On the agenda: South St Paul meeting — surveillance camera (Aug 7)

City of South St. Paul

Chair:
Tim Felton

Commissioners:
Geoff Fournier
Tyler Fehrman
James Hart
Andrew Hoffman
Ruth Krueger
Brianne Miller

Planning Commission Agenda
Wednesday, August 7, 2024
7:00 p.m.

City of South St. Paul
125 Third Avenue North
South St. Paul, MN 55075
Phone: (651) 554-3217
Fax: (651) 554-3271
www.southstpaul.org

Hearing assistance PA system is available – if you need a hearing assistance unit please notify City staff before the meeting.
(If you use the hearing assistance PA system, please remove your hearing aid so it does not cause a feedback problem)

Roll Call
1. Agenda
2. Minutes
A. June 5, 2024

3. New Business
4. Public Hearings
A. Conditional Use Permit for On-Sale Liquor at 111 Concord Exchange South

5. Other Business
6. Staff Updates
A. Planner’s Update

7. Adjournment

Next Planning Commission Meeting: September 4, 2024
This meeting is being taped by Town Square Television (NDC4): phone: 651-451-7834 web: www.townsquare.tv
Replays can be viewed on Government Channel 18/798 HD on the Saturday following the meeting at 3:00 p.m. & 9:00
p.m.

MINUTES OF MEETING
SOUTH ST. PAUL PLANNING COMMISSION
June 5, 2024

MEETING CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIR FELTON AT 7:00 P.M.
Present:

Geoff Fournier
Tim Felton
Tyler Fehrman
James Hart
Andrew Hoffman
Brianne Miller
Ruth Krueger
Michael Healy, Planning Manager
Monika Miller, Associate Planner

Absent:

None

1)

APPROVAL OF AGENDA - Motion to approve as presented– Hart/Fournier (7-0).

2)

APPROVAL OF MINUTES –May 1, 2024 –Motion to approve as presented– Fehrman/Fournier (7-0).

3)

NEW BUSINESS

None.
4)

PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Front Yard Setback Variance for Enclosed Porch Addition at 120 2nd Avenue South

Mr. Healy presented the staff report. The Applicants are Sarah and Nick Ridgeway. They are requesting a
variance for an enclosed porch addition at 120 2nd Ave South. They would like to demolish their existing porch
that is 21 feet away from the front property line and construct a new porch that is 15 feet 10 inches from the
front property line. Building additions in the R-2 district may not bring the home closer to the front property line
than the average front setback of houses that are on the same block which face the same street. The average
front setback on the 100 block of 2nd Avenue South is between 18 feet and 20 feet. The proposed addition cannot
be constructed without a front setback variance because the porch would not meet the front setback requirement.
Staff did not provide a formal recommendation of approval or denial for the project as while the proposed
addition is aesthetically pleasing, the Applicant’s request does not clearly meet the practical difficult test. Mr.
Healy explained that if the Planning Commission wished to recommend approval of the variance, they should
provide findings that the application meets the criteria for when to grant a variance.
Chair Felton asked Mr. Healy to bring up the slide that showed an aerial view of the block where the subject
property is located. Chair Felton commented that there were quite a few houses on the block that have a front
yard setback that is around 10 feet. Chair Felton asked Mr. Healy how he determined the average front setback
of the block. Mr. Healy explained that he used an aerial GIS tool to measure the approximate front setback of
each house on the block. Once he had the approximate front setback for each house, he added all of the front

Planning Commission Minutes
June 5, 2024
Page 2 of 8
setbacks up and then divided that number by 13 and came up with approximately 19 feet as the front average
setback. Given that the GIS tool is not 100% accurate, Mr. Healy opted to add a buffer of +1/-1, which led to an
average block front setback of 18 feet to 20 feet.
Chair Felton asked Mr. Healy why he divided by 13 to get the average front setback when there are 14 houses
on the block. Mr. Healy explained that the code is written to have you average all the other houses on the block.
Mr. Healy explained that there are 13 other houses on the block.
Chair Felton commented that the actual front setback could be a foot or two off from the estimated front average
setback. Mr. Healy stated that was correct. Mr. Healy added that the homeowner could hire a surveyor to survey
all 13 houses on the block to come up with an exact average front setback, but this would not change the fact
that the homeowner would still need a variance to build the porch addition.
Commissioner Miller asked if any of the other houses on the block had received a similar variance. Mr. Healy
shared that he did not know off hand.
Commissioner Hart questioned if there was any precedent set in the past several years to approve a variance to
allow home or home additions closer to the front property line than the block average. Mr. Healy stated that this
was more common before the City adopted updated rules for permitted encroachments. These rules allowed
some structures such as decks or porches to extend further into the front setback than is typically allowed as
“permitted encroachments” without requiring the homeowner to go through the variance process. Additionally,
the City approved one setback variance in 2020 for a house on a block by Highway 52 where the entire block is
angled and each of the houses has diagonal setbacks instead of setbacks that are parallel to the street. A
homeowner in this area wanted to build an addition to their home but needed a variance due to the odd front
setbacks of each of the houses with the diagonal block setup. The City Council approved the variance.
Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Healy to clarify if, prior to the City adopting the rules for permitted
encroachments, most front yard setback variances were for open enclosures as opposed to totally enclosed
additions. Mr. Healy stated he had not done a deep dive into the topic and that several newer houses had been
constructed with a variance from the front setback requirement. These variances were often for infill
construction in a neighborhood with a larger average front setback. Mr. Healy added that these variances were
granted before his time.
Nick and Sarah Ridgeway came forward to speak to their application.
Chair Felton asked the Applicants if there was any further information they would like to add. Ms. Ridgeway
explained that they had wanted to update the look of their home by changing the front of their house as opposed
to moving. Ms. Ridgeway added that the existing front porch was dated and that they would like to create a
bigger, nicer porch that their children can enjoy.
Chair Felton asked the Applicant about the size of their existing porch. Ms. Ridgeway answered that the porch
was 6 feet 10 inches wide which made the space difficult to use. Chair Felton commented that the space was not
big enough to be utilized. Ms. Ridgeway added that they had tried to use the porch as a social space but were not
able to comfortably use it due to its size. Ms. Ridgeway added that they felt the timing for the project was right
as they were updating the roofing and siding on the house.
Chair Felton asked the Applicants if they had any concerns about the conditions of approval for the project. The
Applicants stated that they had spent a lot of time discussing the project with Staff and did not have any
concerns.

