with overflow space for an additional 6 vehicles. That permit included the following six conditions: 1. The applicant receive site plan approval. The site plan shall include and address a plan for snow removal, landscaping, lighting, fencing along the ally, the relationship of the site to the neighborhood traffic circulation, and striping and designation of the parking spaces showing how parking is provided for each of the businesses on the block face. 2. No lighting that adversely affects adjacent residential property is permitted. 3. All of the applicant's frontage along Arcade Street is landscaped similarly to the existing landscaping on Arcade Street. 4. A 6 foot 6 inch wood fence be installed along the eastern border of the site to serve as a visual screen between commercial and residential uses. No barbed wire fencing is permitted. 5. The hours of operation are 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday and Saturday 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; the business will be closed on Sundays. 6. No flags will be permitted. Currently, the applicant is requesting a modification of the permit to allow: 1) display of up to 50 vehicles for sale; 2) expanded business hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday (Sunday hours would not be allowed until state legislation allows for it; 3) clarification of what the condition " no flags" means in order to allow for some type of display advertising; 4) modify the site plan to allow expansion of the outdoor display area since additional space is available as a result of the removal of a tree damaged by a storm. 2. The applicant states that when he initially applied for the special condition use permit his requirements were based on projections and ideas about how the business would operate efficiently and successfully. After operating for two years he has found that some changes are necessary. He added that due to competition and experience he is finding it necessary to offer a larger selection in order to sell the number of vehicles he had projected. He states that he also devised a much more efficient use of the display layout as illustrated on the site plan to allow for the increase in the number of cars on display from 28 to 50. 3. Through enforcement action by LIEP the applicant was told to comply with the conditions of the permit or apply to the Planning Commission for modifications of the special condition use permit. LIEP has received several complaints about the use over the past two years 3o q5 - 1513 Zoning File 495 -133 Page Three relating to the expansion onto a previously unpaved area, displaying more cars than permitted, and operating beyond the hours approved in the permit. 4. The conditions were originally recommended by staff and placed on the permit to address obvious land use conflicts certain to arise when commercial and residential uses exist side -by -side. The conditions also address the concerns raised by area residents in letters to the Planning Commission and testimony at the Zoning Committee public hearing in 1993. 5. Hours of Operation When the special condition use permit for the used car lot was originally approved in 1993 there was considerable neighborhood opposition. One of the conditions imposed on the permit were hours of operation, in an attempt to control intensity of the use and address neighborhood concerns about increased number of strangers into the area. Within weeks of the permit approval the Mayor and City Council Citizen Service Office (Information & Complaint) received a complaint that the applicant was operating until 10:30 p.m. almost every night. Several months later a similar complaint was made about the applicant operating beyond the hours permitted and on Sunday. When LIEP staff followed -up on the complaint they found a sign in the door showing Saturday hours until 5:00 p.m. Several letters were sent to the applicant ordering him to comply with the permit requirements or apply for modifications to the special condition use permit. To extend the hours of operation beyond 7:00 p.m. Monday- Friday would intensify the use and its impact on surrounding residential property beyond normal business hours. However, allowing the applicant to begin operating at 9:00 a.m. Monday- Saturday and remain open on Saturday until 6:00 p.m. is within customary business hours and appropriate for the site. Staff recommendation: hours of operation to be 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday- Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday; address Sunday hours when state law changes. 