89-2099 WHITE - CITV CLERK .
PINK - FINANCE (j I TY O F SA I NT PA U L Council �� �p p�
BI.UERV - MAVORTMENT File NO. �
Counci olution !` -� ��
� �.g
�____ �;-
Presented By
Referred To Committee: Date ��/Z� ° /
Out of Committee By Date
RESOLUTION GRANTING THE APPEA OF THE DISTRICT TWO COMMUNITY COUNCIL TO
A PLANNING COIrII►4ISSION DECISIO GRANTING THE CONTINUATION OF A PEBMIT FOR
AN ADVERTISING SIGN ITUATED AT 862 WHITE BEAR AVENUE
WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Co mission following public hearings by its
Zoning Co�mittee granted the appeal of Schmeig Washburn Industries Inc. to
continue the construction of an adv rtising sign at 862 White Bear Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the District Two Com�unity Council appealed the action of the
Planning Co�nission in a tieely man er, alleging error in the Planning
Commission's findings concerning th facts in the case; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing before the City Council was duly published
in the official newspaper of the ci y and notices were mailed to each owner of
affected property and property situ ted wholly or partly within 350 feet of
the subject property; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing before th City Council was held October 19, 1989,
where all interested parties were h ard, the Council having considered all the
facts and recommendations concernin the appeal; and
WHEREAS, based upon the testimony p esented, the City Council has deter�ined
that the Planning Commiasion erred n its finding that work which occurred
off-site during the 180 day period as continued work under the permit;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, tha the City Council grants the appeal of the
District Two Community Council, and hereby rescinds the action of the Planning
Commission granting Schmeig Washbur Industries Inc. the right to continue
construction of the advertising si� at 862 White Bear Avenue; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Co ncil directs the Buildin� Inspection and
Design Division of the Depart�ent o Community Services to order the removal
of the advertising sign structure a 862 White Bear Avenue.
COUNCIL MEMBERS Requested by Department of:
Yeas Nays
Dimond
L.o� [n Fav r
coswitz
Rettman
.�p� __ Against BY
Sonnen
Wilson
��V ? � '�8 Form Appro�ed,by City Att ney
Adopted by Council: Date ,
Certified Ya: d by Counci Secret y By `
sy �-� ��'����-.�`.�•.�
A►pp by Navor. D Z 1989 APP�o ed b Mayoc for ubmission to Council
Y � ��� �J 4_� �.� BY
��
� - �5� ��i-aoq9
������ �����!�9 GREEN SHEET wo. 535�
CONTA PER N 8 E INI'f1AU DATE INRIAUDATE
�har�eS � McGu i re - 3364 ❑ EPARTMENT DIRECTOR �CITY COUNqL
��F� �I� ATTORNEY �GTY CLERK
MUST BE ON OOUNCIL AOENDA BY(OAT� ROUTMIO � UDOET DIRECTOR �FIN.d MOT.SERVICES DIR.
As soon as possi bl e. � AYOR(OR ASSIBTANT) �
TOTAL#►OF SIGNATURE PAQE8 1 (CLIP ALL LOCA ION8 FOR SIQNATUR�
ACT10N REQUESTED:
Approval of resolution.
REOOMMENDAnONS:MPr�e(IU a Rek�(R) COUNCN. MI NEP.ORT
+ ANALYBT PHONE NO.
�_PUINPIINQ OOMMIS810N _CIVIL SERVI(�OOMMISSION
_GB COMMI7TEE _
_STAFF _ ���:
_o�rp�crca,�r — The at ached resolution formalizes City Council action
SUPPORTS WHIGi COUNdI OBJECTIVE7 taken t a pu6i i c heari ng hel d October 19, 1989.
i�u►nNO P�M.issue.oProaruNm�w�w.wn.�.vun.�,wn«s.wi+�:
t•
ADVANTAOE3IF APPHOVED:
�CEIVEn
�DV22i�g
CITY C�ERK
D18ADVMRA(iE8 IF APPROVED:
DIBADVANTAOEB IF NOT APPROVED:
. CoUncil Research Center
NOV 2 Q 1989 �
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANBACTION � t�6T/11EVENUE BUDOETED(CIRCLE ON� YES NO
FUNDING SOURCE ACTIVITY NUMBER
flNANC1AL INFORMATION:(IXPlA1N)
9'�i
z..� � • '�e.�.n M a Z. : t .r1°� ; .� ''���'i� #_ �t.�t A7vy',xss e '�x �r :. �- ., � :a 'h. d
,e 's p � Y Y
. �r, 'st c� - x � Tz �: 1;e �
S � �',��[., * '�' r C�s��� ��}'�� � � ti � ' � i 4�yd r 4� �t� � f° � . t�u ,_�r.� � . q R � y _ � � : r
.
�. � �i r s �y ✓.�1'a�a a'yg.' w:� � �`r � �. � .. °a"��1�����°� �,�s
_ � K N ' �' y"F.a ` R� k Z �' i- M1
�� y � :. .."r :r4° .i w4 - r� �;',�'�� � - �+x �_ a s ��4� f z . � � s,�, '#cy
t��-� ti �� 't��,x:.= � "1 .k; .3t:_ � - '�rs ? �: �+�
� � x S - * r � 3"' i � .�.�r a� '`"� ;� r X. �N ` 1 :. � �
� ��',� f f-��'+" : r r�e � ;: : {� � �.� ��.� �x. `�' �.��Yw �'���� �' �+`� " .' y ; "'4
' a
?4 1 : � �� � t (.:tiz t k�� ,� s S Y � t -.r <5 l.�"� �r �;� y, � �t '9°� , "" - r� � ��7rt
�g �J t; 1 x �� �. '1 ''����r }� � �� rr � tr ��� � � �: �,it �
�.° �' k .. „ � � �• '� . 4t �p �'�,` r �' ` ; } f '� �s ��t�
�x„3�i h � f �° 'q � �� t'�""j ' � � .:vt� � k ''ab ^a'y r ;� c � f'rt..
7
r z"�.�i � 3}S � - r � � �Fr ��,- f � .i�� x S � ,k �� � � � ��; �W
1 '� - `� � k Fa . <�� C �� "T
�f �- �ry10 , _� Ap`��� .: '� T � j�p °�..���i ? t�i ' d' '. � j ,�,,i}kt�+ yf t Y�„�
�` J n J ,,� �: � �c ;'K. � f ��. -��rt `� y.x $'i; R �' ��r` " , s ,., ;�� ,.�''F �
�q - a r af �� �� ,r�"4���' ,���t ro i�� 1 t `-'g �'' w�4: :: ��: r a ��tut�"8
S� �:' ., �, tx r' .. 1 :. �-. y � "" -c„ f�
�� s P a� � `� �+ > 4c.S`�?� E"'A� .'a� '� �r � � 4� }i� e��a',
€g��� �,f .. .1 �.�. '��f :���); y, �. � ! Y �ti.�� �r +R t � { �., � �<
.� 6fi � � F Y � i ��� 2 n ; kf � ' t��
�ti X'�`f �G� .; 1 ��� "�,� .fT� : '��'�+� � ''r'�a �� � � L ° ^�. � °
� . , ,t� �5 s ;,t kt .,�.� f ...d f , a � x '+�4C, j �, �k y ra. �t �v.;.
f ��r� .�y�,, a 1 ti y � �ui„-A, �.�. 'R" ; ,,�. '^ �. � .> � Y % 1
'^ � r-vi n i�il '.�.�:� �� ,� } � � y � 4 r .•� ; E ° � �� i 3
e - � -' �_ ,� �, C `�� �:;M � � t 5 :. �� sr '1 ' S'r y,�S'.
�t n t • i• r � i�&r:� �� �.r sS: �' y
�' n � ' t ' 9 � s rY . y� r - �. '' uY' h r i�"�1 x � �+�
Ya f ��' , �:,t t� � �� �, ,H, � ` 2x aK�:{ r 2 � x+ 3 > � � ���4 3 -: y� �,'� x
� #a } $� �.: 9 -p� � , �S F ,k �er�`•�t,� T P :t �:a �.C( z ,r �.� .f Sp
t�'iK'` _� ,, r :, y�� � 1 0 23� { �' j��::�4� � ,�,r ':� x s,��::1 `'� � '� t' #•
t '�e �, S��~ " I ¢ i a4�4' ., :'}f�' '�T` y+ir '� n - + `:t "* •� a "' ?. t,{`c,YY .
��s *� y���?� �b�Y ��� n. Y � :'' �4�" � �t x�� ,��., e 5 r��:� i. ,±.a ��s.c 3
�;�p���' �� #�'+Ry,.�� �i�1 r ,y'L"y � "" 't 4'S r �.r,r. -v. .J r k ?RS s �:�
�'*+�5,�'S 1' �� .. 3. Z . : .�. } A`E 1 I � � { y .� C a 3 '� £ �-' 1 Y/ Lri'f
Rk�
R�-x � � . ��rr �yx �. A � t� k �y �� a F . �� S� 1� .�W� r ♦ 1 �
��a{ . a � ��� ;��, ,��,����,.��=�' � �: �" � '��i`t .�3` ��6.a��`�I'� � s ' b� ��.�'��r� �,�" z h-.
_ ;� ti �. h � i t i, + i � � v r �`
r Y� �` .,� f ��'� } `�f ,� Y � i,.,�r�, r'� J', � f/' r .� � �`; ' j��'
��. ,� .r R -.t t'� �r t+ ..^..s� .
r f ���� '� f � �,�„ � � �i'�' �v 4�" � �""� ti �„
� ��y k�y .. i _ k s„ P 4 ',at �, l f ��� t i4�� � ,'� R a'' .i.�,� .
��fi �t� ��= i �� c a �' ��' �y i ��5.� ' y, W� �� �- - -� �' ;� y�'3'��
� � � � ` 3
'f
�*,�`� �� � �' t T .'���r ,.� �� b � �� �{ � i�ts�� `"��•."` '�"` r ,� �� � ��p�„�':d�e aP"� �+ �`�"r1°'`�,'�
A�M��� ''�' ;2 ��i���'i..�����i '"*���r��� t �� � �s...; ;.k�jv � s�'r M :t s�V� + � ��s k'�.
1 r y�� F `yp ���1► � . � �' r ���-. -* �e
w q�i 1. �. Y��i�ll� �'�1��1. s , �y YRx'` ^.., y� � ti 3. f �# a`.�.;
� �f �, t"� Y, � ��^'q���� ���'�� %Y � 'i� �j �? '£ ���`s' ^ ^��� �
t � � �� � b :
{.� .�. �] � ,� . .: � �.t x = � .�, "F o y` 'u�a. �'q�. ,'°�q�� �Rr
€ l k 3 � A����r � �� �,:' �-W �r ;<� 4 1 ZS � S � i . � �.� Y i { _` F t i Y' L :J.-i. 3�M1,
� :
r�` ;, ,,,.F 1� �r -. 9 t ��. c'.....�,. � �� a.�" � �.?a'w, fi- e ` $ � - :N`�`'
�"zg�,� �l i �� x i� � ,� �.'� t �,��T6 �_ � ,� �. r r � rr�'. .,
��t ti � � .�3 ���C����"� , f�+.�tr� �P k „� �y ,� � , q c ��.n _ � ' } '.
�1� Y �'. 2 _ 4,7Sq.�, . v'�- '�' ; '. }�k S t f:� 1 \Y dt'M R i �' � i J .,, 'f`�l � ' d � � y :�'t'°y J ..�
.+��ke< . +. t ,,,� r ���'`� p� 5�_� ��+� ,�� y- t�: ��. f k'�'� xr," `z� r"�`��,e i t -�''�� 4 �' �4 � � � ,'.+S}'`� � .:
��� i t y, „��s ,,,, t s,,�' �r� � � �i�9t iG; s'�j �r�'��`�'2 '� v n� Y �a
,yi.'� ..j _ 'S ,i ..�b , ; y.
� -' .s ��y�e�.�, �,E xr�;. " �G x .. a n r "v � . `t .° .. h���
�S 9.K, � � �,.t � ST � �: �� .. 7 +� 4,. ��tik ,Y �'`e5�`�x f �' � .�._ � .�, - 1 � 3
ri� z � '��W��3 ; r # �E'� i 3 ��* ��' � a � ..� � f e �f
� ,. y, .: � . � ^,i „ 1 ::�b� ft�3 r 1 '�A J , '.
�` .� '-#� „�i 1". ;q " yq,.+ t': ; k `F bY ;h . o- ,, ��� x � '^ �� �y ,.
z ,
� r � � a�� r ` 'd� � ,. " y _r T� `�ti �'� � . x ;v'"E�,° .i, J E x A � . °� � ,
� � � +� .4 rS � �� .
T �y �. '!��� ,� . � t�'y. . q .. �6{ Z_ , £.