Planning Commission Minutes
June 5, 2024
Page 3 of 8
Chair Felton opened the public hearing.
No correspondence had been received prior to the public hearing and no one was present to speak on the
Application.
Chair Felton closed the public hearing.
Chair Felton commented that there appeared to be several houses on the block that had a front setback that is
closer than the block average and that had a front façade that is less aesthetically pleasing than what the
Applicants were proposing.
Commissioner Fehrman commented that the homeowners have demonstrated an investment in their property
which is in turn an investment in the neighborhood. Commissioner Fehrman motioned to recommend approval
of the variance.
Mr. Healy advised Chair Felton that the Planning Commission should adopt findings that the variance meets the
practical difficulty test. While it is unlikely that the variance approval would be challenged, it is important that
findings that the variance meets the practical difficulty be adopted as part of the motion. Mr. Healy explained
that one option would be to adopt the generic findings that the variance meets all the practical difficulty criteria.
The other option would be for the Planning Commission to adopt specific findings that the variance meets the
practical difficulty test. Mr. Healy explained that the Planning Commission should adopt these findings as part
of the recommendation of approval.
Chair Felton asked Commissioner Fehrman if he would like to amend his motion.
Motion to recommend approval of a front setback variance to allow an enclosed porch addition after finding that
the variance criteria have been satisfied - Fehrman/Fournier (7-0).

B. Conditional Use Permit for On-Sale Liquor at Black Sheep Coffee
Mr. Healy presented the staff report. The Applicant is Black Sheep Coffee. The business is located at the
intersection of Southview Boulevard and 7th Avenue South. Black Sheep Coffee was closed for much of 2023
and recently reopened under new ownership. The new owner, Jason Frankot, is seeking a Conditional Use
Permit for On-Sale liquor to be able to sell alcohol which will create a new revenue stream for the business and
provide new experiences for customers. Alcohol would be sold to Black Sheep Coffee customers during normal
business hours and potentially after normal hours if the building was rented out for private events. A property
must have a conditional use permit for on-sale liquor to qualify for a liquor license. Conditional Use Permits are
tied to a property whereas a liquor license is tied to a business. Conditional Use Permits do not require a
background check whereas a liquor license does. Staff does recommend approval of the proposed Conditional
Use Permit subject to the conditions of approval listed in the staff report.
Chair Felton stated that he understood that alcohol could be served in Black Sheep’s outdoor dining area with a
Conditional Use Permit but asked for clarification on if alcohol could be served out in front of the building
along Southview Boulevard if sidewalk dining was set up. Mr. Healy explained that the outdoor ordinance
allows alcohol to be served outside until 10:00 PM. Any later hours would need to be approved by the Planning
Commission/City Council.

Planning Commission Minutes
June 5, 2024
Page 4 of 8
Commissioner Hart asked if the Applicant would be allowed to serve alcohol inside and outside until 11:00 PM
if the Planning Commission did not adopt specific hours that alcohol can be sold as part of the Conditional Use
Permit approval. Mr. Healy explained that the City’s outdoor dining rules allow liquor to be served outside until
10:00 PM unless the conditional use permit outlines different hours. If the Planning Commission wants to see
different hours for when liquor can be sold outside, they should state that as part of their motion. Alcohol can
already be sold until 11:00 PM inside the building. Commissioner Hart asked how late the restaurant inside the
building was allowed to operate according to the city code. Mr. Healy stated that the city code does not limit
how late a business can operate, just how late alcohol can be served inside the building. Mr. Healy added that
the Planning Commission could impose a limit on the business’ hours of operation but he is not recommending
that they do so.
Commissioner Hart asked if there was a need to discuss potential issues related to exterior lighting as part of the
Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Healy stated that they could, but the Applicant has not provided plans for
modifications to the patio area. Mr. Healy added that regardless of the conditions that are in the Conditional Use
Permit, the Applicant still has to follow the City Code, including the lighting and glare ordinances.
Commissioner Felton commented that the Conditional Use Permit runs with the property so if the City were to
loosen up restrictions on alcohol, those looser restrictions would apply to all future uses of the property, not just
the current use. Mr. Healy stated that was correct. Mr. Healy added that technically liquor licenses can have
conditions placed on them too, but the process is different and generally conditions can only be added for
compelling reasons such as the background of the property owner or the nature of the business.
Jason Frankot came forward to speak to his application.
Mr. Frankot started by disclosing that he served on the Planning Commission from 2020 to 2022. Mr. Frankot
shared that the goal was to get Black Sheep Coffee back up and running while being profitable. When a profit
analysis was done for the business, there were essentially three main things that were holding the business back:
the machinery, the pace at which service was provided, and the offerings the business presented, both in terms
of the menu and the space. Mr. Frankot shared that for now, they only had window service open but once they
have liquor and other items figured out, they planned to fully re-open. Many of the individuals that were
involved with the initial business are around and 7 new jobs have been added. Mr. Frankot added that one thing
he wanted to emphasize was that Black Sheep is only looking to add beer and wine. The business has no
intention of being a full bar and they have no intention of serving hard liquor. The thought behind offering beer
and wine is to have different beverage options available after 1:00 PM when some individuals might not want to
be drinking coffee. Mr. Frankot added that they have added cameras to the premises in the beverage making area
and in the alley. Mr. Frankot stated the business has drapes to prevent light from inside the building from
creating a nuisance outside. Regarding outdoor dining, Mr. Frankot shared that there is a plan to offer an
outdoor seating area.
Chair Felton opened the public hearing.
Steve Mankowski, 725 Southview Boulevard, stated he had several questions. Mr. Mankowski stated that he
would like to know if 3.2% beer would be sold at the site and asked if certain brands of beer would be sold at
the site. Mr. Mankowski also inquired about how a business can acquire a liquor license before they sell food
when the City Charter requires 50% of the sales to come from food for a business to be eligible for an on-sale
liquor license. Mr. Mankowski also asked if the County was now allowing sidewalk cafes on Southview
Boulevard.