6. Increase Number of Display Cars from 28 to 50 Based on the site plan submitted there is adequate space on the lot for the display of 45. vehicles and 14 off - street parking spaces (the used car business requires 5 spaces and the office space and dwelling unit in the building require 9 spaces). The applicant is gaining space through several different means: 1) a tree was damaged by a storm and removed leaving space for an additional vehicle; 2) two additional spaces are found between the rows of cars along Arcade Street; 3) six spaces are gained by stacking more cars along the alley; 4) eight spaces are gained in a portion of the lot once occupied by lawn. This space was paved without site plan review approval and building permits. The newly paved area does not provide the required setback from the property line, nor the required fence or landscaping. As with the hours of operation, several complaints were made to the city about alleged violations of the special condition use permit relating to the number of vehicles for display on the lot. The applicant also received several letters from LIEP staff ordering him to comply with the conditions of the permit or apply for modifications to the permit. Staff recommendation: the applicant be allowed to expand the number of vehicles on display from 28 to 45, provided he obtains site plan review approval and makes all improvements to the site as required -by 3� 85 Zoning File #95 -133 Page Four the site plan. 7. Clarification of the "No Flaqs" Condition This is a condition which was imposed by the Planning Commission when the permit was approved. Staff believes that the intent of the commission in imposing the condition was to prevent the use of flags, pennants, or banners for advertising purposes. Staff recommendation: condition should read, "No flags, pennants, or banners shall be permitted." 8. Site Plan Modification The applicant has made changes to the approved site plan without approval from staff. The most significant change is to the area shown on the approved site plan as "lawn ". This area has been paved and is currently used for the display of eight vehicles. Staff recommendation: Planning Division staff reviewed the proposed site plan with LIEP staff. Staff recommends that the applicant go through formal site plan review for the expansion area and the new configuration of the site. The site plan at a minimum should include a 4 foot setback from the property line with appropriate landscaping and a wood privacy fence of at least 4 1/2 feet in height along Sherwood Avenue; there should also be a 6 foot high wood privacy fence along the eastern boundary of the newly paved area to screen the display vehicles from the residentially zoned property to the east. The 6 foot high wood privacy fence along the alley should be extended from the south end to the west to screen the cars from residential property. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on findings 5 and 6 staff recommends: 1) approval of the following hours of operation 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday- Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday, the business will be closed on Sundays; and 2) approval of up to 45 vehicles on display at any one time, subject to the following conditions: 1. The total number of "For Sale" vehicles on the lot shall not exceed 45 at any time. There shall be 14 off - street parking spaces available for employees and customers at all times. At no time shall the total number of vehicles on the lot exceed 59. 2. The applicant shall submit a site plan for review for the expansion /paved area and new configuration of the lot by August 11, 1995; the site plan shall be approved by September 8, 1995. All improvements required by the site plan shall be made by October 2, 1995. Any proposed changes to the site, once the site plan is approved, must be approved by the city before changes can be implemented. 