� }, r �
Y��y� S r�,z, � s ��Y � ^���:� t t�� �� _ .Fl t ��,� � ? ;,r �y � r t ��rL �'`�:S� �:
� x t 4
.�j�'� +} :, �y Y _�r - �
'�7 �,, ,.°�� �,�. t �r } +' r fi � S,�e e q � 4.��6
"� �€ r^ �,Y � � ��, �F, �M
�� i � .'„��; 4 e �,��z xE '' Y� � a .'y i F � �� « � � "�''"��
� e . .� �a fc ��^u, t fi�,{4�� ' 3. y, �'
�+ � ,l"rF. . �'yy ; i�' � 4 '�,� 1 � A ' .t+K� 1 y i �. 9
}- Y � � _;< Y C° 1 4 d �, t 'fTK .l I: y.
k� � r� ,f :� �t,� F� *�`t Y S'y"` '' '�v � x '��`a �2c �^` � �
t 1� r,ri'� � a �} 3� > �� s� t
��s§> _. a t.�i ; �, �� '. L'� �� � t$ � �r a, @1e;�^�.f4 Sr �• '� i .,f x�._ ' '`'A�
� � �' P[ _S t k; �/§ k,: F '. E ¢ ,: 3�Y#
jN+ � ' {4 ! F !�i �,'�! � �ri; ,� �"�� 4�y }j R � r� 5r �a��c'� � �a �' M''� ;x 5� �'( t x � �
�. a , �. ��y t y, v a� t 't ro �,r x{ f � t"�y� '.c 'm. 6 n � i. �,� ;.
!�� ;�` t i, : i �.'�'r? �"g; c r '�a. � � ..� ..� � .i � y c�.
x M i } �� �� � n � '�. , y� :. �.� . � . f v ,,� k y�
t c F �-: �` v " '�p, : r � �. ' � �'r .\ *� � : r � , c� o � ��, �.._ ,�, . ��.
'` s �. t t �� y� . � '�;~ t ✓i'.: b �:� r � .� c� ��T { �A�.�' s"•. ..�'� �+ �. � � x y 1 �'��
ff y z4� � x r � �p� 4 x
r } � � � t,; _�i� �� '� :y. �'V'� 'L. li` �'�3t �,tF} ��� }'�; 3 � k *'j � .Yl�. ��„j
�`#y � r � �'�° ''� 1; s �� ,��t, ,.�.���, �..�- } �.�i °r. '� � � ,.�ki i r '' sm
y,� a,. ��� t x �' : �r 7 �t'. ��. e . ,� �'� �- �� "�-^ 9 5. �.
� ��y x t> - � ,� v � _ s3 i F .�e b� � � i . t �,i:
+ s � y r r,�F k ..K tY4 ,� t'�7[ `�,�,.-�rt,i�'''� ° � F �`.a ,'� s r± �� � �
: ( � �
f( �'� L� 'c 'kl. _ 3� ti;�� ,^�`�� x� { � ,. � �tlt T . � ���S �i
�� t Y
�l� "�e � 'rr a- f ' ';ij`e � :3� 'id �M � e x �.'' r ` 4 � x`` x :
, t � }� � �A t � � T ( , y'� , ca`�'� ^ s 4 � �
�y � t�� F s ,.w.�� 't
�"�3` . �a� nf�' �F p + k+ ��.� � � y � � � s � � � 'i1 ;� 2 � y fi ?��� �� �'� 1�.
b� '2 � �'r �. s y{ :4 ,C d hL . Y 1 tC". +. �'�; tz�y'
t ti< ��-�C 4. �� � � i 1 . - �Y �,,� �d b L� �k ..1 `"t �3�.�
, t �, �. � `A ,� �, '. a �'� a_�.+ k„t, ' � � a ^�� f.. ����� � ` F t� � r
�sE- r �
� vx � �«s�
� , C .-., _h :, c- `'r t "' n� .s ' � , �: s�g'i'�
�� - F �. P� '� k �as a `+�' �7� i r-S r, r �
1 . .�` :c+ ri^' �� F �i�'- �. - �.,,,. � �
� � ��� st�r �, }�, �. a �,,b ��,Y� '�" v , �'tr �,s v ''�'j,,, { A� a �` � � � .� ! w a-+�-
�{ p"7 ti �.37'Ad °` �� �F KU �:v �` �' � � a .. „�y �.
Eu r � _. a x y .. "�fi{ ,� ,� � '�� 31-.ti`4 ',,'r x���� u � �.�':� � �.=K w: a f`� ��i
f�n _'� - �. t ` 4 . s E�i 1�. q� . � ,, � . � t :
Y' !??' i `1� a- '. t '- a � �' � ' Q � �.� � �M'1 ;� � `� � �,�,`
;� -� . ° � r4 �, °s r�'a.g�y r�a �s r 3 3 , '' �`� � •y�
�i :z .: °� .� �i! �,t; 3yi,.�� �t . '4F'S � i � r �, �i:�. : s . 10
� x .fi � y} . � �.»�L '�c ,�it : R�A ?`" : �r �;,t��{,�,E� . � � �1 . _� R r�,
t 'ty �` �t. l '. r i .: ' �. l � �, 5 a? �"' fr S,� �� T�.
s k�' ; ,C r m k �
��h �� { ' i�� i Z -t S :M"� �9 5�-Y �' S' '^ A .- .
Y „t,w °+a "+� x a�' �.tr'"�X� �< �i��3�'fi ° 34 . : i,� '� �3 a Sz'�' p � .t��
3`�F S �, �'+ - A 1 sf'y '"f,�' E. �. ✓ !'� � 4 r�� �� � ��'� � �'� ` � .� �
� �s <v ' i�..$�...fr-$�,u t�y. � �,s, a. a. m �ka a� t �' n. � �� { Y �. i w
�ac"r'�l r c�. �' �r:, S,+'� ? 'H�`c.a �+a '" S �'� yz r� � � '++.� : } '. _ �.,i. ti '"' ��
r:
i�r` �:� '� '+w� '' �� c . �'? �* `� x w '�� k�#XSe s ';�
�:�n �-� � t ,
� µ4 r -�.� +s-^r �_.: `�C"�.`� �k ,Y "� �� ° �� ��;} � � . "'r�c "�gS� _ r 4 �:.e, �� a„
�. Q �, � ��. ,� ,.._�Tr�k �"`�,.�' .k X" X�?t �` :r x ` ,� `� k �c"��`�' k �'�� ��F,'l� rw. �z , _ ��:' ..
� . � ' sJ 5 4�'s�, w ���Y� , ay .=4 � t �� � 44 t�; ;`("�,'4 e ,�k � .�^, s i.� �y�p s f- p w.
a � �' � x [ s s` 5
�n �� 1.�5 s .' ,wf.��i.e ��{ j g ��C wb�. a� �� �+ ..:a �',�1 �.'^vs�'�b` t �Z,� ..� ��..-� �.. ?n :�
c3Fk�. sr �E��w.�Y+ .y r tr /.'� , ,� ?� fr ��� h. ;al -t .�
'�'-k` < ..`5• -, + f : � 32 i{- Y. �, y a r {�y. �. . 4 ,,�-
> 4 i � F. X �� '�� 4 �
''�t-"`.�4 � �� � � ,!� � s���`"�y��,'-�,P••'M � > � �x�+-, ��,� ar � � z , � � a�.•t� 3, _ 4 ti �_ .y�,,,. .
�,-t"4'r't,�t �'e ,Y ,, 9+,1��xx,.-:�.,aad,e i ' ��, 4`.. ' � �� � � �^,�M"" k , :�',: �.
-�i , . _.�t;.,,.-. _.�.k a,._«:.s��'�3.�'.�`�.'$ ... i.,,rs� . .,...,.. . _..�d�.�;,_,� xi-... °�.' -.-,����;�`r:�.�; r, s.�'.s�s,�is.��'4.A.,��x�1���x1�x�F:..n.
�� , 1,�
;'
� y..'
w� r 'v• � �
• ��9' �..�.0 � �� �t
�� ��
ZONING CO ITTEE STAFF REPORT
O C i 1 � �1989
FILE #10554
-�° �. •�` �-.. .
�� R � � a � ���� �� SUPPLEME ARY STAFF REPORT
OCT ER 18, 1989
1. APPLICANT: District 1�o Community Council DATE OF HEARING: 10-19-89
2. CIASSIFICATION: Appeal of a Plan ng Commission decision granting the appeal of
Schmieg-Washburn Industries Inc. an administrative order revoking a Sign
Permit
3. IACATION: 862 White Bear Avenue ( ast side between Stillwater & E. Seventh)
4. PLANNING DISTRICT: TWO
5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 3, 14, & 15; Block 7; Hazel Park Addition
6. PRESENT ZONING: B-2 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: Section 66.408. (a)
7. STAFF INVESTIGATION & REPORT: D TE: October 17, 1989 BY: Charles L. McGuire
This report is written in response to the appeal as noted in the above captioned
information. The supporting documen tion for the District 2 Community Council's
Appeal of the Planning Commission Se ember 3, 1989 decision concerning Schmieg-
Washburn, Inc. , is provided in a let r from the District, dated October 3, 1989.
To assist the City Council in reachi g a decision on the appeal, staff has prepared
the following written response on a oint by point basis.
A. District 2 contends that the Pla ning Commission first erred in that it found
the original permit for this sign was appropriately applied for and granted.
The original permit should not ha e been issued:
Part 1. The zoning code which w in effect when the 1988 permit was issued
required (in section 66.206 (c)(1) that no two advertising signs could be closer
than 100 feet on the same side o the street. The Schmieg-Washburn sign is less
than 100 feet from either of the two advertising signs at the corner of White
Bear and Stillwater. . .
Staff Response:
The location of the new sign as hown in the plan used by the developer to
secure the permit placed this si n 100.1 feet from the other two signs.
Further, one of these signs, the one advertising the auto body shop down
Stillwater Ave. is an illegal si n and has been ordered removed.
The Schmieg-Washburn sign as con tructed is not in accordance with the plan on
on file, and is in fact at its n arest point 82.9 feet from the legally existing
sign on the corner of Stillwater and White Bea_r Av�:xaues.
� !' ���� . �'
�- / ��r�
File #10554
Page T�ao
Sign permits are issued in all cas based on the plans furnished by the sign
erectors. It is presumed at the t e of permit issue that the sign erection
company will install the sign acco ing to the approved plan on file.
art 2. District �io's appeal sta es that "the zoning code in effect at that
time further required (also in sec ion 66.206(c)(1) that there could be only one
advertising sign per 100 lineal fe t of lot frontage. There already were three
advertising signs within 300 feet f lot frontage along White Bear (the two
signs at the corner mentioned abov , plus the sign on top of the building at 846
White Bear) . Adding the Schmieg-W shburn sign meant that there would be too
many signs per 100 lineal fee, (sic so the permit should not have been issued.
Staff Response:
The sign at 846 White Bear Avenue s approximately 132 feet from the approved
location of the Schmieg-Washburn s gn. Again, if the Schmieg-Washburn sign were
placed as depicted on the approved plan it would be 100.1 feet from the legal
sign at the corner of Stillwater a d White Bear Avenues. The permit was legall}
issued.
Part 3. District Twio's Appeal sta es: "In the zoning code in effect when the
1988 permit was issued, section 66.206 established sign regulations for the B-2
and B-3 zoning districts. Sectio 66.206(c)(4) stated:
'No advertising sign shall be pe itted in the B-2 District. '
White Bear between Stillwater and Bush is in a B-2 zoning district. therefore, a
permit should not have been issue for the Schmieg-Washburn sign."
Staff Response:
Section 66.206 Subd.3 (4) , the co rect reference according to our records
states: "No advertising sign shal be permitted in the B-2C (emphasis added)
District" . The B-2 and B-2C zoni g districts had different sign regulations
under the code in effect in 1988. The permit was legally issued.
Part 4. District T�ao's appeal st tes: "The Schmieg-{�ashburn sign also appears
to be inconsistent with sections f the zoning code in addition to the sign
chapter. As constructed, the sig impairs the supply;y of light and air to the
residential uses on the second fl or of 862 White Bear. In addition, 862 is
nonconforming with respect to par ing, and the pole for the sign has the effect
of removing a potential parking s ot, making the property even more
nonconforming with respect to par ing."
Staff Response:
The plans for the sign permit in orce were reviewed and found to conform to the
the requirements of the zoning c e. The space occupied by the sign support
post is not in a designated park' g space for the property at 862 White Bear
Avenue according to any plans on file. The strip of property upon which the
File #10554
Page Three
sign would be erected if done accord ng to the plan on file, would not be usable
for a legal parking space since it i not accessible from a public street,
alleyway or easement over neighborin property.
B. In this section of its appeal, Dist ict �o contends in part 1. that " . . .the
Planning Commission further erred i that, even though it found work had not
ceased for 180 days, it failed to r cognize other reasons why the renewal permit
should not have been issued. . .". e appeal goes on to cite staff report
findings which were suggested to th Zoning Committee and Planning Commission
for denial of the Schmieg-Washburn ppeal.
Staff Response:
The Planning Commission's action ul imately found that the permit issued to
Schmieg-Washburn on March 1, 1988 s still in effect (see finding # 5, City of
Saint Paul Planning Commission Res ution File Number 89-71 dated August 25,
1989) therefore, no renewal permit is required, nor was the revoked permit
renewal reinstated. Therefore, th recommended findings in the staff report are
moot.
Part 2. This section of District Two's Appeal states that the sign dimensions
have changed on different permits.
Staff Res�onse:
We note that there are discrepanci s in this area. However, the only dimensions
which are currently valid are thos shown on the March 1, 1988 permit which is
the permit in force. The sign as onstructed is not in conformance with the
dimensions shown on the permit in force and should be corrected or removed.