Planning Commission Minutes
June 5, 2024
Page 5 of 8
Mr. Frankot shared that the business was focused more on wine than beer and that they had hired a sommelier to
help them pair food and beverages. Mr. Frankot restated the intention is not to become a “down the hill” bar.
Mr. Frankot added that he thought that 3.2% beer is normally only sold at sporting events whereas with a regular
beer and wine license you can sell beer at a normal strength but differed to Mr. Healy on that. Mr. Healy stated
that a beer and wine license allows beers and wines that are up to 19.99% ABV. Chair Felton summarized that
the beer that is being sold would not be limited to 3.2% beer.
Chair Felton asked Mr. Healy to address the questions about the percentage of sales from food needed to get a
liquor license and about whether dining is allowed on Southview Boulevard. Mr. Healy prefaced that liquor
licensing is handled by the City Clerk’s office; however, he had a working knowledge of the subject. Mr. Healy
stated that prior to the 2014 overhaul of the City’s liquor licensing regulations, there was a rule that if a business
was not on Concord Street, the businesses needed to have 50% of its sales come from food. When the rules were
overhauled, the rule became applicable Citywide. Any new business that sells alcohol is required to adhere to
this. Chair Felton asked if coffee would count as food sales. Mr. Healy stated that likely the sale of anything that
is not alcohol would count towards the amount of sales from food but reiterated that he was not involved with
licensing of alcohol and the interpretation of the rules is ultimately up to the City Clerk and the City Council.
Chair Felton asked Mr. Healy about whether sidewalk dining would be allowed on the Southview Boulevard
side of the building. Mr. Healy explained that it would ultimately come down to whether the street right-of-way
extends all the way up to the front of the building. If the street right-of-way comes all the way up to the front of
the building, there could not be tables and chairs out front as the County does not allow outdoor dining in their
right-of-way.
Mr. Mankowski stated that he was not against the application but rather wanted to prevent the Applicant from
accidently violating any city regulations.
Dennis Hosford, 702-710 Southview Boulevard, stated that he was not against a beer and wine license being
issued to Mr. Frankot but stated that he was concerned about the conditional use permit running with the land
and what could happen if a different business moved into the space. Mr. Hosford shared anecdotes of the issues
that occurred with a former business on Southview Boulevard, Big Johns Restaurant and Sports Club. Mr.
Hosford shared the ways that the business found to skirt the 50% requirement and the issues the City had
addressing the business. Mr. Hosford stated that the Applicant was attempting to run two different businesses in
one space and encouraged the Commissioners to limit the hours of operation for the business due to its
proximity to residential properties. Mr. Hosford suggested requiring the business to have their patio closed by
9:00 PM and the business closed by 10:00 PM. Mr. Hosford added that the rules regarding the sale of liquor
after a certain time of night while still allowing the business to remain open results in the rules being
unenforced. Mr. Hosford shared that he had concerns about the business violating the noise ordinance and
stated that he understands the City has no way to enforce its noise ordinance. Mr. Hosford added that the county
right-of-way goes right up to the front of the building and so sidewalk patios should not be allowed. Mr.
Hosford again reiterated that he would like to see the Conditional Use Permit regulate the hours of operation for
any business as the site.
Chair Felton asked Mr. Healy if any correspondence had been received prior to the meeting. Mr. Healy shared
that he had received an email in favor of the request.
Chair Felton asked Mr. Healy to summarize the hours that the business is required to adhere to. Mr. Healy
explained that the City Council recently updated the regulations for outdoor dining areas and how late it is
appropriate to have them stay open. The decision was made to allow outdoor dining until 10:00 PM. This time
aligns with when the City’s noise ordinance takes effect. Mr. Healy explained that the Police have the authority

Planning Commission Minutes
June 5, 2024
Page 6 of 8
to enforce the noise ordinance, which is fairly easy to enforce. It is more difficult to enforce if the City receives
a more technical complaint outside of quiet hours claiming that a noise is above the decibel limit specified in the
noise ordinance. Relating to liquor, alcohol cannot be sold later than 11:00 PM “up the hill.” Mr. Healy
acknowledged that the City Code does allow an alcohol-serving business to stay open past when they can serve
alcohol. Mr. Healy speculated that the City Council put this rule in place to be business friendly, especially
when some other communities also allow businesses to be open after they stop selling alcohol. Mr. Healy
explained that the enforcement of the violation of a Conditional Use Permit condition is usually at the back end.
In the event that a Conditional Use Permit condition is violated and the violation is documented by a police
report, the City has the ability to enforce the Conditional Use Permit by calling a public hearing for the
revocation of the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Healy acknowledged that neighbors would prefer immediate
enforcement; however, the process for addressing conditional use permit violations from the zoning side is not
immediate.
Chair Felton closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Hart asked Mr. Healy if Black Sheep is allowed to have outdoor dining on the sidewalk on
Southview Boulevard and if the Conditional Use Permit would allow alcohol to be consumed in an outdoor
dining area on the sidewalk. Mr. Healy stated that Black Sheep would not be allowed to have outdoor dining on
the sidewalk today. In order for any outdoor dining area to be expanded, a scaled site plan with information
about the location of the property line must be submitted. A special permit is required for sidewalk cafes. Mr.
Healy emphasized that the request in front of the commission was not for a sidewalk café. Commissioner Hart
clarified that he was just looking for clarification about whether dining on the sidewalk would be allowed.
Motion to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit for On-Sale Liquor as presented- Fehrman/Miller (70).

