The URL can be used to link to this page

99-22Council File # q� - 012 Presented Refeaed To RESOLUTION CITY OF �AINT PAUL, MlNNESOTA Green Sheet # fa�a��o Committee Date 1 WHEREAS, the Saint Anthony Park neighborhood has worked to develop a neighborhood policy on 2 billboazds which enhances the livability of azea while maintaiuing its commercial viability; and 3 WHEREAS, the Saint Anthony Park neighborhood has asked for designarion as a special sign district 4 under the current Saint Paul City Code; now, therefore, be it 5 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council directs the Planning Commission to consider the Saint 6 Anthony Park Special Sign District Plan and forwazd a recommendation on it to the Council by February 7 24, 1999. Requested by Department of: � Furm Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Councii By: B Approved by D te �_ 7/�/ �j� BY: /h'/ �J' Adopted by Council: Date , \ � Adoption Certified by Council Secretary �1R -a�' DEPARTMENT/OFFICEfCOUNCIL DATE u1RWTED C�f �ocu�e�:/-�/a .�e.-rdHav /-19-�i9 GREEN SHEET No 63526 OONT T PER�J 8 P�-pNE InMiaWri InXBUDah �QIl.�! �//�� N� � � O �D �� oRUtrreROwKrat ancartl MUS7 BE ON COUNCIL AGQJDA BY (DATE� /+ I\SEIG�1 !-(� - 7 9 - S/,�s e�zs�� cn.�.muE. arcmu Routvic � w+�xouamv¢unw. nuxcuLLamvi.are ❑ WYORIOR�YStfYrt� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES i (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) GTION REQUESTED rCera/c�fi'orv ct�i�tc�.� �l�.e f�lnilrncir(' C.�n/�ssidYr fo cons.� �xa Sca.rt f�Gcor.NPa.r.� �S �S.�n•,�;slr;�f /'/an �,Zq��;-�svar�/ � �'ecDr.�in.�a�/a�i�. �o ,Ylr¢ C�'au,zecy � f:e,6�ua�� Z� /999. RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) or ReJect (R) PEILSONALSERVICE CONiRAGTS MUSTANSWER TNE FOLLOWING QUESTiONSi 7. Has this persoNfirtn ever xrorlced under a canhact for this departmeM? PLANNING CAMMISSION YES NO CIB COMMITTEE 2. Hss tFiia persoNfirtn eoer Deen a city empbyee? CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vES NO 3. Does Mis pe�soNfirm 0� a sldli not 1rormallYP�ssed bY anY curterd cHY emploYee? VES NO 4. Is tfus pe�soNfirm a tarpeted ventloYt VES NO E�in alt yes answms on separate sheet and attach fo green sfieet INIiIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, When, YVhere, Why) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAIAMOUNTOFTRANSACT10Nf COSTIREVENUEBUDGETED�CIRCLEON� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE RC7iYiTY NUMIBER FINANCIAL INFORMqT10N (EXPWI� DEPARTMENTOFPLANN[NG & ECONOM[C DEVELOPMENT a 7om Hanen, Acirng Director � � - � • CI� �F' .Sf1�r PA�. 1� W¢stFourlhStreet Telephone: 651d66-6�6� b"orm Colemon, Mayor SaintPaul, M.�� SJIO? Facsimele: 651-228-326! February 17, 1999 Council President Dan Bostrom and Members of the Gity Council 320B City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Council President Sostrom and Members of the City Council: On January 6, 1999, the City Council forwarded the proposed St. Anthony Park Special Sign District to the Pfanning Commission for its recommendation. The resoiution of referral directed the Commission to return its recommendation by February 24, 1999. • On February 4, 1999, after legal notice, a public hearing on the proposed sign district was heid by the Zoning Committee. At the conclusion of the hearing, the attached resolution was recommended to, and subsequentfy adopted by, the Commission. The Commission's recommendation on this matter is that action on the proposed St. Anthony Park Sign Plan be laid over until there is a final resolution on the recommendations of the city-wide Legislative Advisory Gommittee on Advertising Sig�s. Feel free io call me or Nancy Homans (6-6557) if you have any questions. Sincerely, �� Ken Ford Plan�ing Administrator Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution City Councif Resolution St. Anthony Park Sign Plan Planning Staff Report � LJ �a _ a-�— � city of saint paul planning commission resolution fiie number 99-12 UQte Februarv 12, 1949 ST. Ari'THONY PARK SPECTAL SIGN DISTRICT WHEREAS, on November 16, 1998 the St. Anthony Park Communiry Council submitted to the Saint Paul City Council a proposal for a Special Sign District under the provisions of Sec. b6.216 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and �VHEREAS, on January 6, 1994 the 5aint Paul City Council forwarded the proposal to the Planning Commission for its recommendation; and WI-IEREAS, the City Council's resolution directed the Commission to return its recommendation to the Council by February 24, 1999; and �VHEREAS, ihe Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on # February 4, 1999 afrer posting the required notice in the St. Paul Pioneer Pzess; and RrHEEtEAS, at that hearing, the Zoning Committee received a staff recommenda?ion and heard public testimony in favor of and opposed to