This fact was noted by Building I spection and Design Division, and an order
_ issued to make the necessary corr ctions in a September 20 1989 letter to
" Schmieg-Washburn from Larry Zangs On Monday, October 16, 1989 a tag was issued
citing the sign erector for failu e to bring the sign into conformance with the
dimensions stated on the permit a plication, within the time allowed by the
notice of violation letter.
Part 3. The District's Appeal st tes that: "The 1988 permit was issued to
Midwest Outdoor Advertising, as w s the 1987 permit, and was clearly identified
as an intended renewal of the 198 permit. The full fee, rather than a renewal
fee, had to be paid because the newal was not applied for in a timely fashion.
The 1989 "renewal" permit was is ed to Schmieg-Washburn, Inc. Legislative code
section 33.03(e) says that work st be done only by the permittee, and section
33.04 (D) only allows the permit ee to obtain a renewal permit. Therefore,
Schmieg-Washburn is not eligible for a renewal of the Midwest Outdoor
Advertisine permit, and in 1989 ust obtain a new permit. A new permit for an
advertising sign on this site ca not be issued because the sign does not conform
to the present sign ordinance.
File #10554
Page Four
Staff Response:
Under the provisions of Section 66. 03 Licensing. of the zoning code, permits to
erect signs are issued only to lice sed sign contractors. The permit issued
March 1, 1988 which the Planning Co ission found to be "still in force" was
issued to Scott Washburn as the lic nsed sign contractor for Midwest Outdoor
Advertising. It appears that Schmi g-Washburn has, in a private business
transaction, acquired ownership rig ts to the sign at this location from Midwest
Outdoor Advertising. Since the pe it is still in force, the ownership of the
sign has, in our opinion, no beari and the permit remains valid.
C. District ltao's appeal contends tha : "The Planning Commission further erred in
procedure. After it had closed th public hearing on this matter, and the
Zoning Committee had voted to deny the appeal, the Planning Commission accepted
additional evidence from Schmieg W shburn on the issue of whether work and (sic)
ceased for 180 days.
The information available at the p blic hearing showed that work had ceased for
182 days. The additional informat on was to support a new argument -- that work
related to this sign had taken pla e off site during the 182 days, and that the
off-site work should be counted. uch information should have been submitted by
Schmieg-Washburn in an appeal of a Planning Commission denial to the City
Council.
The effect of this late informati and this new argument was to cause the
Planning Commission to send the a eal back to the Zoning Committee to consider
the new issue. The Zoning Commit ee and the Planning Commission focused only on
the question, and forgot that the e were other issues in the case. The Planning
Commissions' failure to consider 11 the issues would not have happened if they
had not accepted the late informa ion and argument."
Staff Response:
The standard procedure for dealin with new information brought to the attention
of the Planning Commission follow ng the public hearing before its Zoning
Committee is established by a Co ission Policy which has been in force since
December of 1984. Specifically, ity of Saint Paul Planning Commission
Resolution File Number 84-29 date December 7, 1984 states in part: " . . .If the
Planning Commission determines t t there is a need for additional information,
it may refer the matter back to e Zoning Committee for further consideration
or it may hold a public hearing t its next regularly scheduled meeting.
Additional public hearings shall follow the notification procedures for the
original public hearing."
The Planning Commission did not rr in this situation. The Commission strictly
adhered to its adopted policy, a d its request to have the matter reheard by the
Zoning Committee is consistent w th past practice and the written policy.
File #10554
Page Five
D. The District Two Appeal further sta es that one additional procedural error was
made by the sign contractor in that they continued work on the sign during the
appeal process in violation of sect on 64.206{b) of the zoning code.
Staff Response:
Staff fully agrees with the positio of District ltao on this issue. The section
noted states in part: "If permits ave been issued before an appeal has been
filed, then the permits are suspen d and construction shall cease until the
city council has made a final dete ination of the appeal." It is evident that
work has proceeded on construction of the sign since the appeals process
started.
STAFF RECO�QIENDATION:
According to city records, Schmieg-Was burn Industries Inc. is a licensed sign
contractor in the City of Saint Paul. As such, their operatives should be fully
aware of the requirements of the City' sign ordinances. Failing that, as a sign
contractor they have a responsibility to consult with city officials concerning any
questions they may have pertaining to the requirements. Further, they are required
to install signs in accordance with t e plans they submit. The issuance of a permit
presumes construction according to th plan submitted.
Clearly, Schmieg-Washburn Industries nc. has made a substantial investment in terms
of time and money toward the developm nt of this sign. However, the sign is not
properly sited, and contains more sig area and faces, than the permit allows. To
correct these conditions, one of the wo sign faces would have to be removed, the
sign foundation and supporting struct re moved, and the remaining facing of the
sign, rotated to be perpendicular to ite Bear Avenue. No doubt these changes will
entail considerable additional expens and time.
The staff recommends that Schmieg-Was burn Industries Inc, be ordered to:
l. Move the sign to a point 100 eet distant from the nearest point of the
existing legal sign at the co er of White Bear and Stillwater Avenues, as
shown in the original plan;
2. Remove the second sign face b inging the sign within the limits described on
the permit which is in force; and,
3. Rotate the sign face to be pe pendicular to White Bear Avenue.
Failing such action to comply with t e terms and conditions of the original permit
within a reasonable period of time, chmieg-Washburn Industries Inc. should be
ordered to remove the sign structure permanently.
Failure to comply with one of the ab ve orders should result in consideration of a
revocation or suspension of their S" Contractors license under the provisions of
Section 66.403. (g) of the Saint Pau Legislative Code.
�
,�
§66.206 LEGL9LATNE ODE
i
����
(b) Temporary signs: sign projecting into a public right-of-way
(1) For new developments, one real estate de- �Yond eighteen(18)inches may not e%ceed
velopment sign not exceeding a total of fifty ��n(lb)aquare feet in diaplay area.
(50) square feet in area on the lot of the (3) One prnjecting sign per entrance on a street
new development, per three hundred(300) frontage is permitted. Any such sign pra
feet or less of lot frontage of the develop- jecting ittto a public right-of-way beyond
ment.Such sign shall not be located within eighteen(18)inches may not exceed twenty-
any required yard. five(2b)equare feet in display area.
(2) For all usea, one real estate sign not ex- (b) Temporary signs:
ceeding a total of six(6)square feet in area. (1) For new developments, one real estate de-
(3) For all uses,one sign not exceeding a total velopment sign not exceeding a total of one
of four (4) square feet in area identifying hundred(100)square feet in area on the lot
an engineer,architect or contractor engaged of the new development. Such aigns shall
in,or product used in,the construction of a not be lceated within any required yard.
building. (2) For all uses, real estate signs not exceed-
(4) Te�porary signs shall be permitted as ing at total of twelve (12) square feet in
follows: �a•
a. Banners,pennants and stringers. (3) For all uses,one aign not exceeding a total
b. Ground and wall signs, the total area of one hundred (100) square feet in area
not to exceed thirty-two(32)square feet. identifying an engineer, architect or con-
c. Portable aigns are permitted if such tractor engaged in, or product used in,the
signs do not exceed a total of three ��T�ction of a building.
hundred fifty (350) square feet in dis- (4) Temporary aigns shall be permitted as
play area. follows: `—�
d. Such signs shall not remain in place a. Banners,pennants and stringers.
for a period exceeding thirty(30)days. b. Ground and wall signs, the total area . �
(5) Political signs are permitted. Such signs not to exceed a total of thirty-two(32)
shall be removed within seven(7)days after square feet. �
the election for which they are intended. c. Portable eigns are permitted if such
- (6) Temporary signa,concerning a commodity, signa do not exceed a total of three
service or entertainment conducted,offered, hundred fi�y (350) square feet in dis-
sold ar manufact�u�ed on the premi�es,plaoed play area.
inside of the window of a building are d. •3uch signs ahall not remain in place
��t� for a period exceeding thirty(30�days.
(Code 1966, � 66.205; Ord. No. 17204, 1-15-85) (b) Temporary signs,concerning a commodity, • '
service or entertainment conducted,offered,
� Sec. 66.206. B-2 and B3 Business I)istricts and sold or manufactured on the premises,placed
ES Expresaway Service District. inside of the window of a building are '
(a) Business signs: pertr►itted.
(1) The sum of the gross surface diaplay area. �6) Political signs are permitted. Such signs
in sqt�are feet of all business signs on a lot ���removed within seven(7)days after
shall not exceed two (2) times the lineal �e election for which they are intended.
feet of lot frontage or seventy-five(75)square ��1�r:
. 'feet,whichever is greater. � for
(2) Only one pole sign or one ground sign per e
lot ia permitted in a required yard. A pole fron
_��
36
_.___`�
.
��� �
ZO ING CODE 4 66.209
\
� � ( d in
(� ' i .
(Code 1956, $ 66206; Ord. No. 17062, 10-20-83;
�� Ord.No. 17204, 1-16-85)
t ��•
Sea 66.207. B-4 Business District.
(2) No advertiaing sign in a B-2 or B-3 Distr' t (a) Business signs. The sum of the gross sur-
shall be placed within seventy-fve(75)I' - face display area in aquare feet of all business
eal feet along the road of a residence s- aigns on a lot shall not exceed four(4)times the
trict. Such signs shall also not be pla d lineal feet of lot frontage of a lot. '
within one hundred fifty(150)feet of a p k (b) Temporary signs. Temporary signs shall be
or parkway, with the exception of Smi h, ��itted as regulated in the B-2 and B-3 Dis-
Rice and Irvine Parks, and that portio of trict,Section 66.206(b).
Ford Parkway between Prior Avenue a-
cated and the Mississippi 8iver Boulev d, (c) Projection, Signs shall be permitted to project
nor be placed within seventy-five (75) in- a mRximum of twelve(12)inches over public side-
eal feet along the road of a church or pu lic walks and rights-of-way from the building line.
or private achool;provided,that in no (d) Aduertising sign.s. Advertising signs are pro-
shall a sign be located closer than fifty 50) hibited in a B-4 Business D'ustrict.
feet to a residential district. (Code 1956, � 66.20?)
(3) Each sign shall not exceed a gross su ace Sec. 66.208. B-6 Business Districts.
display area of three hundred �fty 50) (a) Business signs. The sum of the gross sur-
square feet(in any one viewing direc on), face display area in square feet of all business
except advertising signs along major r- 8igns on a lot shall not exceed four(4)times the
ies that carry a daily tr�c count o five lineal feet of lot frontage of a lot.
thousand (5,000) vehicles or more. N ad-
vertising sign of this latter type shall ave (b) Temporary signs. Temporary signs shall be
a gross display area of more than ven permitted as required i.i the B-2 and B-3 Districts,
hundred fifty (750) square feet; pro ided, Section 66.206(b).
that any rectangular advertising si may (c) Projection. Signs shalI be permitted to project
contain exbensions,cutouts or top let ring a maximum of twelve(12)inches over public side-
which occupy a total area not in ex ss of �,alka and rights-of-way from the building line.
fifty (50) percent of the area of the basic
advertising sign and form an integr 1 part (d) Aduertising signs. Advertising signs shall
"of design thereof;and provided,that such be permitted as regulated in the B-2 and B-3 Dis- -
extension,cutout or top lettering may roject tricts,Section 66.206(c).
more than six (6) feet from the to eigh- (Code 1956, § 66.20$)
� teen(18) inches from either side or ifteen
(15) inches from the bottom of th basic Sec. 66.209. I-1 Industrial 1 Distxict.
rectangular advertising message. (a) Business signs:
The area of an extension, cutout, or top �l) The sum of the gross surface display area
lettering shall be deemed to be the area of in square feet of all businesa signs on a lot
the smallest rectangle into which uch ex- Shall not exceed two (2) timea the lineal
• tension, cutout or top lettering wi fit. In feet of lot frontage of a lot.
� no case shall the size of the sign,i cluding (2) No business sign ahall be located in a re-
extensions, cutouts or top letterin exceed quired yard except one pole sign or one
one thousa�d(1,000)�quare feet. ground sign. A pole sign projecting into a
Supp.No.2 � .
637
_, r,�
,.� � = . �`"� "'' ,` i
.��$c t'^ op 'I� �
� x CITY OF SAINT PAUL
,°, ����;�,,,,, ro DEPARTMENT F PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�m ���� �� � he' DIVISION OF PLANNING
25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102
�8 6'�
612-228-3270
GEORGE LATIMER
MAYOR
October 13, 1989
Albert Olson, City Clerk �
Room 386, City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Zoning File #10554 - District 2 ommunity Council
City Council Hearing: October 1 , 1989
PURPOSE: An appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission granting an
appeal of an administrative order rev king a sign permit on property located at
862 White Bear Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION: Appr ve 9-3 (August 25, 1989)
ZONING COMMITTEE DECISION: Den 5-0 (July 6, 1989)
App ove 4-3 (August 17, 1989)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Den
SUPPORT: None.
OPPOSITION: Two letters received two persons spoke.
Dear Sir:
On July 6, 1989 the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on this appeal of an administrative order. The petitioner testified.
At the close of the hearing, the Co ittee voted 5 to 0 to deny the appeal
based on staff report findings and 'nsufficient documentation that on-site
construction was performed between eptember 14, 1988 and April 16, 1989.