C. Sign Code Overhaul Ordinance
Ms. Miller presented the staff report. The City is proposing an ordinance amendment that would overhaul the
sign code regulations. The ordinance is the last installment of a three-part project to update the City’s sign
regulations to create a code that balances regulating signage with businesses’ need for expression. The ordinance
looks to address three topics that were not touched by the previous updates: murals/painted wall signs,
temporary signage, and the general organization of the sign ordinance. Staff presented a nearly identical version
of the ordinance for discussion at the Planning Commission’s May 1st meeting. During the May 1st meeting,
Commissioner Hoffman asked staff to consider allowing temporary feather flag signs. Feather flag signs are
currently a prohibited type of sign. In staff’s experience, this type of signage is often used for guerilla
marketing. Staff anticipate businesses being unwilling to pay for permits for this type of sign or adhere to a limit
on how many days these signs can be up. Staff encouraged the Planning Commission to discuss whether to
allow these types of signs. If so, the Planning Commission should include in their motion a recommendation that
staff include language to allow temporary feather flag signs. Staff recommends the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the sign ordinance.
Chair Felton reiterated that Staff is looking for discussion from the Planning Commission about whether to
allow temporary feather flag signs. Chair Felton asked what type of performance standards there would be for
feather flag signs. Ms. Miller explained that if the Planning Commission and City Council were to allow these
types of signs, they would be subject to the requirements that are in place for temporary signs that require a
permit. These standards include that a permit is required to install the sign, the sign may only be installed in
conjunction with a promotional item, special event, or holiday, that the signs can be up for 30 days at a time, up

Planning Commission Minutes
June 5, 2024
Page 7 of 8
to 3 signs can be installed at one time, and the total amount of temporary signage cannot exceed 100 square feet.
Chair Felton asked what the fee was for a temporary sign permit. Ms. Miller responded that the cost for a
temporary sign permit was $20. Chair Felton commented that he was concerned that businesses would come in
for a new temporary sign permit every 30 days if there was no fee for the permit. Ms. Miller explained that there
is a cost for temporary sign permits and a property may only have temporary signs installed for up to 120 days a
year.
Commissioner Hoffman asked if the $20 temporary sign permit is good for 120 days or would a business need
to reapply for a temporary sign permit every 30 days. Ms. Miller explained that a temporary sign permit is good
for 30 days and up to 3 signs can be installed with an approved permit. After 30 days, the business needs to take
the signage down.
Commissioner Miller asked if campaign signs were considered small yard signs. Ms. Miller explained that State
Statute has special rules for campaigns signs and these rules are already in the sign code and would not be
changing as part of this ordinance. Mr. Healy added that rules for special campaign signs are only in effect 45
days before the election. Mr. Healy asked Ms. Miller if a small yard sign could be used to display a statement
regarding the approval or displeasure of a political figure, regardless of whether it was election season. Ms.
Miller stated that they could.
Commissioner Hart asked if the code already defined what is mural is. Ms. Miller explained that the current
code does not define what a mural is, but the proposed ordinance would. Commissioner Hart commented that
some of the murals around town appear to border on being signage as opposed to just an artistic expression. Ms.
Miller explained that the ordinance attempts to create a definition for a mural which clearly distinguishes the
artistic form of expression from a painted sign which consists of the name of the business being painted onto a
wall.
Mr. Healy shared his experience handling code enforcement issues related to signage. Mr. Healy shared that for
enforcing the regulations for temporary signs, cities will often do a large sweep once every year or two. There
are some temporary sign rules that are easier to enforce than others. From an enforcement standpoint, it is easier
to tell a business they cannot have a certain type of signage than it is to try to get a business owner to come in
for a sign that they have illegally installed. Mr. Healy stated that there are certain types of signage that are
difficult to set up permit procedures for and that he wanted to avoid creating a false narrative that the City was
creating a strict permitting policy that requires everyone to follow the 30-day rule. Mr. Healy warned that the
number of feather flag signs installed illegally would likely proliferate if the City were to allow them with a
permit.
Chair Felton clarified with Mr. Healy that his recommendation was for the commissioners to carefully consider
the potential implications of legalizing temporary feather flag signs. Mr. Healy encouraged the Planning
Commissioners to consider the topic from a Code Enforcement standpoint and how likely it was that this type of
signage would be illegally installed as a result of legalizing them.
Chair Felton opened the public hearing.
No one was present to comment on the application and no correspondence was received prior to the meeting.
Chair Felton closed the public hearing.
Motion to recommend approval of an ordinance amendment overhauling the regulations for signageKrueger/Hoffman (7-0).

Planning Commission Minutes
June 5, 2024
Page 8 of 8
5)

OTHER BUSINESS

None.
6)

STAFF UPDATES

Ms. Miller shared the City would be partnering with Tree Trust to plant trees in the area of the city south of I494 later in the week. Ms. Miller shared the dates and times for the planting events and encouraged anyone that
was interested to join. Chair Felton asked for clarification on if the tree planting would just be taking place south
of the freeway. Ms. Miller stated that was correct and explained that the city would be planting new trees south
of I-494 first as this is where the City started its ash tree removal project the previous year.
Commissioner Hoffman asked if volunteers should bring their own equipment. Ms. Miller explained that Tree
Trust provides all of the equipment and tries to make the planting process as easy for volunteers as possible by
placing trees where they will be planted and pre-drilling holes for the trees to go into.

7)

ADJOURNMENT

Motion to adjourn- Hoffman/Fehrman (7-0).

AGENDA ITEM 4.A
South St. Paul Planning Commission

Prepared By:
Michael Healy, Planning Manager

Meeting Date:
8/7/2024

Item Description:
Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for On-Sale
Liquor at 111 Concord Exchange South

ACTION REQUESTED
A motion recommending approval or denial of a conditional use permit for on-sale liquor at 111 Concord
Exchange South.
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION
OVERVIEW
Application
The Applicant, TL Networks LLC, operates a restaurant and grocery store at 111 Concord Exchange South in
the old VFW building. The restaurant and grocery store operates under the name “Mexatlan Supermercado.”
The Applicant is planning to reopen one of the banquet halls in the lower floor of the building which was
previously used by the VFW. They are seeking a conditional use permit for on-sale liquor which would allow
them to qualify for an on-sale liquor license so they can sell alcohol at private events taking place in the
banquet hall.
Review Timeline
Application Submittal: July 9, 2024
Planning Commission: August 7, 2024
Tentative City Council Meeting: August 19, 2024
60-Day Review Deadline: September 7, 2024
Background
The Applicant, TL Networks LLC, purchased the old VFW building at 111 Concord Exchange South in 2019.
The Applicant owns the “Taco Libre” chain of restaurants and they have used the old VFW building to expand
and diversify their operations. Part of the building is used as a commissary kitchen for ingredients that are
shipped out to Taco Libre restaurants across the metro and used in the company’s food truck operation.
Part of the building is used for office space. Part of the building is used as a grocery store. The grocery store
contains a small restaurant and an ice cream parlor which each have their own seating area with tables. Part
of the building is used as a bakery and baked products are available in the grocery store.