3. There shall be three wood privacy fences installed: 1) fence of at least 4 1/2 feet in height to be installed along Sherwood Avenue; 2) 6 foot high fence along the eastern boundary of the expansion area; and 3) 6 foot high fence along the southern edge of the display area along the alley. 4. The hours of operation shall be 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday- Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Saturday; the business will be closed on Sunday. 5. . No flags, pennants, or banners shall be permitted. 3Z Z+ortng •ice use onty SPECIAL CONDITION USE PERMIT APPLICATION it Department of Planning and Economic Development ��� 4 �AAAA Zoning Section 1100 City Hall Annex TSntative #learirt date 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266 -6589 APPLICANT Name_.V,�INS V1e(..0 Address City - _ St.m i jkZi Daytime phone -io /070 Name of owner (if different) PROPERTY Address/Location /41 /' Cc+ d € S LOCATION Legal description: f f € e % -y IPA Current Zoning 6 - (attach additional sheet if necessary) TYPE OF PERMIT: Application is hereby made under the provisions of Chapter 6,,C) , Section 544 , Paragraph L— of the Zoning Code for a: ' pecial Condition Use Permit 0 Modification of River Corridor Standards 0 River Corridor Conditional Use Permit SUPPORTING INFORMATION: in the space below supply information that is applicable to your type of permit (attach additional sheets if necessary) • SPECIAL CONDITION USE: Explain how the use will meet each of the special conditions. • RIVER CORRIDOR CONDITIONAL USE: Describe how the use will meet the applicable conditions. • MODIFICATION OF RIVER CORRIDOR STANDARDS: Explain why modifications are needed. R 9.9 oi.:S4- oti € _\ 4 0&-h )/ s See ck- ^ckl\ed le r aria St e-- PLC v Required site plan is atta ed Applicant's signature / Date .∎City agent 33 VT Arcade Auto Sales & Leasing 0 15 -1513 "You're Satisfied or You Bring it Back" Used Cars New Car Broker with Warranties Factory Invoice Prices Finder Service Local Dealers Zoning Department June 19th, 1995 Zoning Committee I am requesting modifications to the special use permit regarding 1414 Arcade St. When I originally applied for the permit I based my requirements on projections and ideas as to how my business would operate efficiently and successfully. After operating for two years I have found • that some changes are necessary. 1. Modify the business hours from M -F 10:00 AM to 7:00 PM Sat 10:00 to 3:00. To M -F 9:00 AM to 9:00 PM & 9:00 to 6:00 Sat & Sun. ( Sunday would not be allowed until state legislation allows for it ) 2. Modify the site plan to allow for 50 display vehicles instead of 28.( Due to competition and experience I am finding it increasingly necessary to offer a larger selection in order to sell the number of vehicles I had projected. I have also found a much more efficient use of my display layout as illustrated in my site plan to allow for this increase.) 3. Requesting a clarification on the "No flags permitted" clause in order to allow for some type of display advertising. 4. Address site plan modifications which occurred in part due to storm damaged trees. • Thankyou For Your Considerations 4 M ark Pacheco Arcade Auto Sales, ZONING FILE .c15 i3 1414 Arcade St. • St. Paul, MN 55106.612- 771 -6070 • Fax 771 -0028 i ' 57C.) •s M b 3111 JNINOZ • _i . : c / r.' : 1 !'� L - : c _ J uold a +IS J 2 J " J {S apooio (===>3 z' / a' I \ I F cT 1{: — s 0 1 i?' • — F -0. I....._L Qa 4 N Q :ft i�' ow c 9 / An / 1 4 o - _ ��OZ .—..e..—. bj / < O 1 / / / \ V1 I I / 1 V/ ,,,)„ I _.,.- 1,- .,--: 1 _1 I 1 'ap�a ;moo. • ----•— , I �• ."' ■ o ° .)9)' 1 a 110 I I – -- 1 1 c15-1513 tr, , _%,•om Ja Lis —r- . V • _ ..-...... • • \ -I c, ......., . ,..,) ) —r— ' t •C c... 1 1 .11:21 ..., • "a -6 13,..e - - 7 , J 1 %priC 1 V - -11- • C4" 1 X ' .:,...3 f --- L; - :.,.. .0...0 •••■• .... t„ \ I 1 :11 .1 0 0 \ N n yr l- a ii , bo ...I "......, - - - 1"; A.,. ' • -7-- . ,-- -7 • - - TS ,..)... t- „... . t.-- 00 1 - zr „ ..... I -0 .0 If t , • , l: 1 1 In .... ■ , ••,...