Taco Bell wins

St. Paul licensing and zoning staff say there is nothing city can do about disruptions—it is a “police matter”

By JANE MCCLURE

Despite complaints about patron behavior and neighborhood disruption at a Snelling Ave. fast-food restaurant, it appears that the St. Paul Planning Commission and city licensing and zoning staff cannot do much at this time. However, some commissioners are going to continue to monitor the situation at the Taco Bell restaurant at Snelling and Edmund avenues.

Some commissioners are unhappy with the response received from city staff, that there is nothing going on at this time that the St. Paul Department of Safety and Inspections (DSI) can enforce. DSI staff indicated last month that the behavior issues are the purview of the St. Paul Police Department. Representatives of Border Foods, Taco Bell’s owner, have told city officials they work with the police.

The problems at the restaurant, as well as the recent behavior of young people in the adjacent commercial and residential areas, have been a concern for neighbors and business owners as well as for city officials. Large groups of young people congregating in the area, as well as assaults, property damage, and thefts have been detailed on social media.

At the restaurant, loudspeakers, music blaring from motor vehicles, screaming, yelling, and drunken behavior have kept Taco Bell’s neighbors awake. One neighbor told the Planning Commission this summer that he could hear orders from his back yard several houses away.

The debate over noise and behavior at Taco Bell’s drive-through came to a head when plans for a new restaurant were discussed this summer. Neighbors and Planning Commission members had hoped the new restaurant and new permits were a chance to limit hours and put more conditions on operations. St. Paul requires all fast-food restaurants to have conditional use permits. Drive-through services—be they for restaurants, banks, coffee shops, dry cleaners, pharmacies or other uses—also must have conditional use permits. The permits are used to put conditions on restaurant operations and can be very specific. Drive-through window conditions can be used to regulate noise, hours of operation and other issues.

But withdrawal of the Taco Bell plans in August means the business can keep operating with the same hours.

The Planning Commission Zoning Committee then asked DSI for a review of site history and operations, to learn more about the situation and to see if anything could be done. Planning Commissioner Julie Padilla said the intent of the review was to explore all of the evidence regarding issues raised recently.

On Sept. 10, Zoning Administrator Wendy Lane outlined the site history dating back to the restaurant’s start in 1973. Her statement that the restaurant isn’t in violation of its current conditional use permit or site plans troubled some Planning Commission members.

Not all of the commissioners agreed with the need for the Sept. 10 review. Commissioner David Wickiser said that while he agrees with the issues over current operations, he said the Zoning Committee may have been overstepping. He said the plans should have been voted up or down at Planning Commission this summer.

But Padilla disagreed, and said Zoning Committee and Planning Commission are supposed to make the “best decisions possible” for the community. She and other commissioners said they need to look into the neighborhood concern and to continue to monitor the situation. Padilla also noted that Border Foods asked for the issue to be sent back to the commission, before withdrawing its request.

There has been a Mexican-style fast-food restaurant at the site since 1973, including Zantigo and Zapata as well as Taco Bell. At some point, a drive-through window was installed, although a conditional use permit was never issued. With no conditional use permit, the city never had a chance to place conditions on operations.

What frustrates the Planning Commission and Zoning Committee is the lack of historic records for the property and lack of clarity of what existing records mean. One issue discussed Sept. 10 is that records refer to the drive-through window as both a pedestrian walk-up window and a drive-through. City staff can not find proof that building permits were ever obtained before the window was installed. Another concern raised is that the drive-through speaker box was installed in a way that creates potential traffic conflicts.

“I find it hard to believe that anyone at the city would approve a site plan where all of the traffic lining up has to go in the wrong direction in the drive aisle,” said Commissioner Gaius Nelson.