The Applicant is actively using most of the building but there is a large banquet hall on the lower floor that
has been dormant since the building stopped being a VFW. The Applicant is seeking to bring this banquet
hall back online as a rental space for private events. The banquet hall would function as an extension of the
restaurant that is already in the building. Earlier in 2024, the City Council approved a “consumption and
display” permit for the banquet hall space. With this type of permit, individual guests at can bring their own
alcohol to consume on-site but no alcohol can be sold at the property. The UFCW Union Hall at 266 Hardman
Avenue North is an example of another banquet facility in town that has a consumption and display permit.
The Applicant has not yet reopened the banquet facility as there are still some outstanding
building/inspections requirements that need to be addressed. They recently reanalyzed their business plan
and believe that they are more likely to be financially successful if their business model includes alcohol
sales instead of allowing customers to bring their own alcohol to events. They plan to seek an on-sale liquor
license instead of relying on the consumption and display permit that has already been approved.
Property Characteristics
The subject property has a unique layout. It has frontages along both Concord Street and Concord Exchange.
The building is built into a small hill and essentially has two first floors, one facing each frontage. The grocery
store is on the upper floor and has doors facing Concord Exchange. The banquet hall space is on the lower
floor and has doors facing Concord Street. The building was originally constructed in the mid-1950’s and
received a large addition in 1989. The building has a utilitarian design with few windows and little
architectural detailing. The Applicant has invested significant funds in improving the landscaping and parking
lots and has recently repainted the building.
The subject property includes 4 separate tax parcels which together constitute roughly 2 acres of land. The
building straddles two small parcels, the northern parking lot sits on its own parcel, and the southern parking
lot sits on its own parcel.
Details of Proposed Business Model
Per the Applicant, the current plans for the business are as follows:
•

They are looking to obtain a full liquor license to offer beer, wine, and spirits.

•

They are looking to host a wide variety of events including quinceaneras, weddings, birthday parties,
and community celebrations.

•

They anticipate initially employing 10 individuals and hosting 1-2 events each week.

•

They want to operate the banquet hall space with very flexible hours and may operate as late as 2
AM on weekends.

•

They are currently only looking to offer alcohol in the lower-floor banquet room. It is possible that
they would want to offer beer and wine in the main restaurant space (which is located within the
grocery store) at some point in the future.

Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Guidance
The subject property is zoned “CGMU-1-Concord Gateway Mixed Use Subdistrict 1” and guided “mixed-use”
in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. In the CGMU zoning district:
•

“Cafés, cafeterias, and restaurants” are a permitted use and do not need special zoning approvals.

•

On-sale liquor requires a conditional use permit. Any business that wants to sell wine, beer, or liquor
for consumption on-site must get a conditional use permit before they are eligible for a liquor license.
The City can attach reasonable “case by case” conditions to the conditional use permit.

•

Any individual “use” within a building that has a gross floor area of 10,000 square feet or more
requires a conditional use permit. The Applicant has several different uses within the building on the
subject property and so far, no individual use has reached the point of triggering the conditional use
permit requirement based on gross floor area.

The old VFW was lawful nonconforming (“grandfathered”) and had a liquor license even though they did not
have a conditional use permit. Because that use ceased for longer than one full calendar year, all
“grandfather rights” have been lost and the Applicant needs a conditional use permit to get a liquor license.
Relevant City Code
The following code sections are relevant to this review:
•

Section 118-125 of the City Code governs the Concord Gateway Mixed Use zoning district

•

Section 118-40 of the City Code governs Conditional Use Permits.

•

Sections 118-351 through 118-355 govern off-street parking and loading.

Licensing For This Type of Business
The conditional use permit is just one tool that the City uses to regulate this type of business. The Applicant
will also need to obtain a liquor license and keep it in good standing to sell alcohol. The liquor license is
issued by the City Council and can be revoked for license violations.
State Statute lays out base requirements for liquor licenses. State Statute allows bars and restaurants to sell
alcohol until 1 AM with a standard liquor license. Bars and restaurants can sell alcohol until 2 AM with a
special permit. The City Code is allowed to be stricter than State Statute but cannot be less strict. The City
Code does restrict hours of operation for bars and restaurants in some parts of the community but
businesses that are within 750 feet of Concord Street are not subject to those restrictions. The subject
property is located in what has historically been the community’s entertainment district where late night
activities have always been welcome.
If the Applicant wants to serve alcohol and provide music and other types of entertainment, they will also
need to secure an entertainment license. This type of license is issued by the City Council and can be revoked
for license violations.

Site and Building Plan Review
The Applicant is not currently proposing to make any changes to the exterior of the building or the overall
site.
Parking
The subject property has roughly 100 off-street parking stalls which are located primarily in surface parking
lots to the north and south of the building. Properties in the CGMU district also get credit for on-street
parking stalls adjacent to their property which means that they have an additional 19 stalls of on-street
parking (the street is currently under construction and this number was provided by the Engineering
Department). This means that there are roughly 119 total parking stalls for the building. South St. Paul does
not have fixed minimum parking requirements for non-residential uses and instead the City Code lays out a
process for determining parking needs for each project:
•

Each “use” has a default parking requirement under the City Code. Restaurants and banquet halls
have a default requirement of 1 parking stall per 3 customer seats. Grocery stores and offices have
a default requirement of one parking stall per 400 square feet of gross floor area.

•

The Planning Commission and City Council will evaluate actual parking needs “case by case” as part
of the review of any conditional use permit. They will consider things like on-street parking, shared
parking, transit, pedestrian connectivity, and information about actual parking needs supplied by the
Applicant. Businesses that do not require a conditional use permit may submit a “parking and
circulation plan” and receive permission to deviate from the default requirements.

The Applicant has substantially decreased the property’s overall parking demand since acquiring it in 2019.
The entire building consisted of restaurant and banquet hall space when it operated as a VFW. Much of the
building is now being used for less intense uses such as offices, a bakery, and a grocery store. There should
be no issues with parking availability and many people attending private events with alcohol in 2024 can be
expected to utilize rideshare options (i.e., Uber and Lyft) instead of driving themselves to the subject
property.
Where Can Alcohol Be Consumed?
When the Applicant applies for their liquor license, they will need to provide a detailed floor plan that defines
the “premises” where alcoholic beverages will be served and consumed. Minnesota State Statute is strict
regarding what types of businesses can sell alcohol. Restaurants are allowed to sell alcohol for on-site
consumption, but grocery stores are not. There are numerous grocery stores throughout the Twin Cities (i.e
Whole Foods, Lunds & Byerly’s, and Hy-Vee) that operate small in-store restaurants which serve alcohol. In
each of these grocery store buildings, the liquor license defines the area that is considered the restaurant
and customers need to stay in this area to consume their drinks. Unlike in Wisconsin, is not legal in
Minnesota to wander a grocery store with an alcoholic beverage in hand.
Currently, the Applicant is only proposing to sell alcohol in the lower-level banquet hall. If they want to offer
alcoholic beverages in the upper-level restaurant and/or ice cream parlor in the future, that is something
that they will need to work out with the City Clerk’s office as part of their liquor license.

Cleaning Up Old Approvals
When the building operated as the VFW, there was a very small fenced-in outdoor dining area outside of
the Concord Exchange entrance. During the VFW era, both floors of the building were used for
restaurant/banquet hall space and this outdoor dining area was contiguous with an active restaurant space
on the upper floor. The outdoor dining area was only large enough for 2 or 3 small tables and likely was
intended primarily to accommodate tobacco smoking after indoor smoking became illegal in 2007. The
outdoor dining area was approved via a “conditional use permit for outdoor dining” in 2007 which was
amended to adjust the site plan in 2008.
The Applicant has converted most of the upper level into a grocery store and the small outdoor dining area
is no longer used. The Applicant has not removed the fencing, but the area is now used exclusively as a
customer entrance and there are no tables. The conditional use permits from 2007 and 2008 should be
terminated because this area no longer functions as an outdoor dining area, and it would be problematic if
the Applicant tried to bring it back online and serve alcohol there since it is no longer adjacent to a restaurant
space. The City recently simplified the process for getting an outdoor dining space approved so it will be very
easy for the Applicant to establish an outdoor dining space in the future if they so desire. A conditional use
permit is no longer required for outdoor dining.
Sewer Access Charges
The Metropolitan Council owns the region’s sewer system and they require property owners to obtain a
Sewer Access Charge (SAC) determination if the use of a building is going to change. Changing the use of a
building may trigger the payment of SAC fees if the Metropolitan Council determines that the new use is
going to have a greater impact on the sewer system than the previous use. They use a book of mathematical
formulas to make this determination. City Staff has been working with the Applicant to complete the SAC
determination process since the upper floor was converted from a banquet hall to a grocery store and
restaurant in 2023. It is very important that the Applicant completes this process, and it needs to be a
condition of approval so the Applicant treats it as a high priority. The Metropolitan Council periodically audits
their SAC records to make sure that all required sewer access fees have been paid. They may penalize
businesses and municipalities that do not follow SAC determination procedures.
Parcel Configuration
The subject property consists of four different parcels. Each of the two parking lots sits on its own parcel.
The building itself straddles two parcels and a property line appears to run through the banquet hall space.
The two parcels underneath the building need to be combined and this should be a condition of approval
for the conditional use permit. This is for two reasons:
1. Technically, it may be considered a Building Code and/or Fire Code violation to have a property line run
through the building since there is not a firewall along the property line.
2. The City will need to define the “premises” where alcohol will be served as part of the liquor licensing
process. Having the building straddle two parcels adds an extra PID # to the equation and complicates
the property’s title which makes it hard to process the liquor license cleanly.
The Dakota County Tax Assessor will combine the two parcels free of charge. The Applicant simply needs to
submit a signed application.

Surrounding Land Uses
Direction

Existing Use

Existing Zoning

Comp Plan Guidance

West

City Auto Glass

CGMU-1

North

Vacant City-owned
parcel
Bridgepoint
Industrial Park

CGMU-1

Grand Exchange MixedUse
Grand Exchange MixedUse
Light Industrial

East
(across
Concord Street)
South

Protouch Painting
Inc.

I-1 Light Industrial

CGMU-1

Grand Exchange MixedUse

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA
Conditional Use Permits should be reviewed through the lens of the criteria outlined in the City Code:
(1)

That the conditional use, with such conditions as the commission shall determine and attach, conforms to the
general purpose and intent of this chapter.

(2)

If the application is based on the conditional use provision in this chapter that the issuance conforms to the
general characteristics of the district of which it will become a part.

(3)

That the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of property
in the neighborhood for uses permitted in the district or districts affected.

(4)

That adequate utilities, access roads, streets, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or will be
provided.

(5)

That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress in such a manner as to
minimize traffic congestion and hazards in the public streets.

(6)

In Business districts. Certain uses are considered, as a rule, unsuitable in commercial areas because of
inherent characteristics (e.g., traffic hazards, noise, light glare), proximity to residential areas, the fact that
they tend not to serve nearby residential areas, or may adversely affect nearby permitted business uses.

COMMENTS FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS
South Metro Fire Department
Fire Marshal Terry Johnson provided comments which are summarized below:
•

The occupancy load for the banquet hall space needs to be established and the space needs to be posted
with the maximum occupancy. The Fire Departments has records from 2018 and the Applicant should
coordinate with the Fire Department to complete this process.