On July 14, 1989 the Planning Commi sion voted (10-1) that the matter be
referred back to the Zoning Committ e.
On August 17, 1989 the case came be ore the Zoning Committee and approval of
the appeal was recommended based on additional information from the Building
Inspection and Design Division and vidence and testimony from the applicant
that off-site work on the sign was ontinuing during the 180 day period in
question. The motion for approval arried by a vote of 4-3.
On August 25, 1989, the Planning C ission upheld the Zoning Committee's
recommendation on a vote of 10-1.
Albert Olson, City Clerk
October 13, 1989
Page Two
This appeal of a Planning Commission ction is scheduled to be heard by the
City Council on October 19, 1989. P1 ase notify me by October 17 if any member
of the City Council wishes to have sl des of the site presented at the public
hearing.
Sin rely, �� �
�� �
� ,,/� �
� `: ,� , � .�L,��,C'--�_��
.�-��/- .
Pegg�A. Reichert
Deputy Director for Planning
PAR:rm
Attachments
, ,
CITYIOFTSANNT�PAULP�ECEIVED ZONII� OFFICE USE ONIY
Fi le # /O SS`r
SEP 121989 qpp�;�ation Fee S ���-�
ZONING Tentative Hearing Date D � �
v
Application is hereby made for an Appeal to the C .���
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 2�-O�-�aragrap ,�_ o t�ie- oning o e
to appeal a decision made by the Board f Zoning Appeals
� Planni g Conmission on , 19_•
Zonin Administrator (date of decision)
Planni g Administrator
_ Other
A. APPELLANT
Name i � (��ll Daytime phone 73� -6��Z
Address 2/ 6 .�T� �L F11' 2. Zip Code �5�� �
6. OECISION BEING APPE ED �
Zoning file name —VlJ � Zoning File � /o y 9..�
Property Address/Location � �
Legal description .3""� ��� " �
C. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Use additional she ts if necessary.)
(txplain why you feel there has been a error in any requirement, permit, decision
or refusal made by an administrative o ficial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding
made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Cortmission.)
� — - �p
: � ^ � ' -!
�
� 2 - -,
! �"' ,� � J
-.� "i � �
���•�vt
/
If you have any questions, please contac :
� �Z���°
• plicant's signature
St. Paul Zoning Office
1100 C i ty Ha l l Annex C;.��i��./���
25 West F�urth Street � � �7�
Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102 Da e City agent
(298-4154) 9/82
��'`1" �' Jr 1
• Phone: 731-6842
{ ,
I)I�'g'�IC'�° � C�1�I��11� � C��JI�TC�Ia
2169 STIILWATER AVENUE
ST. PAUL.MINNESOTA 55119
���
October 3, 1989
� Cancil President Jim Scheibel and M�r�ers of City Co�.ncil
7th Floor, City Hall
Sairrt Paul, NN 551�
RE: Zoning File #10493
Schmieg-�lashburn sign appeal
862 ►�ite Bear Avenue
Hearing date: October 12, 19�9
Dear Co�aici lrr�ari�rs: �
In this letter District 2 Crnmnity Ca�r�cil p sents supplenental ir�fortnation regarding our
appeal af the Plaming Cormission's decision this matter. This appeal is irrportant to the
neighbortbod because af the m�ltiple problens the block that is White Bear Avenue between
Severrth and Sti l lwat�er. The Rultiple adverti ing signs in the area are arong the major
blighting influences there.
A. District 2 cart�ends that the Plaming ission first erred in that it found the ar'iginal
permit for this sign was appropriately appli for and grarited. The �iginal permit st�ould
not have been issued:
` 1. The zoning code which was in effect when the 19�8 permit was iswed required
(in section 66.206 (c)(1) that no advertising signs oould be closer than
100 feet on the sarre side af the st . The Schmieg-Washburn sig� is less
than 100 feet fran either af the t advertising sigis at the oorner of
White Bear and Stillwater (a tw�-f sign rxyw advertising a housing develop- .
meRt and a political carrpaign, and sign now advertising � auto body shop).
Therefore t'�e pennit sta�:d ro* !� be�i issued.
2. 'flie zoning code in effect at that irre fur�ther required (also in section
66.206(c)(1) that there could be ly one advertising sign per 100 lineal
feel of lot frartage. There alre were three advertising signs within
� 300 feet vf lot frontage along Whi Bear (ttie two signs at the corner,
mentioned above, plus the sign on of the building at 846 I�ite Bear).
; Adding the Schmieg-Washburn sign ar�t that ttiere waald be too rna�y si�s
per 100 lineal fee, so the permit ld not have been issued.
x
�
� .
�
,
. RECEIVE
' bCT 5 19�9
ZONING
� .
P � � .
, ,
Page TMn (2) - President Jim Scheibel ard o�f the City Coutcil
Octrobe+^ 3, 1989
3. In the zoning code in effect wt�en 1988 permit vss issued, section 66.206
establist�ed sign regulations for B-2 B-3 �oning districts. Section __
. 66.206(c)(4) stated:
"No advertising sign shall be ittsd in the B-2 District."
I�ite Bear between Stillwater and is in a B-2 zoning district. There-
fore, a permit should no�t hav�e been ssued for the Schmieg-Washburn sign.
4. The Sctmieg-Washburn sign also appea to be inconsisterrt with sections af the
zoning code in additirn to the sign . As oonstn.icted, the sig� irrpairs
the wpply af li�t and air to the idential uses on the secor�d floor of
862 White Bear. In addition, 862 is rnncortformirg with respect to parking,
and the pole for the sign has the ef ect of renoving a patential parking
spot, makirg the property even rrore orming with respect to parking.
B. The Planning Crnmission further erned in t, even thax,�h it fand worlc had rot ceased for
180 days, it failed to recog�ize other reasa� why the renewal permit should not have been
� issued. There "o�ther reasons" are in additi to the fact that the original permit should no�t
� have been issued:
1. The PED staff report, which denial of Scimieg-Washburn's appeal,
included the follawirg findings:
; "9. The stated policy af the Z ing A�ninistrator's office is that
when a prrnrision of the legislat ve code for si�s is arended in a
- manner which makes a sign orming, and a sign is under con-
stn�ction, the sign may be carpl , provided this is acrnarrplished
within the time limits aF the it which is in force, at the tirre
� the c�de arr�ertt oocurs.
"10. No new permits may be iss for a sign which does not catform
' to the code, and no renewal ts may be iswed to oarQlete a non-
carforming sigi ahich is �nder rtxtim. To qualify for ron-
conforming status, the sign in ion should have been ornpleted by
March 1, 19�, at the lat�est. .
x The Sctmieg-�lashburn siyn was not teted hy March 1, 1989. R r�newal perr;iit to
carplete it shuld nt�t have been is bec�use of the zoning code charge. It is
�reasonable to e�ect that should be allawed alm�st two years to crnplets
a r�onconforming sign.
� 2. The 19�7 permit identified the di ions of the sign as 12' length, 25' wi�th,
� and 30' height. The 19�8 permit i ified the dimensions of the sign as 25'
3 length, 12' width, and 30' height. The 1969 "r�er�ewal" permit identified the
� dimensions af the sign as 30' 1 , 10' width, and 30' height. The dimensions
af the sign as constnicted appear be 30' Fariza�rtal, ZO' vertical (tw� sigi
faces, each 10' vertical) and 30' 1 hei�t frcm the gro�c�d.
4
� ..
�
�9 � �� n�
. , �
� P�e mr�ee ts) - President Jim Scheibel ard o� tne city cancii
� October 3, 1989
Section 33.04 (D) of the Legislati Code alla�rs a r�ral permit, at half
the normal fee, "provided no d�ar�e have been made or will be made in the
� original plans and specifications f r suc� w�rk." The 1989 "r�ral"
permit describes dimensions diffe fran the 1988 permit, and the sic,�
as constnacted has dimensions diffe frcm the specifications listed
in a�y permit. Therefore the Sctmi -Washburn sign project was not eligible
for a renewal permit, a new permit s required, and a new permit for the
sig� on this site camot be issued the sign does not oa�form to
the present sig� ordinance.
3. The 19E8 permit was issued t;o Mi Outdoor Adv�r�tising, as was the 1967
p�mit, and vss clearly identified an irrt,ended renewal of the 1967
permit. The full fee, rather than rer�wal fee, had to be paid because
the renewal was not applied for in timely fashion. The 1989 "ren�al"
permit was issued to Sdmieg , Inc. Legislative code section
33.03(e) says that w�ric nust be only by the permittee, and section
33.04 (0) only allows the permi to obtain a renewal permit. There-
fore, Sctmi -Wast�urn is nat elig ble for a renewal of the Midwest
a�tcioor rtisir� permit, �d in 1989 nust obtain a new permi�A
new permit o�r an advertising sign on this site carrat be issued
because the sign does not cor�form the present sigi ordinance.
C. The Plaming Caimission further erred in procedure. Aft�r it had closed the p�lic hearing
on this mattQr, and the Zrning Crnmi�ttee had vo�ted to deny the appeal, the Pla�ning Carmission
accepted additional evidence frvn Schnieg-�la on the issue af whett�er woric and ceased
for 180 days.
The information available at the qblic hea 'ng sha�ed that work had oeased for 182 days. The
additional irrta�tt�ation was to s�port a new rgunent -- that w�ric related to this sign had
taken plaoe aff site during the 182 days, that the off-site w�ric should be oo�,nted. Such
information should have been suhnitted by ieg�►lashb��rn in an a�peal of a Plaming Carmission
denial to the City Cai�cil.
The effect af this late information and thi new ar�rnerrt was to cause the Plaming Conmission
to send the appeal badc to the ZAning Crnmi to oonsider the new iswe. The Zoning Cortmittee
and the Plaming Carmission focused only on the question, and forgot that there were other issues
in the case. The Plaming Carmissia�'s fai ure to ca;sider all the iswes would not have happer�d
' if they had not accepted the late infottr�ti and arguneRt.
D. We would like to call y�our attention to �nother procedural error; this one was made by
Schmieg-�lashburn, rat by the Plaming Crnmi sion. Acooring to section 64.206(b) all permits are
susperided while appeals are in process. ai the sign has oorrti►wed during the appeal prooess.
This can be verified by carparing the sli show+n to the Plaming Ccrtmission with curr�ent
pictures af the site.
Page Far (4) - President Jim Scheibel and of the City Cancil
Octaber 3, 19�
District 2 respectfully asks the City Canc'1 to find that the Plaming Carmission erred, that
one or both of the permits for the si� ld rxrt have been issued, and that the Sdmieg-
Washburn sic,� should be m�ved to another 1 ion where it would oonply with the preserrt
sig� code.
Thank yw far� yam consideration of this 1.
Sincerely,
";�;�� /�
Tina Nbreland, Chair
District 2 Carmnity Ca.ncil
1M:pak
c.c. Sctmieg - 4rashburn
PED Zoning
Zoning A�ninistrator
< �
+���,t,.. ., CITY OF SAINT PAUL
� A DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
% � � BUILDING INSPECTION AN�DESIGN DIVISION
•� „•
City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102
,••• 612-298-4212
GEORGE IATIwtER ,
MAYOR �
September 20, 1989
Scott Washburn
Schmieg-Washburn, Inc.
2887 Edgerton
Saint Paul, MN 55117
' RE: Billboard installation at 862 ite Bear Avenue
Dear Mr. Washburn:
' We hereby inform you that an appeal has been filed on the Planning Commission's
decision to allow completion of the referenced sign. Any or all uncompleted
work on the sign must cease immedia ely pending the outcome of this appeal.
It has also come to our attention t at you have installed two (2) sign boards
on the same side of the pole (one ove the other facing north) . We consider
these boards to be separate signs d as such in violation of Sections 66.109
and 66.201(6) of the City's sign o dinance (see attached) . The installation
of the second sign board is also i violation of the original permit issued
� for this project.
�
4 You must remove one of these sign aces by Friday, . October 13, 1989,
a
Failure to comply with this order ill necessitate enforcement action.
If you have any questions, please all me at 298-4584.
Sincerely,
�
awrence R. Zang
Zoning Technicia
LRZ:krz
enc.
��•a,*• •••�i �
CITY Of SAINT PAUI
� ' DEPARTMENT F PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
: e DIVISIQN OF PLANNI\G
•� �
25 west fowth sdee+.saiM raul.tNi�w�esota sSw2
�••• 612-22&32'0
GEORGE UTIMER
MAYOR
August 28, 1989
Mr. Scott Washburn
Schmieg-Washburn Industries, Inc.
2999 Yorkton Boulevard
Little Canada, Minnesota 55117
Dear Mr. Washburn:
On August 25, 1989, the Planning Comm ssion, by a vote of 9 to 3, approved your
appeal of an administrative order rev king a sign permit, #051630 at 862 White
Bear Avenue. Enclosed please find th resolution to that effect.
The decision to grant this appeal by he Planning Commission is an
administrative action subject to app al to the City Council. Anyone affected
by this action may appeal this decis'on by filing the appropriate application
and fee at the Zoning Office, 1100 C ty Hall Annex, 25 West Fourth Street. Any
such appeal must be filed within 15 alendar days of the mailing date noted
below.