the prop'osed district; and �VHEIZEFIS, among the issues raised by those opposed to the district related to the timeliness of the proposal in light of an on-going effort by the Plaruiing Commission to examine proposals b}� the City Council's Legislative Advisory Committee on Advertisang Signs to develop new city�vide policies and re ;ulations on advertising signs; and . tiUHEREAS, the Planning Corpmission's ad hoc committee on advertisin� siQns is slated to make its recommendation to the Commission some time after February 22, 1999; NOW, THHREFORE, BE IT RESQLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Comznission recommends to the City Council that action on the proposed St. Anthony Park Sign Plan be laid o1�er until there is a final resotution on the recommendations of the Legislatio�e Advisory Committee on Advertising Signs. ��ed 6,J� Field secconded by _ {� �`�' �o�" Unanimous c`��lE�S� CITY OF ...r� r.�`. � ( � - . Green Sheet # ID �S�c � P�srnrea Refezred To T PAUL, MINNESOTA l�-�� Commictee Date t WHEREAS, the Saint Anthony Pazk neighborhood has worked to develop a nsighborhood policy on Z biiiboards which enhances the livability of azsa while maintaining its coaunercial viability; and 3 Vvf�REAS, the Saint Anthony Park neighborhood has asked for desig�aiion as a special sign district d vnder the ciurent Saint Paul City Code; now, therefore, be it 5 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council disects the Planning Commission to consider the Saint 6 Anthony Park Special5ign Disn Plan and forward a recommendation on it to the Council by February 7 24, 1999. � . �� • �;{�(�� :� �� '�lx�� ,o Rcqucsced by Dcpattmrnt of: � Furm Approved by Ciry Attorney Bv: Adopiioa CcrSficd by Coux�cii Secrttary By. Appro.•cd by Mayor: Date Approvtd by Maya fot Submission co CounciS � By: Adapced by Co�mcil: Ds[e � Anthony Park Community Counci[ c� �_� a- 16, I998 Council President Daniel Bostrom Room 310, City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Counril Presicienl Rost�om� Enclosed please find a copy of the St. Anthony Park Special District Sign Plan. This document was adopted on Wednesday, November 11, 1998, by the St. Anthony Park Community Council. We are now asking that the City Council and Planning Commission review this document and make it part of the Zoning Ordinance. • We would aiso like an opportunity to discuss our pian with the Zoning staff prior to the City Council review. Please cali me at 649=5992 if you have questions regarding the Plan, or would like to discuss it further. Warmest regards, St. Anthony Park Community Council i � / �'t�'t-�z�'� �`7��G�z.r � � Heather Worthington � Executive Director cc: Councilmember Iay Benanav Mayor Norm CoIeman Pamela GVheelock, Director, PED � Gladys Morton, Chair, Pla ng Commission Lany Soderholm, PED � Wendy Lane, LIEP 890 Cromweli Avenuq Saint Paul, Minnesot� 55114 •: 551/b49-5992 volce {• 651/649-5993 fax � ST. ANTHONY PARK S1GN PLAN �� INTENT AND PURPOSE The St. Anthony Park Special District Sign Plan, as provided in Section 66.216 of the Zoning Code, is being adopted to provide sign controls that build upon the unique character and identity of St. Anthony Park. This Sign Plan is intended to (a) maintain and enhance the scenic views of downtown Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, and other unique architecturai and natural features visibie from the residential and commercial areas and streets and fiighways of St. Anthony Park; (b) protect investment in Westgate and Energy Park and encourage redevelopment of the Southeast Minneapolis industrial (SEMI) area and other industrial properties in and around St. Anthany Park in accordance with the standards of pianned business parks; (c) reduce the clutter and chaotic diversity of signage that impairs the effectiveness of signs identifying businesses and institutions in St. Anthony Park; (d) create a more desirabie and memorabie image for St. Anthony Park as the northern and . western gateway to Saint Paul; and (e) protect property values i� St. Anthony Park and reflect the pride its residents, businesses and institutions place in the community. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION The provisions of this Sign Plan are supplementary to the provisions of Chapter 66, Signs, of the Zoning Code. The provisions of this Sign Plan that are more restrictive than provisions of Chapter 66 shail prevail and supersede any conflicting provisions of Chapter 66. All other, provisions of Chapter 66 of the Zoning Code shall continue to apply to signage within the St. Anthony Park Speciaf Sign District. All words and terms sha!! be defined as in this Sign Plan and in Cnapier 60 oi ihe Zoning Corie. i-rovisions inai use 'tne word 'snali" are manoaiory. Provisions that use the word "should" or "recommend" are advisory to carrying out the intent and purpose of this Sign Pian but are not mandatory. SPEGIAL SIGN DISTRIC7 AREA The St. Anthony Park Special District Sign Plan shail apply to the area defined as follows: Commencing at the extreme northwest corner of the city, the boundary shall extend east along the city limit to C4eveland Avenue, south along the city limit to a point near Como Avenue, and east along the city limit to the center-line of vacated Aldine � Street, thence continuing south along the center-line of vacated Aldine Street to the SAPCC - S�gn Plan (9875.WPD 4) 71 /9/98 center-Iine vf Wynne Avenue, east along the center-line of Wynne Avenue to the . center-(ine of Snel(ing Avenue, south along fhe cenfer-line of Sneiling Avenue fo the northeriy right-of-way line of The Burlington Northern and Sante Fe Raifway just south of Energy Park Drive, westerly along such northeriy railway right-of-way line to the center-line of Cteveland Avenue extended north along the section line from University Avenue, south along the center-line of Cleveland Avenue extended and Cleveland Avenue to the center-line of interstate Nighway 94, westerly along the center-line of Interstate Highway 94 to the western city limit, and thence north along the city limit to the northwest corner of the City where the boundary line began. SPECIAL SIGN RESTRICTIONS Within the St. Anthony Park Special Sign District, signs shali be subject to the following restrictions: (a) Advertising signs shall not be permitted. (b) Roof signs which advertise a product, service or enfertainment which is offered, sofd or manufactured on the premises shall not be permifted, but a roof sign may identify the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. NONCONFORMlNG SlGNS Signs within the St. Anthony Park Special Sign District which lawfully existed prior to the adoption • of this Sign Plan by the City Council, and which would be prohibited, regulated or restricted under the provisions of this Sign Plan or amendments hereto, may conti�ue to exist as Iegal nonconforming signs under the provisions of Section 66.300, nonconforming signs, of the Zoning Code, subject to the following additional requirements: (a) No nonconforming sign shall be: (i} altered or en(arged in any way, or (ii) replaced by another nonconforming sign (but changing the message on the sign shall not be deemed to be a replacement), or (iii) relocated to any other location in ihe St. Anthony Park Special Sign District, or (iv) reconstructed after incurring damage in an amount exceeding 50% of its market value at the time of loss, as determined by the City, or (v) maintained through replacement of structural elements. (b) Any nonconforming sign shall be immediately removed from the St. Anthony Park Special Sign Districf af fhe cosf of fhe owner: (i) if it is an imminent danger to life or property, or • SAPCC-SignPlan (9875WPD,S) i i/Bl98 � "�� (ii} if it incurs damage in an amount exceeding 50% of its market value at the time of loss, or (iii) if use of suCh sign has been discontinued for a period of three consecutive months. (c) In any event, ail nonconforming signs shall be removed from the St. Anthony Park Special Sign District by no later than 10 years after approval of this Sign Plan by the City Council. ADMINISTRATtON AND ENFORCEMENT The Zoning Administrator shali enforce the provisions of this Sign Plan as a suppiement to Chapter 66, Signs, of the Zoning Code. Whenever a permit for a sign in the St. Anthony Park Speciai Sign District is required underthe provisions of Chapter66 ofthe Zoning Gode, such permit shaii noi be issued uniess the plans for the sign have been approved by the Zoning Administrator as in conformance with this Sign Plan. PROCEDURE Building permit appiications for signs in the St. Anthony Psrk Special Sign District shaii be submitted to the Zoning Administrator far review and approval. A fee to cover the costs of the review shali be established by resoiution of the City Council. Pians submitted for Zoning � Administrator approval shali be of sufficient detaii to demonstrate that the proposed sign complies with the provisions of this Sign Plan. The Zoning Administrator shall review the plans wvithin 30 days and notify both the appiicant and the Division of Housing and Building Code Enforcement of any decision to approve or disapprove the plans. Written reasons for denial shali accompany any decision to disapprove the plar�s. Any decision by the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Commission. � SAPCC - Sign Plan (9875 WPD CJ 71/9/98 �� a� • lnterdepartmental Memorandum CITY OF SA6�IT PAUL DATE: February 3, 1999 TO: Zoning Committee FROM: Nancy Homans RE: Saint Anthony Park Special Sian District Plan: Arnended Staff Report and StafJRecommendation Introduction On January 6, 1999, the City Council, by resolution, directed the PlanninQ Commission to consider the proposed Saint Anthony Park Special Sign District Plan and forward its recommendation to the Council by February 24, 1999. The foilowing is a discussion of the issues raised by the proposal. � Legislative Authority The Zoning Code provides for the adoption of comprehensive sign plans (Sec. 66.216): (a) A comprehensive sign plan may be provided for bz�siness or industrial premises w�hich are nol part of a new planned development district as provided in section 66.213 above, but i-vhich occupy the entire frontage on ttivo (2) or more adjacent block fronts. The intent behind this provision is to allotiv and even encoz�rage entertainment centers, shopping centeYS, histoPic districts and other corrzprehensive developments to buidd upon unique characteristics of certain sections of the ciry so tong as the visual landscape created by the plan is in keeping with the gener�al intent of this chapter. Such a plan sh�tll be subnzitted to the planning commission and shald incla�de the locntion, siae, height, color, lighting orientation, overall design justifcation, and other infor�mation �vhrch may be reasonably reqziired for the propnr considerntion of the matter. (b) Less restrictive as we11 as more resh•ictive ��rovlsions fhan specifred in this chapter muy be permitted if the sign areas a�xd devrsities for Ihe ylan ar a irhole aYe in conformit}- icitla tl�e intent of this chal�ter and if stich exception r�esuZts in an irii�r ovecl relationship betN�een the variozts parts of Ihe �lc�n. (c) AppTication shall be nzade m the cily council for consideration imder Uzis provision. � Appf may be granted by city coaincil resolufion, after reviem ancl r�ecommendation is nende by !he l�lcrrzning comnzission, ancl only after cr public lsearino before the planning conamission and the ci(y co�.incil. Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 PaQe two District Z2 Sign District Proposal In summary, tfie key elements of the proposai as submitted by the District 12 Community Council relate exclusively to advertising and roof signs and include the following: � L The district shall encompass the entire District 12 planning district. ?. The goals ofthe district include: (a) Maintain and enhance the scenic views of downto�vn Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, and other unique azchitectural and natural features visible from the residential and commercial areas and streets and highways of St. Anthony Park. (b} Protect investment in Westtrate and Energy Park and encourage redevelopment of the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial (SEMI) azea and other industrial properties in and azound St. Anthony Pazk in accordance with the standazds of planned business parks. (c) Reduce the clutter and chaotic diversity of signage that impairs the effectiveness of signs identifying businesses and institutions in St. Anthony Park. (d) Create a more desirable and memorable image of St. Anthony Park as the northern and western gateway to St. Paul. . (e} Protecf property values in St. Anthony Park and reflect the pride its residents, businesses and institutions place in the community. The major provisions include: (a) Advertising signs shall not be permitted in the district. E�isting advertising signs �eill become legally nonconforming signs. {b) Roof signs Uiat advertise a product, service or entertainment �vhich is offered, sold or mviufactured on the premisses shall not be permitted, but a roof sign may identify the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. (c) Nonconforming si�ns may continue to exist subject to requirements that they not be altered, enlarged, replaced, relocated or reconstructed; that they be removed if they pose danger Yo healYh and safety, incur si�nificant damage or are not used for a period of three consecutive months. (d) Nonconforming signs shall be retnove�d fi the disfrict by' no later ttian 10 years after approval of the sign plan by the City Council. The proposal includes procedures and provisions for the enforcement of tl2e district requirements. . � a�' �� Zoning Committee February 3, 1499 Pa�e three � Esisting Regulations Advertising signs (including signs on billboards, benches, transit stops) are permitted in the portions of the district zoned B-2, B-3, I-1 or I-2, subject to size, height and spacin� requirements as follows: Ciassification Maximum Minimum Maximum Existing Gross Spacing Height Signs Surface Beriveen (Feet) Area Signs (5q ft) (Feet) Principal arterials 700 1000 37 % T-94 Hwy 280 Minor arterials 4Q0 660 37 %z Cleveland (S of University) , Como (B-2 areas) Energy Park Drive Kasota Raymond ` University Vandalia Collectors 100 ?00 37'/z Eliis Hampden Issues for Discussion l. Ban on advertising signs in the district. The proposal to not permit additional advertisivg signs in the district and to make