-. i rr - , - -s VISpl(Xy 1 1! 1 L - 2 H 1 - -Z2D i c V c4 J .3 4, ' I 0 ..'"g CD ...a Q tJ ! • , . 14'' o • ''.- , 1 r __ I . I i 1 I i I c ....A......: ! I or.......6 • ! d .--V I •••,,,,.. b, 3 .,,,, =dm 3 I • \ 4 , 1 p 1 \ O 1 0 ., ,.. / LLB .....I • -., \--1 --,0 1/4 1 4., ..,, •=.„ I 1 6.2 Z 1 , -..,...1 • ....--"" Z , 2 1 • ,<,, d '•poleat.i,.., X::, 00 7 1 A PE3wnc D Phe]huo District Five Planning Council 1014 Payne Ave., Saint Paul, MN 55101 (612) 774 -5234 October 25, 1995 Gladys Morton, Chair Zoning Committee 25 W. Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Chair Morton: On July 20, 1995, we came before you to testify against modification of a special condition use permit(SCUP)originally granted to the applicant, Mr. Mark Pacheco, in June 1993 for property at 1414 Arcade Street. Though incriminating testimony was given by the community at the July 20 hearing citing flagrant negligence on Mr. Pacheco's part to comply with current conditions of his scup, the Committee chose to lay the matter over for three months to give the applicant an opportunity to comply with the conditions on his existing scup before considering approval for expanded use of the property. The issue is now back before you and it's no surprise to any of us in the neighborhood that he has complied to the letter over the past three months. Why? Quite simply, he needs something from you. Should he be granted the modification based on his "good behavior "? We think NOT. As we testified in July of 1995, he has continued to violate the scup almost from day one specifically regarding hours of operation and number of cars for sale on the property. And let's not forget during the fall of 1994, he flagrantly ignored the approved site plan by asphalting over an area at the rear of his building to accommodate more space for his cars. Should this modification be granted, I can assure you that it will become a nightmare for the neighborhood and the enforcement arm of the City. We ask that you look at the entire picture going back to June of 1993 when the scup was first approved and not a mere three months when he knew "Big Brother" was watching him. We ask your support and request you deny any modification to the special condition use permit held by Mr. Pacheco for 1414 Arcade St. Sincerely, 'w -"Ye Greg C eland President A 1 37 10/26/1995 12:46 6127717739 ESNDC PAGE 01 4. G5 -1513 October 26, 1995 To: St. Paul Zoning Commission Re: Arcade Auto Sales Dear Planning Commission Members: I am writing to you today in support of Arcade Auto Sales' request to expand their business to allow 10 cars on their lot. I recently helped a friend purchase a car through Arcade Auto Sales. Their service was excellent, and the owner was very helpful in finding a reliable car at a reasonable price. 1 have worked in the east side business community for over a year and a half, and I have never heard any negative comments about this business. Since ely, 7 4 4 44.4"12;31". Kim Hunter 3k 09 eA2.9.) s ikkxita n t , O 2Z Neoug-,6 5 5-10 . I &Ai (41.AVON:V.-tt9 . ., f' ai _ • • t !. .. , .• •_ . . ' i i 0, :.. . • ,� \ ■ ∎ 1 _. ` aew 4,4 , • . d . i s .. c.49_.2 121 & ta.,244.6... ..., Joiviz_, .„0, 4544jszia A ,wriej / . -110 J/ J / •• L_AAA • . A '. ■L_• , ' l 1, / _ • • . 1A( ..i mil _: ... 0. A I' .4. . 00Svg 047, I tIl..2Ca' . 19 X15 -1513 October 25,1995 Zoning Committee of St. Paul Planning Commission 3rd Floor, City Hall St. Paul, MN We have had many occasions to have dealings with car dealers, both new and used. Most of our experiences have not been pleasant, nor the end result what the dealer claimed. We did not find this to be the case with Arcade Auto. They dealt fairly with us and have stood behind their promises since we purchased our van. We have only had some minor problems, such as the air conditioning needing charging, since we purchased our van in March we didn't know until some warm weather hit that the air was not cooling, this was taken care of for us by Arcade Auto at no charge. In these times when it seems that more and more businesses are only trying to get a persons money, it is nice to be able to tell you that there are good, honest