Please call me at 228-3382 if I can e of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Roge an
City nn
Zoning Sect
RR:rm
Enclosure
cc: °,• , ��,, �
��loning,Administrator
License Inspector
Fire Marshal
District Council #2
Mailed: August 28, 1989
S
i.� f,
:± c7 ;�_ ��%�/� l
ro� � �
aty of saint paul
.
:# plal�'liftg COrYttl�liSSlOt1 t" tlOtl
file number 89-�1
� date Au�ust 25. 1989
;
! WHEREAS, Schmieg-Washburn Industries, Inc. , file #10493, has applied to appeal an
; administrative order revoking a sign ermit on property located at 862 White Bear
? Avenue, legally described as Part of ts 13-15, Block 7, Hazel Park Addition; and
� WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the lanning Commission on July b and August 17,
1989, held public hearings at which a 1 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 ode; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commissi n, based on the evidence presented to its
Zoning Committee at the public hearin as substantially reflected in the minutes,
made the following findings of fact:
a
l. A permit, #051630, allowing const ction of a sign at this site was issued on
March 1, 1988.
2. New sign regulations became effec ive March 15, 1988. Under these regulations,
' the proposed billboard if constru ted would not conform to the minimum spacing
requirement for advertising signs in the B-2 zoning district under the
� provisions of Section 66.214. (b) able 1. The new required spacing for
advertising signs along White Be Avenue is 660 feet between signs.
3. An inspection of a footing for a sign on the site on September 1, 1988 is noted
in the inspection report for pe it #051630.
4. Based on testimony given by Buil ing Inspection and Design Division
+ representative Wendy Lane, conti uation of the project would have been allowed
� s under the original permit had th applicant demonstrated that off-site
' fabrication of the sign support tructure was continued during the period
a September 1, 1988 to March 1� 19 9.
;
` 5. Based on evidence submitted and estimony provided by the applicant, work on the
_' pro�ect did continue until April 16, 1989, and therefore the permit originally
issued on March 1, 1988 is still in effect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by he Saint Yaul Planning Commission, that under
the suthority of the City's Zoning ode, and based upon the above findings, the
appeal by Schmieg Washburn Industri s, Inc. of an administrative order revoking a
sign permit #051630 at 852 White Be r Avenue is hereby granted.
' moved by MORTON
s�econded by P�K
� in fav�or—
� agaitist—
;
_.;
:
,
VII. ZONING COl4lI1TEE
lis. ljorton said the Zoning C mmittee had reviewed the resolution to
initiate the 40-acre study d recoumended initiation of the 40-acre
study for the purpose of co idering needed amendaents to the Zoning
Code.
Mr. Soderholm said there Na an arror in the resolution--it should be
Text Amendments VII rather an VIII. The Chair asked that the public
hearing be organized so co ents can flow With regard to each of the
topics and be handled in th same public hearing. '
MOTION: Ms. Morton made a otion to adopt the resolution. Mr. Park
seconded the motion. The m tion carried by unanimous voice vote.
4 - Appeal of an Administrative
Order revoking a sign perm . (862 White Bear Avenue - Zoned B-2)
Ms. Morton said District 2 reco�ended denial but the Co�ittee by a
vote of 4-3 recommended ap roval of the appeal based on additional
information from the Build ng Inspection and Design Division and
evidence and testimony fro the applicant that off-site work on the
sign was continuing during the 180 day period in question.
OI�I TION: As Committee Chai , Ms. Morton moved approval. Mr. Park
seconded the motion which arried by a vote of 9 to 3 with Ms. Morton,
Mr. Neid and Ms. Wencl vot ng nay.
,Teffrey Kantner #10519 - quest for Nonconforning Use to allow
continued occupancy of a ird-floor unit as a caretaker's apartment.
(1800 Englewood Avenue - ned 8-4)
MOTION: Ms. Morton said e Com�ittee by a vote of 6-1 recommended
denial based on staff fi ngs, and so aoved. PIs. �1enc1 seconded the
aotion. The Chair sugges ad addiag language indicating that the third
unit was established in 1 81 and has not been prinarily used as a
caretaker apartment. The suggestion was accepted. The motion carried
by a unanimous voice vote.
(�le ve th tr et C # - Request for Special Condition
Use Permit to permit exp sion of a Special Condition Use to allow a
drying area to be used a a regular car wash bay. (536 Clay Street -
Zoned B-3) .
MOTION: Ms. Mortpn said the Committee by a vote of 5-2 recommended
denial of the Special Co dition Use with Modification based on staff
findin�s. She moved den al. Mr. Park seconded and the motion carried
by a vote of 11 to 1 wit Mr. Neid voting nay.
� . � i�a�,ru��Mg
3 C����io�
t»� hu,l�es
��. �s, �qd9
;�/: -- � n
. � i " � �,�//�
MINUT&S OF ZUBIIIG COlIIiI1TES
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT_ AUL. 2iINNESOTA ON AUGUST 17� 1989
PRESENT Mmes, Hirte, Morton� Trac and Zieaan; Messrs. Christenson, Neid
and Repke of the Zoning C �ittee; Mr. Segal, Assistant City
Attorney; Ms. Lane of the Building Inspection and Design Division;
Mr. Bunnell, Mr. McGuire d �s. Murray of the Planning Division
staff.
ABSENT: Ms. i�encl*
*Excused
c m -Wa b u t 0493 : An Appeal of an Administrative
Order revoking a sign permit for pr pert� located at 862 White Bear Avenue.
The applicant was present; there wa opposition present at the hearing.
Mr. McGuire stated that the staff r co�endation for denial, presented in the
June 21, 1989 staff report, remains the ssme. He asked that the City Attorney
and Ms. Lane of the Building Inspec ion and Design Division (BIDD) speak to
the issue.
Mr. Segal stated that after the las Zon,"�; Committee hearing� the case went
to the Planning Commission where th re vas discussion about whether the
appellant had presented additional r aev facts, and the matter was returned
to the Zoning Committee to give the applicant an opportunity to present the
additional facts. He said that the Plsnning Commission also questioned
whether the BIDD had considered and had information concerning any
construction involving the billboar sign that was occurring off the premise
at the time a determination was ma that the permit had expired because of
lack of work being perforned. Mr. egal said that the applicant's additional
testimony would help the Co�ittee n its determination and it would allow the
BIDD to indicate whether they woul consider any off-site work as work being
- done under the permit to allow the erait not to have expired.
Ms. Lane stated that she was reque ted by 2�r. Segal to check into the kind of
historical precedence there aight e in EIDD's interpretation of the 180 day
expiration period. She distribute a copy of a section of the Uniform
Building Code dealing with the pre ent issue. Ms. Iane quoted, "Every permit
issued by the building official un er the provisions of this code shall expire
by limitation and become null and oid if the building or work suthorized by
such permit is not co�enced withi 180 days from the date of such
permit. . . . . . . ." She said it does ot say whether the work has been commenced
on or off the property within 180 ys and added that� generally, any kind of
work on a construction project is one oa the site. lis. Lane stated that
construction of a sign is differen than is normally considered under the
building code. She told about a c nversation with Dick Amy� supervisor of
inspectors who has been with BIDD or approximately 25 years. Ms. Lane said
Mr. Amy's recollection is that the e has aever been a similar case. Ms. Lane
said that, on the other hand, for onstrsction pro�ects such as buildings,
small amounts of work can occur du ing that 180 day period which would not be
� �� .. �; i:���
� Fil� �10493 ` � � � � �
. - Page iiro
obvious to the building inspector. S e said that the issue has never come up
with their office. Ms. Lane stated t at she spoke to Jan Gasterland, the
Saint Paul Building Official and Zoni g Administrator, vho advised that there
have been court cases regarding this ssue which revolved around the type of
vested interest the developer has had in the project. Mr. Gasterland advised
Ms. Lane that preparation of architec ural plans was found by the courts to be
a vested interest; and added that he as no recall of any court cases vhich
involved the off-site fabrication of structure. Ms. Iane said that if the
applicant had come into the BIDD offi e after the 180 day time period had
expired and told that division that ere vas off-site vork going on� the
division would have then made a dete ination whether or not the sign was
being fabricated for the 862 White B ar Avenue site or any one of a nusber of
sites. If the work was specifically for the 862 White Bear Avenue site, and
was being done within the 180 days, he applicant would have been allowed to
continue.
Ellen Sampson� attorney representing the applicant, from the law firm of
Leonard� Street and Deinard, 150 Sou h Fifth Street� Minneapolis, distributed
a packet of information to document ff-site work being done on the sign
during the relevant time period. Sh explained work on the sign towers done
at the Schmieg-Washburn plant in Feb ry, 1989, and the installation of that
construction in early April; "well b fore we got a letter dated April 18 from
the Zoning Administrator telling us hat the permit had been revoked." Ms.
Sampson explained and clarified othe exhibits contained in the packet. She
said that the photographs Were take from the Schmieg-�lashburn bulletin board
where a display of ongoing work-in- ogress and vork installed is kept. Ms.
Sampson stated that Schmieg-Washbu is a small business operation which
purchases limited quantities of sup lies and the materials for the
installation at 852 White Bear Aven e were fabricated in their shop.
Mr. Segal stated that the problea r volves around the period of 180 days when
supposedly no work on the siga had een done and, if that is the case, the
permit would have expired. He sai that September 1, 1988 was given in the
previous hearing as the date when a inspector viewed the property and noted
that a footing was either installed or in the process of being installed. Mr.
Segal asked that lLs. Sampson and Iir Washburn address evidence of
construction/fabrication of the si between Septe�ber, 1988 and April, 1989.
Ms. Sampson replied that it is her derstanding that the 180 period started
from the time the last work vas do on-site, which pertained to footings for
the sign, and said that after chec ing the Schmieg-iTashburn records, the
September 1, 1988 date seeas to be incorrect. She referred to Appendia B
noting a check dated Septeaber 14, 1988 to Cemstone with a memo line reading
payment for the cement installatio at 862 White Bear Avenue. Ms. Sampson
said that it would then be mid-Sep ember from which the 180 days would be
counted. She stated that it was i February, 1989 that other materials
arrived in the shop and the fabric tion began. Mr. Segal encouraged the
presentation of evidence to substa tiate progress on the sign between
September, 1988 and the following 80 days.
Scott Washburn, 1886 Todd Drive, A den Hills� described the construction
process and showed photographs of n-site and off-site sign
construction/fabrication. He sai that in September, 1988, Don Tschida
examined the excavation for the si footings, etc. and gave the go-ahead for
vork to proceed. Mr. Washburn st ed that initiallq an insufficient amount of
' Fils N10493
. ' Pase� Three
� concrete was ordered, in the seant the hole vas covered and enclosed with a
, 'barrier fence" and on Septenber 14 1988 concrete was poured to complete the
! foundation for the sign. He said th t on February 17, 1989. the firm was
financially able to purchase steel f r the sign, and in-between work on 93
other jobs� there was ongoing fabric tion on the sign.
, Iir. Christenson asked about the deli ery date of the steel. Kr. Washburn
estimated that it was about a week a ter the order was sent and referred to
pictures showiag construction of the sign. Mr. Christenson asked about
substantiation of the steel being fo the sign at 862 iThite Bear Avenue. Kr.
Washburn replied the sign is the on single-pole center sount constructed by
their firm.
lir. Neid asked about other work do by the firm. Mr. Washburn said that
their firm is in the billboard busi ss and would not be classified as a
manufacturer of billboards but that Schmieg-Washburn does install billboards.
Ms. Sampson reiterated that off-sit rork was proceeding on the sign during
the relevant time period; that it v s difficult for a small firm to
substantiate 'to the hour" when wor vas on-going.
Mr. Christenson referred to a noted February 15, 1988 conversation with Don
Tschida concerning the work and ask d for evidence of the dste and nature of
the conversation. Mr. Washburn rel ted circumstances regarding the call and
said that Kr. Tschida's concerns w e about progress on the sign.
Mr. Neid asked if payaent for conc ete is at delivery time or if it is billed.
Mr. Washburn replied that they are strictly on a c.o.d. basis. Mr. Neid asked
about the date of the work order d check for $12,556 to Anerican Steel and
. Industrial Supply. Mr. {dashburn e lained the dates circled on the im�oice.
Paul Gilleland, District 2 Com�uni Council, 1409 licAfee Street, testified
that illegal procedures were used, that a dangerous precedent vas being set
_ and that District 2 is responding o cancerns of neighbors vho have observed
no on-site work during the 180 day period in question. (Transcription of
testimony is attached.)
� Ms. Sampson stated the applicants' understanding of District 2's concerns.
; � She restated their interpretation of the pertinent issues. I�is. Sampson said
that the Co�ittee has been advis d and has been given substantiation from
! Schmieg-Washburn's records that e work for the sign vas on-going.
� .
l+ir. Neid referred to the second p rmit issued March 1, 1988, quoted from the
staff report, and questioned what type of work was done between that date and
, September 1, 1988. Kr. iTashburn eplied.
� l�s. Lane added that she counted 1 0 days from March 1 and that period ends at
September 7, 1988. She said tha she asked Don Tschida to refer to his log
�_ regarding his corrversation on Fe ry 15 with Mr. Washburn; upon checking the
log, she was advised that the co ersation occurred on February 17, 1988. Ms.