all existing signs ]egal nonconforming uses: (a) Is consistenf with other sian districts in the city (Grand Avemie, Smith Avenue and Highland); (b) Is consistent with the federal Highway Beautification Act that ca11s upon States to control the erection ai�d niaintenance of outdoor advertising signs ii� areas adjacent to ihe Interstate System and the primary system "in order to protect the public investment in sLich highways, to promote the safet}� and recreational value of public travel and to preserve natural beauty". � (c) Is similac to ordinauces in other cities (e.g. Seattle and San Diego) in which courts, including the Supreuie Court in Metromedia, Ina ��. City of San Diego, Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 Page four have found that a city's interest in avoidin� visual clutter suffices to justify a prohibition of billboards. (d) Is provided for in State la�v (173.20) �vhick states that nothing in Sections 173.13- 173.231 (ctddressing the f•egtrlation of advertising signs in other� than clesignated scenic areas) shall be constraied to abrogate or affect the provisions of any other law, municiperl ordinance, regtdation, or resoh�tion which is more restrictive concerning advertising than the pr-ovisions of said sections 173,13 to 173.231 hereof or of the regadations adoptec� her•eunden State permits for advertising signs along interstate or primart• highways are, indeed, subject to Iocai approvai 2. Ban on roof signs other than those that identifv the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. � Already banned in the Zoning Code are advertising signs constnzcted on a roof top or to overhang a roof, except: Replacements for nonconforming signs that are brought into conformance with the size and height requirements of the code and are less than 400 square feet in � size may be located on a rooftop. Atl such replacement signs may overhang a roo£ 66302 (a)(5) and 66302(b)(�) The proposed sign district provisions �tiould re�nove tl�at esception as well as forbid business signs (i.e. those that direct attention to a business, profession, commodiYq, service or entertairnnent which is conducted, offered, sold or manufactured on the Premises upon which the sign is placed) on roofs except tllose that identify only the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. All e�istin� business signs on roofs-excepi those tfiat identify onIy the name, logo and nature of tbe business- cvould become legally nonconfonnine. The applicant's intention is to curb the installation of signs that are, in all other respects, advertisino signs, but are considered business signs because they advertise a product that is sold on the premises (e.g. a billboard advertising liquor located on top of a liquor store that does not indude the name of the liquor store). It is conceivable that such signs would be located on a rooF, but it is equaIly conceivable that ttiey �voutd be freestanding signs. The proposed proeision may be confusing inasmuch as it essentiall} creates a definition of business signs different fiom that in the Sign Ordinance. It may also not be entirely efiective in addressing the concern it is intended to address. The Grand Avenue and Highland Special Sign Districts include the following provisio��s: � � �� -�� Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 Page five Grand Avenue Business signs should clearly and concisely ident� the bt�sinesses on the premises. The name of the bzrsiness should be highlighted; extra information tends to reduce the impact of the sign. Signs which advertize a prodtrct and inclzrde the name of the bz�siness on the premises zrpon tivhich the sign is placed shall not be permitte Hiahland No more than 10 percenr of rhe gross sauface dispiny nrea of bxisiness signs permitted on a lot shall be used for prodtict signs which are not integral to the name of the bzrsiness. Prodt�ct signs, business signs tivhich actvertise a product s•o1d on the premises, shozrld be avoided. Sa�ch signs-which are often provided by soft drink, beer or cigarette companies fail to highlight the important information, the barsiness name, and clzrtter the appearance ofthe village. 3. Removal of Non-conformitta Signs � • The primary issue raised by the proposal relates to the requirement that nonconforming signs-of all kinds--be removed from the district within ten years. Four issues are raised. The first relates to whether the City intends to adopt a policy of removing exisiing signs tluough the process of amortization. Committing the City to such a strategy is a more significant policy decision than was encisioned by the Zoning Code provisions establishing special sign districts and, therefore, merits careful review. In recent weeks, the CounciPs Legislative Advisory Committee Iias recomnlended against the use af amortizatian and has placed the question into the hands of the Planning Commission and City Council for resolution. A recommendation is now being formed by the Planning Comniission and is, as a resLilt, not yet before the City Council for discussion and final resolution. 