businesses operating fairly and with integrity. Arcade Auto certainly is one of them. Sincerely, ' Sincerely, , 6"i0A.ai Michael Cleary 3 Camille Cleary • 4t 10/25/95 To whom it may concern: I have been dealing with Mr. Pacheco in his professional capacity as an auto dealer for two years. During this period of time I have purchased several vehicles from him. I find him to be almost unique in his honesty and reliability. I have no reservations about recommending his dealership to anyone looking for a quality used car. Mr. Pacheco's style of business is commendable and an asset to the community in which he is located. I hope his business will be encouraged to grow. He certainly deserves it. Sincerly, James H. Blankenship Special Delivery Courier Service Q a 1,ryti" ' "1- Trimming Tree 85-1513 Calvin Haines 646 E. Clear Ave. St. Paul, MN 55106 (612) 774 -6956 Firewood October 24, 1995 Zoning Committe City of St. Paul To Whom It May Concern; • On approximately Oct. 10th, 1994 I was contacted by Mark • Pacheco to remove two trees from behind his business. One • tree was down and completely blocking the alley. The other had severe damage and needed to be removed. The power lines had also been downed and required NSP to repair them. This damage was caused by a storm the previous evening. Mr. Pacheco paid an emergency surcharge and the trees were removed that day. Sincerely, 1 f JCLu►..�._. Calvin Haines • 42 OCT 26 '95 09:37 — — 1 P.2 /2 City of White Bear Lake 4701 Highway 61 • White Bear Lake, Minnesota 55110 TDD (612) 429 -8511 • Fax (612) 429.8500 *rt "' Phone (612) 429.8526 October 24, 1995 • Mark Pacheco Arcade Auto Sales 1414 Arcade Street • St. Paul, MN 55106 Dear Mark: Relative to our telephone conversation, I am happ the business relationship between Arcade Auto Sales and n the m White Bear Lake License Bureau is amicable. Arcade Auto Sales has been doing business with the White Bear Lake License Bureau for approximately two years. Te had a problem with Arcade Auto's financial ab t fees relative to processing Motor Vehicle transactions as required by State Statutes, Sincer ly, 4 ce Hazzar ' • Supervisor Licensing and Elections • .. 43 WILSON AUTO SALVAGE 208 E. ARLINGTON q5-1513 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55117 612 489 -2277 • October 23, 1995 City of St. Paul Zoning Committee 3rd Floor, City Hall Dear Zoning Committee, Wilson Auto Salvage has been doing business with Arcade Auto Sales for approximately two years. We have had a very positive business relationship with Mark and are behind him in his efforts to improve his business. We hope that the Zoning Committee will also lend their support. Si� ly, l; Tim Wilson 44 LindbccI fluto Body Complete Auto Body — 0 EEm. PHONE: 776 -3595 1346 ARCADE STREET SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA 55106 October 25, 1995 Dear Zoning Department; • We have been doing business with Arcade Auto Sales for' the last 1 1/2 years. We have been repairing used cars for 20 years. In my opinion Mark mans a very professional company and goes out of his wal to satisfy customers. His business with us has required our company to hire an additional person, that means one more job. We support Mark and hope you will support his efforts and hard work. Sin - refs,/4 Tom Lindbeck 45 East Side Muffler & Brake Service °15-1513 1111, Pa Ave. • St. Paul, MN 55101 778-0887 Pipe Steve's Bending October 26, 1995 City of St Paul Zoning Committee 3rd Floor -City Hall St Paul, MN Dear Committee; I operate a small muffler repair business on Payne Ave. We currently repair about 2 or 3 vehicles every week for Arcade Auto Sales. Their business certainly contributes to our success and helps support our business community. Over the last year I can honestly say I've heard only good things about his company. I hope you'll support our business community by supporting Mark in his business needs. Thank you S eve Chisholm Owner • �b :� District Five Planning Council 1014 Payne Ave., Saint Paul, MN 55101 (612) 774-5234 July 19,1995 RECEIVED Gladys Morton, Chair JUL 2 0 1995 Zoning Committee ZONING W. Fourth St. saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Chair Morton: In June