' - Lane said that Mr. Tschida's rec llection of the cotrversation was that he told
_ Mr. Washburn "he'd better get bu because his time was almost up.". She
�tated that when Mr. Tschida saw the renewal permit, he figured that Mr.
Washburn took care of everything
� . . .. . . ' y_ • _ _ . _ . . . ' ' , . .. .. . .. _ . .. __ . - . ,
` Fil� M10493
,. . � page �Four
There being no further testimony, . Morton closed the public 2�earing.
Mr. Neid questioned the February 17� 1989 comrersation. He asked if 180 days
was calculated from February 17. . Christenson stated that 180 days is
March 15, counting from September 1 , and because Schmieg-Washburn was on-site
and worked on March 16, the questi is whether or not something was done
before March 16. Mr. Christenson s ated that the question before the
Committee is whether off-site work ounts and Whether or not it is proven.
Mr. Repke moved to reco�end appro 1 of the appeal based on additional
inforraation from the Building Insp tion and Design Division and evidence and
testimony from the applicant that f-site work on the sign was continuing
during the 180 day period in quest n. I�Ls. Zieman seconded the motion which
passed on a roll call vote of 4-3 eid, Hirte, l�torton).
Submitted by: Approved by:
� �
�
Charles L. McGuire Gladys Mo on, Chairman
;
��- � .. , �
VII. ZONING COI�IIiITTEE
Robert Austin M10487 - Req at for Nonconforaing Uae to a11oM
continuing use of the struc re as a triplex. (857-859 Ashland -
Zoned RT-1)
� Iis. Morton advised that the committee recommended denial
MOTION:
based on insufficient docum ntation that the triplex had been in
, existence for a 10 year per od and inconsistency with the
� Comprehensive Plan's prescr bed denaity for the general area. She
� aade a notion to deny which was seconded by tir. Neid and carried
' unanimously.
Ernest Lamson #10494 - Requ st for Rezoning froi RT-2 to P-1 for
property at 528 Michigan St eet to permit development of offstreet
parking space.
Ms. Morton advised that th committee reco�ended denial based on
inconsistency with the dis ict's portion of the Coaprehensive Plan.
- She said the draft resolut n would be on the Planning Commission
agenda for the July 28th m ting.
v e - Request for Speciai Condition Use
Permit with Modification t allow mixed residential and office use of
an existing structure with more than 508 of the first floor area
� occupied residentially. ( 14 Portland - Zoned OS-1 and Rii-2)
MOTION: Ms. Morton said t e commnittee recommended approval by
consent. Ms. Hirte second d the motion which carried unaninously.
- Request to consider an
� Appeal of An Administrativ Order revoking a sign perait. (862 �Thite
� Bear Avern�e - Zoned B-2)
�
I
� Ms. Morton said the co�it ee reco�ended denial based on ataff report
, findings and insufficient cuaentation that oa-aite constru�ction ras
perforaed between Septemb 14� 1988 and April 16. 1989. She �aid the
' building perait had lapse aad there was testiaony by applicant that
' they xere xorking on the oject but it was off-site aork. Attorney
Segal said the issue is ether tbe sign owner �as doing necessary
work such as building the frasework for the sig� even though it Masn't
on site. You have to wei the testi�ony and decide Nhether �►ork had
been done that could meet the requireaent. In aany ca�es �rhen
construction work is perf rmed offsite it can be considered work in
process. The Chair said hat people who were there could retry and
either reverse• or take ac ion. Mr. Park said the standard was whether
work occurred. Mr. Repke said that if work was going on off site the
• applicant should prove th t spec3fic work vas done off site.
MOTIOI�: tir. Park moved th matter be referred back to committee. The
motion was seconded by Ms Hirte and carried by a vote of 10 in favor
with Mr. Repke voting nay.
. �.MA�II�
� VIII. OLD BUSINESS - None ��ss��►
IX. NEW BUSINESS - None �� n�/,�
� �� �}, �ad9
�
MINUTES OF TH ZONING COIrl1iITTEE
: CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL� MINNESOTA ON JULY 6, 1989
PRESENT: Mmes. Hirte, Morton, Tracy and Wencl; Messrs. Christenson, Neid and
Repke of the Zoning Commit ee; Mr. McCloskey, Assistant City
� Attorney; Ms. Lane of the uilding Inspection and Design Division;
r I�ir. McGuire and Ms. Murray of the Planning Division staff.
ABSENT: Ms. Zieman.
The meeting was chaired by Gladys Mor on, Chairman.
Schmie -Washbu d s e # 4 3 : An Appeal of an Administrative
Order for property located at 862 Whi e Bear Avenue to consider revocation of
a sign permit.
The applicant was present; there was pposition present at the hearing.
Mr. McGuire showed slides of the sit and reviewed the staff report with a
recommendation for denial.
Ellen Sampson, attorney representing the applicant, from the law firm of
Leonard, Street and Deinard, 150 Sou Fifth Street, Minneapolis, summarized
her letter of June 30, 1989, distrib ted to the Committee. She detailed the
work history at the site and said th t the controversy centers on whether or
not the original sign permit had exp red. Ms. Sampson questioned the
rationale of staff report finding 10 regarding the issuance of new and renewal
permits and the necessary completion date for of March 1, 1989 for the
applicant's sign. She requested tha the Committee overturn the
administrative order that revoked th sign and "put the permit back into
place."
3
; Scott Washburn, 1886 Todd Drive, Ard n Hills, said that he is a licensed
�
builder, but is an "underfinanced en repreneur." He stated that
� Schmieg-Washburn did get some leases set out to find financing, but that they
were unsuccessful in so doing; the c nclusion was that "we had to basically
make the money on our own to put the signs up." Mr. Washburn said that
because of underfinancing, the origi 1 permit was not "acted upon." He
stated that a second permit was proc red, the sign foundation constructed, and
� that "in order to save some money," is partner purchased raw materials and
started production of a sign. Mr. W shburn said that on February 15, 1989 he
spoke with a city inspector regardin progress on the sign and said that at
that time he had no indication of th March 1 deadline.
Mr. Neid asked how many billboard si ns the Schmieg-Washburn firm has at
: present. Mr. Washburn responded tha this is their first; said that they are
licensed builders in the city and th t they have "numerous sign builds" for
; other companies. Mr. Neid asked the applicant from whom the sign was ordered,
also promised date of delivery. Mr. Washburn explained the procedure for
building a sign; said that materials were purchased in February from American
Steel, and that delivery was 10 days to 14 weeks after the purchase date.
Mr. Christenson asked staf£ for clar fication of the permit process.
File #10493
Page Two
Ms. Lane replied that had visible cons ruction continued on the sign, the
renewal permit would not have been nee d because applicants need to do work
on construction every 180 days.
Mr. Christenson asked the applicant if he applied for a renewal permit because
work had been abandoned for 180 days d the original permit had expired. Mr.
Washburn disagreed and cited instances which occurred after the city inspector
examined the pro�ect. Mr. Christenso asked why the applicant had applied for
a renewal permit. Ms. Sampson stated that this was her conclusion after
reviewing the applicant's information and upon questioning Mr. Washburn, she
was informed his understanding was th t a permit had to be renewed annually
similar to the city's license renewal requirements.
Ms. Lane stated that there is no ann 1 perait for any kind of a sign or a
billboard. She added that when a si coapany becomes newly licensed in the
city, a copy of the sign ordinance is given to them and the company is advised
that any questions regarding the ord ance can be directed to their office.
Mr. Christenson said that the Comnit ee's determination should be whether the
project was abandoned for 180 days; d vhether the zoning administrator's
determination is correct, that beca e there was an abandonment for 180 days,
a new permit would have to be issued this being impossible because the zoning
code had changed. Ms. Lane agreed.
Ms. Tracy asked the applicant to re ew the process used to appiy for a
license or permit. Mr. Washburn st ed that he wanted "to make sure all his
bases were covered" in order to suc essfully execute plans for the sign. He
said that he applied for a renewal f his soon-to-be expired permit, was given
the permit, paid a fee of $50, and lanned to start immediately on the sign.
. Mr. Christenson asked for the appli ant's tiaeline for the sign construction.
; Mr. Washburn reviewed the on-site d off-site work. Mr. Christenson asked if
, there is evidence of the last date at on-site work was accomplished. Mr.
: Washburn referred to checks dated Septeaber, said that he saw the owner of
the property in early February whe a bolt vas installed in the structure and
also repairs made to the safety fe ce.
Ms. Tracy asked if, after the init al per=it was procured, there was a year
and one-half during which nothing as done due to financial problems. Mr.
Washburn agreed.
Mr. Neid asked the applicant if t last time he was on the site was in August
when concrete was poured and when the inspector visited the site. Mr.
Washburn agreed and said that Don schid.a vas on-site August 30 after which
additional concrete was poured. . McGuire stated that there is a notation
on the reverse side of the permit advising of an on-site visit by Mr. Tschida
. on September 1, 1988. Ms. Lane a ded that typically if an inspector is making
a footing inspection, it is becau e he has been called by the applicant.
Sue Hauwiller, 1743 Stillwater A nue, testified that the area was already
"over-signed," that the sign wou be a detriment to the neighborhood and pose
a potential traffic safety hazar .
File �10493
Page Three
Ray Sammons, District 2 Community Coun 1 community organizer, 2169 Stillwater
Avenue, said that the District 2 Board ecommends denial and read into the
record T. M. Moreland's letter recomme ding denial.
Ruth McGrew, 1752 Stillwater Avenue, s ated that the intersection of East
Seventh and White Bear Avenue is a vis lly cluttered corner and asked about
the procedure for notification of prop rty owners. Mr. McGuire explained the
process.
There being no further testimony, Ms, orton closed the public hearing.
Mr. Neid moved to recommend denial ba ed on staff report findings and
insufficient documentation that on-si e construction was performed between
September 14, 1988 and April 16, 1989 Ms. Tracy seconded the motion which
passed on a roll call vote of 5-0. -
Submitted by: Approved by:
Charles L. McGuire Gladys Morton, Chairman
, 20NI�G ITTBB STAFF REPORT
FILE #10493
1. APPLICANT: Schmieg-Washburn Ind ries� Inc. DATE OF HEARING: 07-06-89
2. CLASSIFICATION: Appeal to an adm istrative order revoking a Sign Permit/sign
variance.
3. LOCATION: 862 White Bear Avenue east side between Stillwater 6 E. Seventh)
4. PLANNING DISTRICT: TGIO
5. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lots 3 - 15; Block 7; Hazel Park Addition
6. PRESENT ZONING: B-2 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: Section 66.408. (a)
, 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: June 21, 1989 BY: Charles L. McGuire
A. PURPOSE: To consider an appeal o an administrative order revoking a sign
permit.
B. PARCEL SIZE: The flag shaped pro erty on which the sign framework is situated
has frontages of 16 feet on Still ater Avenue, approximately 100 feet east of
White Bear Avenue, and 74.3 feet n White Bear Avenue, 74.3 feet south of
Stillwater Avenue.
C. EXISTING LAND USE: Most of the s te is occupied by the Camel Club, a private
non-alcoholic club.
' D. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
i
1
' North: Commercial uses; Zoned B 2
East: Residential uses; Zoned -4
' South: Co�ercial uses; Zoned B 2
West: Co�ercial uses; Zoned B 2
E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 6 .408.(a) of the Legislative Code states in part
that "Any person affected by the cision of the zoning administrator dealing
with the provisions of this chap r may appeal this decision to the planning
commission. . ."
' F. STAFF FINDINGS:
1. Permit #032406 was issued to etro Outdoor Advertising for the erection of a
� billboard at this location on April 22, 1987.
: 2. A second permit, #051630, all wing construction of a sign at this site was
issued on March 1, 1988. Si e the April 22, 1987, permit had expired, this
was a new permit, and a full ee was charged.
/� ,/% i n J
i � � ✓/ ✓
l� l
File N10493
Page 1�vo
3. New sign regulations became effect ve March 15, 1988. Under these
regulations� the proposed billboar if constructed would not conform to the
minimum spacing requirement for ad ertising signs in the B-2 zoning district
under the provisions of Section 66 214. (b) Table 1. The required spacing
for advertising signs along White ear Avenue is 660 feet between signs
under the provisions of the revise zoning code,
4. An inspection of a footing for a s gn on the site on September 1, 1988 is
noted in the inspection report for the second permit. (#051630)
5. On February 28, 1989, a renewal o the permit was issued by the Building
Inspection and Design Division. DD states that this permit was issued in
error, since no permits or renewa of permits are issued for a sign that
does not conform to the ordinance.
6. On April 18, 1989, Senior Buildin Inspector Richard A. Thompson informed
Schmieg-Washburn by letter that p rmit #073398, issued on February 28, 1989
was null and void, since the prev ous permit had in fact expired.
7. The appellant contends that the " ermit was appropriately applied for and
granted. Work was commenced with n 180 days as required by Subd. 4 of Sec
33.04, of (the) Saint Paul Legisl tive code. Work was not abandoned or
suspended therefore (the) permit id not expire."
8. The appellant further states that ". . .a renewal was applied for within 180
days of commencement of work as r quired by above section of legislative
code."