2. The second issue relates to the legality of depe�ading on amortization as a means of compensation on federal interstate highways and pcimary coadways. Siiace 1978, federal law I�as required cash compensation for the required removal of nonconfomzing billboards along federal inier-state and primary highways (I-94 aud I�«}' 280), regardless of whether the billboarcl's nonconfonning status is the result of federal law or some other govern�nental action. � 3. The ihird issue ielates to wt�ed�er the City, should it decide to pursue a strategy of amortization oi7 local zoadwrays, should i�iake findings related to the appzopriate amortization period. The proposed special sign district does not make any such iindings. Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 Page six The decision to pursue a strategy of amortization on local roadways (University Avenue, Como Bou[evard, Raymond Avenue, Cleveland Avenue} is a matter of local discretion and would require carefizl justification of the amortization period. The City Attorney has advised that "if the amorti_>ation period tivas found to be lacking and therefore constiFzrted a`taking' of private properry Yvithout jt�st compensation tivhich is prahibited zazder the Fifth flmendment of the United States Constitution as well as Minnesotn Constitution �trticle I, Section 13, Che City would be exposed to substantial money dnmages." � A related issue concerns the status of University Avenue. While State officials have indicated that, with the recent transfer of University Avenue from State to County jurisdiction, amortization became a matter of local discretion, industry representatives contend that since the billboards were erected when the roadway received State aid, they continue to be protected by the provisions of the federal law that require cash compensation for the removal of signs on primary highways. Additional legal opinions have been requested. � 4. Finally, the proposed sign district calls for the removal of al] non-conforming signs (not just advertising siens) ��ithin ten years. Presumably, there are signs in the.district that became non-conforming, because of their size ar height, for instance, when the City's sign ordinance was adopted. The City does not presently have'records on all the si�ns in the district in order to establish their non-confonning status and ensure their removal. Staff Recomrriendation Staff recomcnends: Approval of the St. Anthony Pazk Special Sisn District with the foliowing amendments: 1. Replace the provision related to roof signs with the Following: Business signs should clear�ly cind concisely identify the bassiness(es) on the prenzises. The name of the bi�siness shozdd be highlighted. A�o rnor�e than 10 �er�cent oJthe gross swfcrce cllsplay ur•eu of business signs permitted on a Zot shall be zrsed fo1 product signs which ur�e not integr al ro ihe nanae of the business. 2. Detete the provision related to the removal of nonconformin� signs until such time that the City Council has addressed die issues related to amortization and adopted it as a strategy for advertisin� sign removal, makin� tl�e appropriate fiudin�s to support its decision. Enclosure � Council File # q� - 012 Presented Refeaed To RESOLUTION CITY OF �AINT PAUL, MlNNESOTA Green Sheet # fa�a��o Committee Date 1 WHEREAS, the Saint Anthony Park neighborhood has worked to develop a neighborhood policy on 2 billboazds which enhances the livability of azea while maintaiuing its commercial viability; and 3 WHEREAS, the Saint Anthony Park neighborhood has asked for designarion as a special sign district 4 under the current Saint Paul City Code; now, therefore, be it 5 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council directs the Planning Commission to consider the Saint 6 Anthony Park Special Sign District Plan and forwazd a recommendation on it to the Council by February 7 24, 1999. Requested by Department of: � Furm Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Councii By: B Approved by D te �_ 7/�/ �j� BY: /h'/ �J' Adopted by Council: Date , \ � Adoption Certified by Council Secretary �1R -a�' DEPARTMENT/OFFICEfCOUNCIL DATE u1RWTED C�f �ocu�e�:/-�/a .�e.-rdHav /-19-�i9 GREEN SHEET No 63526 OONT T PER�J 8 P�-pNE InMiaWri InXBUDah �QIl.�! �//�� N� � � O �D �� oRUtrreROwKrat ancartl MUS7 BE ON COUNCIL AGQJDA BY (DATE� /+ I\SEIG�1 !-(� - 7 9 - S/,�s e�zs�� cn.�.muE. arcmu Routvic � w+�xouamv¢unw. nuxcuLLamvi.are ❑ WYORIOR�YStfYrt� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES i (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) GTION REQUESTED rCera/c�fi'orv ct�i�tc�.