•

A third-party contractor performed an inspection of the building’s sprinkler system in September of 2023
and submitted an inspection report to South Metro Fire Department. The Fire Department needs to
confirm that the issues outlined in the report have all been addressed. Specifically:
o The report notes that sprinkler coverage is missing in some areas but does not provide specifics.
If any sprinkler coverage is missing in the banquet hall area or the ancillary spaces (i.e.

restrooms), then it should be a “condition of approval” that sprinkler coverage be added to
adequately protect people using the banquet hall facility.
o Corroded sprinkler heads in the kitchen need to be inspected and replaced if defective
o Sprinkler heads above mezzanine need to be cleaned and inspected
o Replace painted sprinkler heads downstairs
o Replace missing handle on main sprinkler drain
o Repair outside horn/strobe alarm
South Metro Fire Department has tentatively scheduled an inspection of the space for Monday, August 5th
and more information should be available prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
Police Department
Chief Wicke provided comments which are summarized below:
•

As with previous on-sale liquor CUP’s, the Police Department will continue to request that the City
Council consider requiring that surveillance cameras be installed inside and outside the property with
footage made available to law enforcement upon request. The Planning Commission and the City
Council discussed this topic extensively in 2023 as part of the review of a new restaurant and banquet
hall at the 5th Avenue Plaza Shopping Center. The Planning Commission and City Council were not
comfortable with proactively requiring surveillance cameras as a CUP condition. Surveillance cameras
can be required in the future as part of the liquor licensing process if the property has security issues.

•

The Police Department would like to see the CUP require an on-site security officer for any event
with alcohol that has more than 100 guests. This requirement was also placed on the banquet hall at
the 5th Avenue Plaza Shopping Center.

DISCUSSION
Conditional Use Permit review is “case by case” and the City can attach reasonable conditions to the
approval. A conditional use permit can be revoked by the City Council if the conditions are not adhered to.
Conditional Use Permits “run with the land” and are inherited by the new owner if the property changes
hands.
The proposed use is located in the City’s mixed-use district along Concord Exchange and the City does want
to see entertainment options added to this street. It is exciting to see this corridor take on new energy as
new buildings are constructed and property owners make investments in improving existing buildings. Staff
would recommend placing the same conditions on the CUP that have been recently placed on other similar
businesses related to licensing, on-site security for large events, and compliance with the noise ordinance.
Additionally, there should be conditions related to SAC determination, lot combination, and fire safety as
discussed earlier in this staff memo.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the following conditions:
1. Approved Plans. The conditions of this approval are based on the following plans:
a. Application (Diana Luna Ramirez Martinez)
b. Narrative (Diana Luna Ramirez Martinez)
c. Floor Plan for Banquet Hall Space (Diana Luna Ramirez Martinez)

dated 5/8/2024
Undated
Undated

2. Status of Previous Conditional Use Permits. All previous conditional use permits applying to the subject
property are hereby terminated as part of this approval and any conditions that are still relevant will be
incorporated into this approval document. The Applicant and property owner acknowledge and agree
that the previous conditional use permits are terminated, and hereby waive any rights related to the
previous conditional use permits.
3. Establishing Occupancy Load for Banquet Hall Space. The Applicant shall coordinate with the Fire
Marshal to establish the maximum occupancy load for the banquet hall space, and this must be posted.
The Fire Marshal may require the Applicant to hire a design professional to establish the occupancy load
if it cannot be determined from existing records.
4. Sprinkler Coverage in Banquet Room 1 and Ancillary Spaces. The Applicant shall ensure that Banquet
Room 1 (as shown on the floor plan) and the ancillary spaces such as restrooms are adequately protected
by the sprinkler system. This is subject to review and approval by the Fire Marshal.
5. On-Site Security Officer Required for Large Private Events with Alcohol. The Applicant shall be required
to provide an on-site security officer for the duration of any private event with over 100 guests where
alcohol is provided. Ticketed events are considered private events.
6. Liquor License Required. The Applicant must obtain a liquor license prior to beginning alcohol sales. The
Applicant must keep their liquor license in good standing and comply with any requirements attached
to the license.
7. Hours that Alcohol Can Be Served. The Applicant shall adhere to any restrictions that are placed on their
liquor license regarding the hours that alcohol can be served, pursuant to City Code and State Statute.
8. Compliance with Entertainment Licensing Requirements. The Applicant shall obtain an entertainment
license prior to providing any entertainment that requires a license.
9. Compliance with Noise Ordinance. Excessive violations of the noise ordinance may result in the
revocation of the conditional use permit. The City Council, at their sole discretion, shall determine what
constitutes excessive violations.
10. Sewer Access Charge Determination. The Applicant shall provide the City with a Sewer Access Charge
(SAC) determination letter from the Metropolitan Council for their overall use of the building. The
Applicant shall pay any required SAC fees. A violation of this condition will be considered a code violation
which may result in administrative citations.

11. Lot Combination Required. The Applicant is required to combine the two parcels that comprise their
building into one tax parcel using Dakota County’s lot combination process. This includes PID #36-1526000-531 and PID #36-02700-01-101. The lot combination form must be submitted to Dakota County by
no later than September 30, 2024. A violation of this condition will be considered a code violation which
may result in administrative citations. The Zoning Administrator may waive this condition if Dakota
County is unable to complete the lot combination and it turns out that the parcels cannot be combined
without replatting the subject property.
12. Addressing Deficiencies Outlined in 2023 Sprinkler Inspection Report. The Applicant shall address the
deficiencies outlined in the 2023 Sprinkler Inspection Report dated 9/6/2023, subject to review and
approval by the Fire Marshal. This includes the following:
a. Corroded sprinkler heads in the kitchen need to be inspected and replaced if defective
b. Sprinkler heads above mezzanine need to be cleaned and inspected
c. Replace any painted sprinkler heads downstairs.
d. Replace missing handle on main sprinkler drain.
e. Repair outside horn/strobe alarm.
13. Termination of the Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit will terminate if improvements
have not substantially begun within one year from the date of approval. The violation of any condition
of approval in the conditional use permit may terminate the conditional use permit(s), following a
hearing by the City Council.
The recommended conditions related to fire safety may be modified prior to the Planning Commission
meeting depending on the results of the Fire Marshal’s inspection on August 5 th.