9. The stated policy of the Zoning A inistrator's office is that when a
provision of the legislative code for signs is amended in a manner which
nakes a sign nonconforaing, and a sign is under construction, the sign may
be coapleted, provided this is ac omplished within the time limits of the
permit which is in force, at the ime the code amendment occurs.
10. No new permits may be issued for sign which does not conform to the code,
and no renewal permits may be iss ed to complete a nonconforming sign which
is under construction. To quali for nonconforming status, the sign in
question should have been comple d by March 1, 1989, at the latest.
11. Two other advertising signs are ithin 660 lineal feet of the erected sign
framework, on the same side of t e street. The standard in effect at the
time the original permit was iss ed allowed a separation of 100 feet for
advertising signs in this zoning district.
G. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: On the basis f the above suggested findings, the staff
recommends denial of the appeal. Fr m the time the initial permit was granted
for this sign, nearly two years elap ed. The second sign permit was issued
properly as a new permit. If the si n had been completed within the time
allowed under the original permit, i would have legal nonconforming status.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS (FILE #10493)
Page
Application for Appeal 1
Application for Zoning Ordinance Vari nce 2
General Building Permits 3-5
Correspondence 6-7
Location Maps 8-9
Land Use Map 10
� � �
, �� j v /� f
<, c! j
a ,
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL ZONIMG OFFICE USE ONL1f
CITY OF SAINT PAUL Fi le � ���? -/ )
Application Fee S l�a�
Tentative Hearing Date 7'6�� /
Application is hereby made for an Appeal to the P14�.��� Cc,�M�ss,r�
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , aragraph o t e oning ode
to appeal a decision made by the Board �ng Appeals
Planni g Commission on , 19_-
� Zoning Administrator (date of decision)
Planni g Administrator
Other
S�h�, ;
A. APPELLANT �9 ��a � �r3 i�.3
Name 5�!'� �r� « , Daytime phone
Address a.qqq f -lon va— Zip Code Ss- fr r7
��� 1( �0.nac��+ 1 ,U
B. DECISION BEING APPEALED
Zoning file name Zoning File �
Property Address/Location Sb2, ��-� ea� S-F po.�Q N ,
Legal description c a, r^��-�
' C. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL (Use additional shee s if necessary.)
(txplain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision
or refusal made by an administrative of icial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding
made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or he Planning Comnission.)
�..� r r c f' Q n a. /` � �k-
" lJ���1 r - +�- �S o 3 3 v �
�
O r n o�r
�k3..�,�-� Q'�t, �r . �.�r� a�-► n P C.e.a.� c.t� t` c.�t � O c�
S ad. CO in..,.�H..,Q v�.�+���.c o�k„�l s /'c�u��rc+0.. 1o.cO �6 d..v,s� s C'c.�-�wv "y ���.� 1��4-c..@, CQ�,
,
If ou have any questions, please contact. '�`�'��
y Applicant's sig re
St. Paul Zoning Office
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street S��-3��' 9
Saint Paul , Minnesota 55102 Date City agent
(298-4154) 9I82
/�
i
�!�- ,� � .
�~� ' - �; .' .
_. `
' ZONiNG �O RD �f � �D��3
� APP ICATION FOR 20NING ORDINANCE VARIANCE
� CITY OF SAINT PAUI 0 l 8 8 5 5
i
I A VARIANCE OF ONING CODE CHAPTER�,SECTION PARAGRAPH
+ IS REQUESTED 1 CONFORMITY WITN THE POWERS VESTED IN THE BOARD OF ZONING AP—
; PEALS TO PERMI TME � d+�'�����'1 o n o,� �. B��\C3 o u� �✓ ON PROPERTY
�� --OESCRIBED BEL .
� „y
� � A. Applipnt; AME: �� �� Z"
� DORESS �` 9"�1 �or�' � 07 �I!!�/ IL,(`f�r��.., , /t/�
�
• AYTIME TELEPHONE NO. G�� ��3 �3a 3 21P CODE S-S��
1. Property interest of sppliqnt: (owner,contrsct purcheser,etc.l
' 1c s�e..
� Q Name of wner lif different) DK�e� kEfleousK�
i�
8. Property iptio�: ADDRESS S« '�'�������" �•^'.� 1t��`a.�.�
' 1. Leqtl ription: LOT BIOCK ADD.
�
1 2. Lot size:
' � p►esent ar r IL� Prcsent 2ot�ing Dist
C. Reasont for quest:
i
' 1. Pro use
�:�.,C����'hJ S�t£.f.�
�
� 2. What ph sical chsracteristics of the praperty prevent its being�ued for any of the permitted uses
, in your 7 (topopraphY.zoil�tian,aze�d:hspe of bt.stc.)
�
3 � , f r1 �1 G
i
7.
. i 3. State tP�cific wriation►equestsd.Yivinp dtances when apprcpriate.
. � _ � . V o�� �r.w �'� ,1�m�•n5 M..,ci.,.�v�1..s....1�'
� 4. Explain yow eae canfams to Meh of the fdlowinp:
a. That •strict appl'uxtio�of the provisions of the Zo�ing Ordisna would rcwlt in peculiu
� � or e iornl praetical difficulties.or�xaptional undua hardships.
(�.�lM w a4uM1� C�fJ�k�y �•AL �t CY/J\��VhJ
f J 4 w�'r C{�
� �..a�_ � cc..,�4,.,_a�._.,� �..
:.-.:.� �,���� �v ctin,,�c �n e� �. '
� n�.�P .�{ �4 i M.f- �.r..-�jt+�f.► S f.�v u a C C o r 4�n�.. �v+.r i�C;,�^. �.?
� t, ,_�. 1
CASHIERS USE ONLY
b. That the prsMinp of a varian�will Q�J,�?f89ppp15�;3(� �.� 2
' ? not a wbrtsntial detriment to � .
� 4i3� V�'iIANCE *.?D.Df;
publ pood or�substsntisl impair-
� msn of ths intent and purpo�eof ���"_� *��'��
� ' the ninp0►dinsnce. CH�CE; T1+iF� .�1'jp.�)
� � :t�.e ,.,.J �NGE *.�►
t� ��:�., h, b�..-,� �
. 1 .s �¢Y Y 1��u-•-w v.a.,c..
(-(a�•-�. �
� .. � bL�� ��i.A .f...�.�.�{.e..i... a.�1.ao�l�is •
1 Va.� pt/ .M[`0... O
� NOTE: THI W NOT P SSED WITHOUT A COMPLETE SITE PLAf��
� Signature ���v� `�j v.)\
_ �
' _ �
� R�ceiwd
_(7
� � ENERAL 6UILDING PERMI
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
OON � �
�1NLDNi�i NISPECTION i DESIGN DMSION ( :
15 W.KELLOCiG BLVD. I .
ST.P�AU,MNL55/02 � � w� / � ,t����
• � �� PKn1it No.
PLAN NO.
SCRI� ION OF�ROJECT
OATE OWNER��iy�f,t!}._Lt/.��j�,(fhv �^K.
/
OWNERS ADDRESS��� �<t r��wJ
❑OLD TYPE OF
❑NEW TYPE NST. OCCUPANCY
G ADING UCCO OR
❑ BUILD ❑A D EXC. ❑PLASTER ❑ORYWALL ❑FENCE
❑ AD�ITION ALTER ❑REPAIR ❑MOVE ❑WRECK
NUMBER STREET SIDE CROSSSTREETS
�v�� � aV �+�C -I� I �v � �lkc;�
WARD LOT BLOCK AppiT10N 0/1 TRACT
WI� M OEOTM SI E �OT CIEARANCE BUILDING L1NE
LOT 3� J� IS FRONT REAR
7
STRUC- �DTM i.ENGTM MEIGHT fTOR1E5
TuaE . � �
G
' ESTIMATEO V LUE S/1SEMENT TOTAL Ft,OpR AqEA
' `�l'Z �� ❑VES �NO SQ FT.
(•
; OETAI(,.S S REMAqK : ����E�
TEL Np.
ARCMITECT
CONTRACT011 � `,N �
.
AGOREBS 6 ZIPtS���
MASONRY [ _'
0
tERMIT FEE STATE
VALUATION
rLAN CMECK �� ��*I� Q,� 1
�MY� �.�
STATE �.�
8URCMARGE �� �
�r a�.�
TOTAL FEE "'^'� �E.�
I►PPLICANT CERTIFI THAT ALL IN�
fORMATION IS COR ECT AND �FiAT -
ALL PEl�TINENT STA E REGUTATipNS CASFIIEw uSE ONLY
ANO CITY ORDINAN WILL BE COM- WNEN YALIDATED TMIS IS rOUR►ElpNIT
PLIED WITH IN PERFO MING THE WpRK
fOR WHICH THIS PERI IT tS ISSUED.
X
St.COde � �� I
' �-� i � ADDRFCc
�VERAL BUILDING PERM
_ - � -. -CITY OF SAINT PAUL � ------ ----- ; -
(� _ ' R ^'` f , ' .. .'. _ :'`- � ''�� .-
�-- .
BUIIDlN�i �D�(iN DIVtS10N - � _ _ � . ._. ` :.�
15 W.KELLOOG VD.
445 CITY h1111L -- � I .
•l
ST. PAUL, MN 551 � � C �p `
� Permit No.�`� � ��i
I �f Nt(,�/ /�L ',\.
I PLAN NO.
ION OF PqOJECT
� DATE OWNER
i OWNERS ADDR SS �I,S—].St A1�6 �TA. �4grs-, �. 5�1���
( D OLD TYPE OF ��6�j f
�J NEW TYP CONST. $.�gg�����} OCCUPANCY �� �
�r GRADtNG STUCCO OR
� ❑ BUILD AND EXC. ❑ PLASTER ❑DRYWALL ❑ FENCE
IO ADDITION ❑ALTER ❑ REPAIR ❑ MOVE . ❑WRECK
'' NUMBER STREET SIDE CROSS STREETS
I
i �
i
� A L L AODITION OR TRACT
i
3 1
IOTH DEPTH SIDE LOT CLEARANCE BUILDING ��NE
� FRONT REAR
LOT
� i � �
WIDTH LENGTH HEIGHT STORIES
'°-ST R U C-
� TURE
� � �
ESTIMATE VALUE BASEMENT TOTAL FLOOR AREA
� ' � YES ❑ NO SQ. FT.O(�f�Lt7D�ASEIVIENT
� J�C:
� DETAIL &RE RKS: " ,
; i2 ; �'� `� .
, �
j --�e-�1,u ; C�..�,,uc y/�/�%
i C�I U / C GE.�r!��=C�/ �� �Gl� G� / �
� � �� � TEI.NO.
i
i
IARCHITECT
i
� 315 lst Av. No .
• CONTRACTOR
' 2SS& P
MASONRY
STATE �/ _
PERMIT FEE VALUATION
PLAN CHECK i D3fQ1I88�a�8�J�i� r.�.�� f
STATE 2B11 BUIL.�iING *1�.�
SURCHARGE ���T� *f�•�
„CRSI-I T11 �., *1�,00
TOTAL FEE ,C�GE_ -:� *.01?
��. � =� - _.-�
APPLICANT E fFZES THAT'ALL IN- -- =a_::
FORMAtION IS CORRECT AN� THAT ' �
ALL PERTINEN STATE REGULATIONS CASHIER USE ON�Y
, . .-,AND CITY ORDI ANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN VALIDATED THIS IS YOUR PERMIT
- P�IEDWITHIN P RFORMING THE WORK
;:,.,FOR WHICH THI PER IT IS ISSUEO.
,- :.` St. Code
,
ADDRESS � �
OF JOB
AUTHORI2ED SI NA E •
� � �NERAI.�BU L[�II�IG�PERM �i- ��/i�
� � . ' `�'C�'f�'O`Ft ' `I1�T�AUL
� =.�-'; _ � � ''.
DEP . .� . .
`-�UILWI�i 1���`D�SION`DIV1810N .�
'15'11V."KELLO(3(i BL-VD. . � .
"445 CITY HALL I
'ST.�PAUI, MN 5510 '"" I � � 2 � O s �
I�Qti��/� � Per it No.
� CJVr�r�dJ
i
� P AN NO. '
•OESCRIP ION OF PROJECT
; DATE�^f� y�� OWNER �
/L�Ivr�ic �jl�►/p.�'� !
� ,
; OWNERS ADDRESS • �
� 0„_,�� TYPE OF �
i L�•iaEW TYPE CONST. OCCUPANCY
i
� GRADING S C OR
� ❑ BUILD ❑AND EXC. ❑ PLAS R ❑DRYWALL ❑FENCE �
❑ ADDITION ❑ALTER ❑ R P IR MOVE ❑ WRECK
NUMBER STREET SID CROSSSTREETS
i
' �L z Lv .'7'�e �ea,�, e .S�'.�2'�.� -�it.b�y
I WARD LOT BLOCK ADDITION OR TRACT
� ;s"` 7 � ��►!�
; WIDTH OEPT SIDE LOT CLEARANCE BUILDING LINE
� FRONT REAR
; LOT 7s� l! � � y,�'� �-
I WIDTH LENG H HEIGHT STORIES
, STRUG
i TU R E 2 S"� /2 � 3 v •
�
� ESTIMATED VALUE BASEM NT TOTAL FL OR AREA '
t
i � f ❑ vES NO SQ. F7. �NCIU�DE BASEMENT ,
DETAILS b ARKS:
' � q.NI .� �� /�sr� ` �---
; 5r �` i
I 8,�/� r,Jti- �-�
�
I
� T E L.