� �l�.e f�lnilrncir(' C.�n/�ssidYr fo cons.� �xa Sca.rt f�Gcor.NPa.r.� �S �S.�n•,�;slr;�f /'/an �,Zq��;-�svar�/ � �'ecDr.�in.�a�/a�i�. �o ,Ylr¢ C�'au,zecy � f:e,6�ua�� Z� /999. RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) or ReJect (R) PEILSONALSERVICE CONiRAGTS MUSTANSWER TNE FOLLOWING QUESTiONSi 7. Has this persoNfirtn ever xrorlced under a canhact for this departmeM? PLANNING CAMMISSION YES NO CIB COMMITTEE 2. Hss tFiia persoNfirtn eoer Deen a city empbyee? CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vES NO 3. Does Mis pe�soNfirm 0� a sldli not 1rormallYP�ssed bY anY curterd cHY emploYee? VES NO 4. Is tfus pe�soNfirm a tarpeted ventloYt VES NO E�in alt yes answms on separate sheet and attach fo green sfieet INIiIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, When, YVhere, Why) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAIAMOUNTOFTRANSACT10Nf COSTIREVENUEBUDGETED�CIRCLEON� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE RC7iYiTY NUMIBER FINANCIAL INFORMqT10N (EXPWI� DEPARTMENTOFPLANN[NG & ECONOM[C DEVELOPMENT a 7om Hanen, Acirng Director � � - � • CI� �F' .Sf1�r PA�. 1� W¢stFourlhStreet Telephone: 651d66-6�6� b"orm Colemon, Mayor SaintPaul, M.�� SJIO? Facsimele: 651-228-326! February 17, 1999 Council President Dan Bostrom and Members of the Gity Council 320B City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Council President Sostrom and Members of the City Council: On January 6, 1999, the City Council forwarded the proposed St. Anthony Park Special Sign District to the Pfanning Commission for its recommendation. The resoiution of referral directed the Commission to return its recommendation by February 24, 1999. • On February 4, 1999, after legal notice, a public hearing on the proposed sign district was heid by the Zoning Committee. At the conclusion of the hearing, the attached resolution was recommended to, and subsequentfy adopted by, the Commission. The Commission's recommendation on this matter is that action on the proposed St. Anthony Park Sign Plan be laid over until there is a final resolution on the recommendations of the city-wide Legislative Advisory Gommittee on Advertising Sig�s. Feel free io call me or Nancy Homans (6-6557) if you have any questions. Sincerely, �� Ken Ford Plan�ing Administrator Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution City Councif Resolution St. Anthony Park Sign Plan Planning Staff Report � LJ �a _ a-�— � city of saint paul planning commission resolution fiie number 99-12 UQte Februarv 12, 1949 ST. Ari'THONY PARK SPECTAL SIGN DISTRICT WHEREAS, on November 16, 1998 the St. Anthony Park Communiry Council submitted to the Saint Paul City Council a proposal for a Special Sign District under the provisions of Sec. b6.216 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and �VHEREAS, on January 6, 1994 the 5aint Paul City Council forwarded the proposal to the Planning Commission for its recommendation; and WI-IEREAS, the City Council's resolution directed the Commission to return its recommendation to the Council by February 24, 1999; and �VHEREAS, ihe Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on # February 4, 1999 afrer posting the required notice in the St. Paul Pioneer Pzess; and RrHEEtEAS, at that hearing, the Zoning Committee received a staff recommenda?ion and heard public testimony in favor of and opposed to the prop'osed district; and �VHEIZEFIS, among the issues raised by those opposed to the district related to the timeliness of the proposal in light of an on-going effort by the Plaruiing Commission to examine proposals b}� the City Council's Legislative Advisory Committee on Advertisang Signs to develop new city�vide policies and re ;ulations on advertising signs; and . tiUHEREAS, the Planning Corpmission's ad hoc committee on advertisin� siQns is slated to make its recommendation to the Commission some time after February 22, 1999; NOW, THHREFORE, BE IT RESQLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Comznission recommends to the City Council that action on the proposed St. Anthony Park Sign Plan be laid o1�er until there is a final resotution on the recommendations of the Legislatio�e Advisory Committee on Advertising Signs. ��ed 6,J� Field secconded by _ {� �`�' �o�" Unanimous c`��lE�S� CITY OF ...r� r.�`. � ( � - . Green Sheet # ID �S�c � P�srnrea Refezred To T PAUL, MINNESOTA l�-�� Commictee Date t WHEREAS, the Saint Anthony Pazk neighborhood has worked to develop a nsighborhood policy on Z biiiboards which enhances the livability of azsa while maintaining its coaunercial viability; and 3 Vvf�REAS, the Saint Anthony Park neighborhood has asked for desig�aiion as a special sign district d vnder the ciurent Saint Paul City Code; now, therefore, be it 5 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council disects the Planning Commission to consider the Saint 6 Anthony Park Special5ign Disn Plan and forward a recommendation on it to the Council by February 7 24, 1999. � . �� • �;{�(�� :� �� '�lx�� ,o Rcqucsced by Dcpattmrnt of: � Furm Approved by Ciry Attorney Bv: Adopiioa CcrSficd by Coux�cii Secrttary By. Appro.