of 1993 we came before you to express our opposition to a Special Condition Use Permit being applied for at 1414 Arcade for. outdoor sales of used automobiles. To insure protection for the surrounding neighborhood in the event we were unsuccessful in our lobbying efforts, we submitted conditions for your consideration. The SCUP,however, was ultimately approved by you and adopted by the Planning Commission on June 28, 1993. Incorporation of our conditions along with staff recommendations approved by you gave the neighborhood some assurance that enforcement tools were available if the busi ^ess failed to comply. You should know that the assurance was short-lived and the owner, Mr. Mark Pacheco, has continued to violate the special condition use permit specifically regarding hours of operation and number of cars for sale on the roperty. During the fall of '94 he flagrantly ignored the approved site plan by asphalting over an area at the rear of his building to accommodate more space for his cars. Repeated efforts on behalf of the enforcement arm of the City have failed to bring him into compliance and that is why he is now before you for modification of hie SCUP. It behooves us why Mr. Pacheco should be "rewarded" for non- compliance of his present operation by approving modification to the SCUP and adding additional burden to the surrounding neighborhood. It is with the aforementioned in mind that we strongly oppose any modification to the present SCUP hold by Mr. Pacheco at 1414 Arcade St. Action was taken at the July 12 Land Use, Zoning & Licensing meeting denying any modification in change of hours and absolutely no increase of cars on site. In fact, at this writing, Mr. Pacheco is in violation of the SCUP, having oounted(by a neighbor living adjacent to the property in question)forty cars just this morning on the site. Hr in according to his SCUP allowed a maximum of twenty - eight. We ask your support and request you deny any modification to the special condition use permit held by Mr. Pacheco for 1414 Arcade St. Sincerely, resident Greg Cc�eland 47 Lisa Hinickle q5-1513 860 Wheelock Parkway East St Paul, MN 55106 July 13, 1995 Zoning Committee 25 West Fourth St St Paul, MN 55102 RE: Zoning File Number: 95 -133 Zoning File Name: Prime Imports Dear Members of Zoning Committee: I received the notice of the hearing pertaining to Mark Pacheco's request for a modification of his use permit. Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the hearing on this matter that has been scheduled for Thursday, July 20. I am, instead, writing this letter to lodge my disagreement with this request. As a resident of this neighborhood and one whom resides quite closely to this b I a.m. strongly opposed to any extension of this business. In the time that the auto lot has occupied the corner of Wheelock and Arcade I have noticed an increase in the level of traffic in this area. Undoubtedly, this is an advantage to this business, but not so for a neighborhood such as this one which has quite a few children. In addition, I question whether the business owner has kept to his current use limit of 28 cars. On various occasions I have counted more cars than this on the lot. I also question this business owners commitment to this neighborhood. For several months, graffiti was allowed to remain on the fence that surrounds the backside of the lot. No obvious attempt was made to remove the graffiti until surrounding residents complained vehemently to authorities. Overall, I totally disagree with this type of business being allowed so close to a residential area. Understanding that the decision to allow this business has already been made, I want to register my total opposition to any expansion of it as this time Thank you for this opportunity to have my opinion heard. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact me at 870 -2343 during the hours of 7:30 - 5:30PM. Sincerely, Lisa 'nick e RECEIVED JUL 19 1995 ZONIN To: Kady Dadlcz From: Dennis Roach 836 East Wheelock Pkwy. RE: 1414 Arcade Special Condition Use • T have hard time understanding how this business could ask for Additional spice condirienc, when they do not conform with zoning laws that were given them on the East permit. Let me explain, the original permit was for ZH cars. This business has never only had 28 cars on the lot, it's more like 40-50 oars. He has been sited by zoning for this violation, with no enforcement done. This business was also sited for ranking additional apace available by blaok*opping an area on this lot, without submitring a site rcccmmcndatiaa and pulling a permit to do this They have also been sited for violation of graffiti on his fence, which is down more than up. They were sited en this and given one year to intnove the graffeti.1 don't believe this what the law states. I tam a home uwacr that has pride in my boost and my tsaigbborbood. I must abide the laws set lui th. by the dry or I'm in violation and will be shed and reprimanded for this. i believe this business is no \ exception. We the nets borbood, were against the original plan of this car dealership in the Sri place, now they arc for more favors ad' the city when they cant abide by the ones set forth tmgtnaily. 1, we time neighborhood adamantly protest any additional permits to for this business. q5 RECEIVED JUL 201995 /` L‘-e-4- , ( 7 6/> - 7 - 4 ,..-'i LL) ZONING' C 1--ec-7../ . ,,, ---,, / 74,- . ... can , / . - 0").-' p -.. :_ _ ‘?- 2.-C_ . f--- -' : C-P2.-- A 4 >L - KJ ,0-14- 2 ,t,--d..%) i c/L,C_/3__ a,e,t/Z1- -c-e--e6<) / _,,,... ...7::: LI./<-% 7 ,• r it----, , ; , , b ----7 4 40 L.,6:z__.e,4-/ ,----t-e70,..--,c--/— ,///1.2d •- 1-e-4-1 _.--e.../ -e _....,,,--e-i/I 1 A ._.---/Z - 7 - e_____ „,z,..„_, ...,,,,_::.,,, „...,___,., „,,x..,._,_,._ r'''.24.-ZM•17 ---.6--•,.., .. ( X .. , (../ ' , ( 77,..c_q_ .. ../4” ) 7,...--_-,..--, .... ,_,Z40‘ ____-1 .<.-c_...k:.c--a__x_ __4....6 . C .--fci---^ '-' _,--4 "J=L-r-e-- ____ . ___}; /2 ,.,,,,c,/ e / z_4_i2....1 i ci.„1 e i Z ' // - - /::--6-` „.----:-/%--. /... , ,„e"- ; - 1-.e z L'' 4.fl ".,‘- 2 \<761 , e z - . - . 7 / ' /, : , , , ! C..- (- 4 <?- /2 - - • ' (/ . , . - - - '7.4-'e- ., 4z e - 7 7 - Er 50 l ei-ce v2 .. ' .2c -..1--6 d ---7-1-z-g-a..4-e.---' c, . .. C-4 ..1 2---- 1 ----v 0-- - - 4 - 7---- .-- ,..- ., 9./ .L---2.-7. _ArZj ....-4-t 1 -/I-1.9 Cl--pv--, . Z , - ) C>' /2 e' t — /) _ r / / j / J - ---- ,..,w-i26 2-64-- _."----- _,,/ -- -). j; / Ca/ '<-- 7ezi,-4 Lam- G ,L-C ,/ .- e , V ,-,i. •%:,,,,-. V p_e_ L__ _ et- . G- --E/1.4 -- e:)'-', ) -ice Z r'---‹ -- -- - , --■' 4i--C1---- •-:' -- : .,,e) e 7 ‘.1 - 7 ..---- 6 / .,/t-- '' 1 // -- Z 41/ //Z/ A .'t,'. - eX 7e;1./ '('-€.,..,.. _ . 412 1 e L ,./ 24 f G.6_:ci - 1 i / ,-, i 1 / c .e._/ . / , /".---/ -ea-eY- „..---1 -- ‘:.-- - C- - "if "Gt----c . -4-cl / %: 5( g5 15i3 `' sr Vf■ .____4 ?s_..,4_,,,t) Ce-.0° :se a2.--74....ej, ----. --‘e-41- ., ‘e....e...sz___2/&b ... , ,(-Alr...."-----,--c--/Ir-- : - -S--- . I 2. 7 i — : - / ' ' ../ / __Z .0- , / 4r-.;:1 .-- 4P •P■ya-o-,,_ --4-°—V*1 -)--) - ... 1 ,,,,,, ( / . . 1 tz."-••• - -- , g ' ( /?,_7 ,,,,,,.., - ,,...., -6 ,z:i____. � � G yam,. .s s 2 SZ pi NTAr+ rl - ! r . , Et"� 1 ,. ci '' , , . 4:. ... ` , 0 [ oofooJoto1o ' o 0 i `. r v S . f c IA r' G �:' I G p 0 0 0 0 0 O 0000j0 -) `•� % r+ ` -.,`) ,• L t , ; , F 1 ° °° oM 0 :cr to C t ` . e�'• 0 v ,- v G. C' , c am~ o b 000 0 0000 .C. � a `..∎; ..."'c IF - .; ..rC `c k- i _ - - i 1 C • ` < 69 k; ( 1, c'. '.. t. - F. (` F ' 6VADA AVE _ r. , % o o o 0 w 0 a o , ° . c :; • F C : ,. ( _ • 1 • J L' e" -. 4. t ''...07 • 4. r 1. ■: -1 s. , � 0p o 00 IC I j?OO 0100 O O O o o'o o O to I c oo ¢; F o doo ' oo To i ' m I Ii,I I �. i I. I / I 1 I O 0o • � 00 000 O`�••O•00 �I^ Olp O � � O O � 1 , �� o ► r 41 S. - — 6HEV.WooP T DIOIOIO T d i OT pOioioTo iiiiiii000,0 I . O,o,a0' 10 O � 1 111 I I i II11 °i'1,► 1 i _ � . I I I 1 T 1 I ` 1 I 1 O. I I 1 1 00,01000 0 100 O I -": O 0101Oo 000101 0 00 .c, : 0 ; 00 c o tCAcE ' ' • 1oo.00O [oto.0 b 0 ° I<I i l t 11 , o I o_ O. ; 1 , a❑ I ( 0,000�0,,o0 0 0 0 o l oioo;o,o . _ I s 1 G�.E.,�o -. y HIGH 1. • APPLICANT r IMF'' I M 2 T S LEGEND PURPOSE 5C V f ..■ zoning district boundary ILE # q 3 . p g e4. DATE 5 . p .9 >S / / / / / / / //• subject property nom' PLNG. DIST '' MAP # Cs o one family • • ^ commercial two family . industrial SCALE 1" = 400 p.,! vacant 4 mu l tiple family 47t