�
I
� ARCHITECT
�
I CONTRACTOR , ��
� A RESS&21P
I MASONiiY
� �/� STA E
PERMIT FEE VAL ATION
.:�._:. ',l.t�^,i`r;C.,::F''- __`r='
PLAN CHECK --- �'-`Tj-t'}."''_ s•-�,.. .
STATE -'!^ ?I!`;-_ �`i�`_,.__
SURCHARGE _ Ti; • i r ; `
-- +-. '.+�__,.
� ' ''�i�..�'.::_...
� TOTALFEE � "-
� APPLtCANT C TIFIES THAT ALL IN-
� FORMATION I CORRECT AND THAT
ALL PERTINE STATE REGULATIONS CASHIER USE ONLV
� AND CITY ORD ANCES WILL BE COM- WHEN VALIDATED THIS IS YOUR PERMIT
PLIEDWITHIN P ORMING THE WORK
FOR WHICH T P MIT SUED.
� St. de ��_
' x � ' AD R ESS '
�
,
� � l��� �A�
.
OF OB _
Al IT�J 017 CIl�NATI IRC . . . . . . .... .. .
•�*•� � CITY OF SAINT P�qUI
'� �= DEPARTMENT OF CUMMUNITY SERVICE$
s :
� .� .: BUILDING INSPECTION AND DESIGN DIVISION
� City Hall,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55W2
..•.
� 612-298-4212
GEORGE LATIMER
; MAYOR
� April 24, 1989
Scott Washburn
Schnieg-Washburn, Inc.
2887 Edgerton
St. Paul, MN 55117
RE: Advertising sign at 862 White Bear Avenue
� Dear Mr. Washburn:
� As we informed you in our letter o April 18, 1989, building permit �073398
� for the zeferenced sign was issued in error. Althou h
� g you applied for a
renewal of permit #051630 on Fe ry 28, 1989, this permit could not be
' renewed because the referenced sig does not meet the present zoning code
� requirements as amended effective rch 15, 1988.
i
�
IWe understand the footing for the ferenced sign was installed on September 1,
! 1988 which was within the 180 day ime limit required by Section 33.04, subd. 4
� of the City Legislative Code. Howe er, this same section also requires the work
on the pro�ect to be continued. If such work is suspended or abandoned foz a
period of 180 days, the permit beco es void. So, on March 1, 1989. because no
further work Was done since the foo ing, permit 1051630 became void.
Since a renewal permit or a new pe it canaot be isaued for this 2ocatioa because
it does not meet the pzesent spaci requirements, the referenced sign must be
removed vithin thirty (30) daqs of his letter.
You may apply to the Planning Co�i sion for a variance of the spacing require-
ments. If the variance application and appropri$te fee is subIDitted �rith±n 30
days of this letter, we will withol further enforcenent action until the appeals
process is complete.
If anyone believes this decision is in error, they �ay appeal to the Planning
Commission for an Administrative Re iew.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact me at 298-4215.
Si cerely. / .
�� .
.� �
��ohn Hardwick
.:Zoning Technician
� JH:krz
i
j cc. Wendy Lane Don Tschida
� Charles McGuire Rich Thomps n
� � � _
i
;
r'' �
c� � — v� �%�
,.,��*•..,.• CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
� � •
� : BUILDING INSPECTION AND DESIGN DIVISION
.
�•..
City Hall,Saint Paui,Min�esota 55102
612-298�211
GEORGE LATIMER
AMYOR
April 18, 1989
Scott Washburn
Schmieg - Washburn, Inc.
2887 Edgerton
St. Paul, MN 55117
Re: 862 White Bear Avenue
Dear Mr. Washburn:
General Building Permit number 073398 was issued to you on February 28, 1989
as a "renewal" of a billboard permit or the referenced address. This permit
was issued in error by this Division nd is null and void.
The previous sign permit had expired nd the renewal request was, therefore,
not automatically legal. In the inte im, the sign ordinances in St. Paul have
been changed, and permission for your proposed billboard can no longer be
; granted. We regret this misunderstan ing. You may apply for a refund of your
� permit fee.
� In case you decide to seek a variance to the Sign Ordinance, I am enclosing
� the proper forms. Please contact Joh Hardwick at 298-4212 should you have
any questions regarding this procedur or the specific regulations.
,
i Sincerely,'
e
. �
Richard A. Thompson
Senior Building Inspector
RAT/cg
cc: Kathy Gelao
John Hardwick
Enclosure
�
� �
3
i
t
�
CITIZEN PAR ICI I I I S .
�
. � o
� { g j
' ` : 10 �, , : :ij � .�. Z �
_ � �= ��
�� 12� , 6 � -'� 'S �"
; r�.� « :� �`
.� . , _i� �
i i �
t - .v 3
� �v � .
1� j - t ' � .� s,
'�w„� � - s -� '
� wa-w ! � .w..
��L,
3 �_ i �'' s E r r
« ; ' _ i _ : 4 �
t s
s . ,�.,..a.�. ;
i f a j
s -�
S - f .i � �c �we .F �
Y.P �K {�
i ` •
� •.y-_ 9q 4
rw. � ' _ p�
� �� � g '
- � . -�
�BS S - _ ` � "
, �
s. _ � S ,=' s i! 8 l �s + �
. ,o,t
, �i 'i \ ''' .d
i
14 �..«� - sg �,� i.� ��... � 1� ��•� ;
� ,
a.wr.a - � S ' ; , � !
1 s x
l : i = - ; r- _ � �=����`~� 4 f
3 ; i � — € ��— t
� S � i ..� # s <'� - ...«�.� - i
: � ,� } i5: _ `c3 = „ , ;
` - ,..�.. .� - �� �
-. .. ,� �
•-i lJfil�6� � i��/ �
; ,�� . � . � " = �
� � Q: �(
1
i � -� ,
�— � � - ,� .� �n•
���
�wE
�
CITIZEPJ PARTIC PATIOP� PLANNIPJG DISTRICTS #
I
�
1 SUNRAY—BAT LE CREEK—HIGHW '-
A DEN—PROSPERITY HEIGHT CREST
3. WEST SIDE �
4. DAYTON'S B UFF [
5. PAYPJE—PHAL N '
6. NORTN END �
7. THOl1AS—DAL k
8, SUMMIT—UWI ERSITY ;
9. :JEST SEVEPJ ;
10. COMO ;
11. HAMLINE—MI AY i
12. ST, ANTHOP� j
13. MERRIAM PK, LEXINGTON HAMLINE—S'VELLING HAMLINE �
14, GROVELAND— CALESTER . ;
15. HIGHLAND ;
16. SUMMIT HILL /0�.� �
17. DOWNTOWN `
����� E`��S �t�.� - ;
,.
� �
.► �
�.
��
�i � • ( � I ,� � I
"� ' '� � " 'I� �
� �� ■�'�II � �� _
� �� �� � � -
"1w �■ �� ��•�: � '
'' I '•� � ��� -�
� ....�
' �� �� �� �� i� �-�� ��'
.. „
_ . - i� � � i� �'��
� ' � � '� ' .. �..,, „
�� �� � �� ���1 �� _
� _ ��� � � �� ��� ��
'� � „ ' � , � � � � /
�� � � ■� �
�� �� �� �.
� 1:\l` .�I � � � ■�� '�, 1�"' �_
� I-�_� �•�� � � �;
�.;�-�=■�r-��I:1�11�- �. Z
� i■'_' '�:��''1���'� �� �,
� �
I � - ,� �■ '- ,� , ,�s
�, � � � �
� � � � i� -��
/ � ;�: � , � � �� �.
' � � � � ��
� � .� 1 - � -/-� . �
,.... �: . ,,..-
� � - -
11 . . ,,,�� ./� � � .��
, � 11: � � �:_ ;�-� _
� ....
� � _� , � .., r. ��
', � �'� ��' '� ,,
� �� -� ��i ll �' ��
� � j � �
� = I_� �
- ` � . � �
_ . �
: -- ���
- �
� : � �;�I � � ��
• � ��ii► � �
- " -,� ..,
• , ' • - �-- ��
' , ,..,:.--��� , ,
� !� � .,• ..,�
�� � �� �
..,, ..
, � � - � � • � ,
�: .��� � � �I�`�^ �- �
.. `
'� � � � ll r�� . �i , l ,.
/ � � ��� �� ' . ` , '
�' �� � � �� � � - ' �
� � � � -�� � �'� � � � �
�� � � - - ��� "� ����� �
...�.
� � � � � � � �� � � �'�"��
�� r� �� � � � � �� � �. �'���'�
- i-- =-. - - � --- --t-f-t'J���l��_L-��P
� - - - - = _-
• � � � �� . .-:..-:----�
. �
\ - - -- : • �
: �,
,
�
• • n • . ) • ;.
� • • • • . .
., � .:r._ r�
�i t �i ' ��
. : : � � e a � ���ee���ee
. .�...
. _ . . . . . .�. . . . . . . � �
u ��� ���� ,�� � �
. . � sesoa���sseos�� A . �� . . . . . e . . . - . .
��
^ ' 'd .� :{Y� � C��
. . . . . . . . . . . . . � e . . . � � . . . .
1� ' � ° Ir �
— �� �
t«) � �
� � � � ..
., . u . . . . . . . . � � ;;:� �� . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
� � • �.�n..�r'
� �
� � i_ �� • • � • • • • � � � • • • • • • • • • � • • • ��
�+ � �J� _ � •
r' � "� � 1 .
. • �
. : . . . .
• � t rm . . . . . . . . . t��� � . . . . . . . . .
� , �. ■ .
,
• O • �� � � ^ • � • • s • , • =�� , ♦ • • • � • • • • ^ � �
• ��a�M u
� � � � 3 _�■ � �
Q � ��. • - --
• �
� � �
� ; r 1 � � • • • • f • � • • I • • � • • • � � • • • �
(
•' '
• � • . . . . . . . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . n '.1�� .
� � � ���, �
� r�� �
� �� � . --
� • • • • • • • • � o : • • • � • • • o � • � • e • • � • • • '
; ��I
. : • . • • . • • . • . • C.�• , ♦ • • • • w • • • • • • Y
�_ ;� ��
��
. . �
�
i
• � 1 • ��� • • • • • � • � . � • � • • • • • � � f • • • � • • • • • • • • • � • • •
� � � � �
�
� � � �
• �� • • �' I � �• • .
� � � �•
� %////////. _ . : « . . . : .
� • • ..
� 1
• � _ � . .� .
• . � . : �:,
�� �\
G1TY OP
4�` '� ��.�.,��CITY OF SAINT PAUL
° ��������°,�, ; DEPARTMENT F PLANNING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
`vm '��� ����� �o' DIVISION OF PLANNING
25 West Fourth Street,Saint Paul,Minnesota 55102
�86�
612-228-3270
GEORGE LATIMER
MAYOR
RECEIV�D
September 13, 1989 SEP 1"-��
CITY C�Ef'��
Mr. Albert B. Olson, City Clerk
Room 386, City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Mr. Olson:
This letter is written to confirm the aring date for:
Applicant: District 2 Community Council
File Number: 10554
Purpose: Appeal the decision o the Planning Commission
which allow a billboar sign.
Legal Description of Property: 86 White Bear Avenue
pa t of Lots 13-15, Block 7;
--- Ha el Park Addition
Previous Action:
Planning Division Decisio : Approved (vote 9-3) 8-25-89
Zoning Committee Recommen ation: Denial (vote 5-0) 7-6-89
Board of Zoning Appeal:
In order to allow time for the mailing f appropriate notices, please schedule
the hearing date as soon as possible af er 10-12-89. Our preference would be
10-12-89.
I will phone you within the next few da s for schedule confirmation.
Sincerely,
���i�- /� -�
Daniel K. Bayers � y �
Zoning Section Q I\ ✓�v�
�� .
cc: file # 10554 ��
cc: Mary Jean
�7 f�_ ��l�
� � ST. PAUI. ITY COUNCIL
PUBI. IC HEARING NOTICE
Z N I N G R�c�ivFn
OCT 101�89
CITY CLERK
T0: Property owners within 350' ; FIL E N 0. 10554
Representati ves of P1 anni ng Di str ct 2 pqGE
PURPOSE
Appeal from t e decision of the Planning Commission
denying an ap eal of an administrative order revoking
a sign permit
LOCATION
862 White Bear venue (East side between Stillwater and
E. Seventh)
P E T I T IO N E R DISTRICT 2 COMM NITY COUNCIL
H E A R IN G Thursday, Octobe i9, 1989 9:0o A.M.
Citv Council Cha ers, 3rd Floor Citv Hall - Court House
Q U E S TIO N S Zoning 228-3364 Chuck McGuire)
Contact the Zonin Section of the Planning and Economic
Development Depar ment, Room 1101, City Hall Annex,
25 W. 4th Street, St. Paul, Minnesoia 55102
Legal Descriptio : On file �
Notice sent 10/6/89
.►-s':_ ', .. - _ . . . • . •_:F�::",'��C`��