Action Requested
The Planning Commission has the following actions available on the proposed application:
1. Approval. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend approval of the conditional use permit, the
following action should be taken:
A. Motion to recommend approval of a conditional use permit for on-sale liquor at 111 Concord
Exchange South.
2. Denial. If the Planning Commission wishes to recommend denial of the conditional use permit, the
following action should be taken:
B. Motion to recommend denial of a conditional use permit amendment for on-sale liquor at 111
Concord Exchange South.
If the Planning Commission wants to recommend denial, it will require a finding that the CUP request is not
consistent with one of more parts of the CUP criteria.

ATTACHMENTS
A. Site Location Map
B. Subject Property Parcel Map
C. Photographs of Subject Property and Banquet Hall Space
D. Floor Plan for Banquet Hall Space
E. Applicant’s Narrative
F. 2023 Sprinkler Inspection Report
G. Public Hearing Notice

ATTACHMENT A
SITE LOCATION MAP

ATTACHMENT B
SUBJECT PROPERTY PARCEL MAP

*PARCEL 2 AND PARCEL 3 NEED TO BE COMBINED

ATTACHMENT C
PHOTOGRAPHS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND BANQUET HALL SPACE

GROCERY STORE ENTRANCE FACING CONCORD EXCHANGE

GROCERY STORE FAÇADE ALONG CONCORD EXCHANGE

BANQUET HALL ENTRANCE FACING CONCORD STREET

BUILDING FAÇADE FACING CONCORD STREET

LOWER LEVEL BANQUET HALL SPACE
(PHOTOGRAPHS TAKEN 7/30/2024)

ATTACHMENT D
FLOOR PLAN FOR BANQUET HALL SPACE

ATTACHMENT E
APPLICANT’S NARRATIVE

ATTACHMENT F
2023 SPRINKLER INSPECTION REPORT

ATTACHMENT G
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE

AGENDA ITEM 6.A
South St. Paul Planning Commission

Prepared By:
Michael Healy, Planning Manager

Meeting Date:
8/7/2024

Item Description:
Planner’s Update
ACTION REQUESTED
This update is for informational purposes only.
UPDATES
Update 1: City Council Action on Items from June Planning Commission Meeting
The Planning Commission reviewed three items at their June 5th meeting and recommended approval of all
three items. Here is the status of those three items:
1. Setback Variance for Front Porch Addition at 120 2nd Avenue South- Approved by the City Council
2. Conditional Use Permit for On-Sale Liquor at Black Sheep Coffee- Approved by the City Council
3. Ordinance Amendment Updating the Sign Code- Second Reading Scheduled for August 5th
Update 2: Draft Parks Master Plan
City Staff and consultant group HKGI have finished drafting the full Parks Master Plan document. This project
launched in June of 2023 and the new plan was prepared over the course of a year with careful analysis, discussions
with the City Council and advisory commission members, and robust community engagement (online and mailed
surveys, in-person engagement at community events, an open house at the new library, interactive online maps, etc.).

City Staff is planning to bring the draft plan forward for review and approval in September following a 1month public comment period. Comments received during this period will be shared with elected officials
and appointed commission members as they review the plan and decide whether any final revisions are
needed before the new plan is officially adopted. The draft Parks Master Plan will be released online on
Monday August 5th for community feedback with the following timelines.
•

The public will be asked to submit written feedback by no later than Tuesday, August 27th if they
want it shared with the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission as part
of their September agenda packets.

•

The public will be asked to submit written feedback by no later than Tuesday, September 10 th if they
want it shared with the City Council as part of their agenda packet for the September 16 th meeting.

Note: The Planning Commission historically has not been involved with updates to the Parks Master Plan.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission was the only advisory board that was involved with the last
master plan update in 2005. In 2023, several sitting Planning Commissioners expressed a strong interest in
being involved with the Parks Master Plan update. The Parks Department agreed to allow the Planning
Department and the Planning Commission to play a supporting role. The Planning Commission is an “extra”
group that is supporting this project and the role of the Planning Commission is secondary to the role of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission.
Update 3: South Concord Corridor Study
South St. Paul adopted its 2040 Comprehensive Plan in October of 2020. The adopted comprehensive plan
calls for a study of the “South Concord Corridor” to take place within 5-10 years. Completion of this study is
considered Action 4.3 of the City’s Land Use Plan, Action 5.3 of the City’s Economic Development Plan, and
Action 7.3 of the City’s Transportation Plan. City Staff began scoping this far-reaching project in 2022 and
the project scope has been refined over the past two years. As proposed, the South Concord Corridor Study
will include a market study, the development of a cohesive vision for the corridor, and a zoning code and
zoning map update.
The “South Concord Corridor” refers to land that is in the southeastern corner of South St. Paul between
Interstate 494 and the community’s southern border with Inver Grove Heights. The corridor sits at the
bottom of a 100-foot-tall river bluff. The bluff forms the corridor’s western boundary, and the Mississippi
River forms its eastern boundary. The backbone of the corridor is Concord Street, a north-south arterial road
that is owned by Dakota County and was the main thoroughfare in the region until the construction of US52 in the 1970’s. There are two steeply graded local roads that provide connectivity between the South
Concord Corridor and the residential neighborhoods at the top of the bluff. A large part of the South Concord
Corridor consists of industrial properties located between Concord Street and the river which are served by
a small network of low-amenity local roads. The local road network serving the industrial businesses is
punctuated by multiple at-grade railroad crossings.
The City Council discussed the South Concord Corridor at their May 28th Worksession and directed City Staff
to move forward with a study. The City will need to partner with a qualified consultant team to complete
the project and a Request for Proposal (RFP) was released in June. City Staff was successful in obtaining a
$25,000 grant from the Dakota County CDA to help fund the project and the remainder of the project will
be paid for out of the Economic Development Authority (EDA) Redevelopment Fund.
The South Concord Corridor Study will be kicking off in August and the Planning Commission can expect to
be very involved with the visioning and code update portion of this project. More information about the
project scope can be found via the following links:
RFP Page With Background About Project:
https://www.southstpaul.org/909/South-Concord-Corridor-Study-Request-for
City Council Worksession Packet for May 28th Discussion on South Concord Corridor:
https://www.southstpaul.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Agenda/_05282024-1319

Map Showing Approximate Boundaries of South Concord Corridor Study Area