•cd by Mayor: Date Approvtd by Maya fot Submission co CounciS � By: Adapced by Co�mcil: Ds[e � Anthony Park Community Counci[ c� �_� a- 16, I998 Council President Daniel Bostrom Room 310, City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Counril Presicienl Rost�om� Enclosed please find a copy of the St. Anthony Park Special District Sign Plan. This document was adopted on Wednesday, November 11, 1998, by the St. Anthony Park Community Council. We are now asking that the City Council and Planning Commission review this document and make it part of the Zoning Ordinance. • We would aiso like an opportunity to discuss our pian with the Zoning staff prior to the City Council review. Please cali me at 649=5992 if you have questions regarding the Plan, or would like to discuss it further. Warmest regards, St. Anthony Park Community Council i � / �'t�'t-�z�'� �`7��G�z.r � � Heather Worthington � Executive Director cc: Councilmember Iay Benanav Mayor Norm CoIeman Pamela GVheelock, Director, PED � Gladys Morton, Chair, Pla ng Commission Lany Soderholm, PED � Wendy Lane, LIEP 890 Cromweli Avenuq Saint Paul, Minnesot� 55114 •: 551/b49-5992 volce {• 651/649-5993 fax � ST. ANTHONY PARK S1GN PLAN �� INTENT AND PURPOSE The St. Anthony Park Special District Sign Plan, as provided in Section 66.216 of the Zoning Code, is being adopted to provide sign controls that build upon the unique character and identity of St. Anthony Park. This Sign Plan is intended to (a) maintain and enhance the scenic views of downtown Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, and other unique architecturai and natural features visibie from the residential and commercial areas and streets and fiighways of St. Anthony Park; (b) protect investment in Westgate and Energy Park and encourage redevelopment of the Southeast Minneapolis industrial (SEMI) area and other industrial properties in and around St. Anthany Park in accordance with the standards of pianned business parks; (c) reduce the clutter and chaotic diversity of signage that impairs the effectiveness of signs identifying businesses and institutions in St. Anthony Park; (d) create a more desirabie and memorabie image for St. Anthony Park as the northern and . western gateway to Saint Paul; and (e) protect property values i� St. Anthony Park and reflect the pride its residents, businesses and institutions place in the community. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION The provisions of this Sign Plan are supplementary to the provisions of Chapter 66, Signs, of the Zoning Code. The provisions of this Sign Plan that are more restrictive than provisions of Chapter 66 shail prevail and supersede any conflicting provisions of Chapter 66. All other, provisions of Chapter 66 of the Zoning Code shall continue to apply to signage within the St. Anthony Park Speciaf Sign District. All words and terms sha!! be defined as in this Sign Plan and in Cnapier 60 oi ihe Zoning Corie. i-rovisions inai use 'tne word 'snali" are manoaiory. Provisions that use the word "should" or "recommend" are advisory to carrying out the intent and purpose of this Sign Pian but are not mandatory. SPEGIAL SIGN DISTRIC7 AREA The St. Anthony Park Special District Sign Plan shail apply to the area defined as follows: Commencing at the extreme northwest corner of the city, the boundary shall extend east along the city limit to C4eveland Avenue, south along the city limit to a point near Como Avenue, and east along the city limit to the center-line of vacated Aldine � Street, thence continuing south along the center-line of vacated Aldine Street to the SAPCC - S�gn Plan (9875.WPD 4) 71 /9/98 center-Iine vf Wynne Avenue, east along the center-line of Wynne Avenue to the . center-(ine of Snel(ing Avenue, south along fhe cenfer-line of Sneiling Avenue fo the northeriy right-of-way line of The Burlington Northern and Sante Fe Raifway just south of Energy Park Drive, westerly along such northeriy railway right-of-way line to the center-line of Cteveland Avenue extended north along the section line from University Avenue, south along the center-line of Cleveland Avenue extended and Cleveland Avenue to the center-line of interstate Nighway 94, westerly along the center-line of Interstate Highway 94 to the western city limit, and thence north along the city limit to the northwest corner of the City where the boundary line began. SPECIAL SIGN RESTRICTIONS Within the St. Anthony Park Special Sign District, signs shali be subject to the following restrictions: (a) Advertising signs shall not be permitted. (b) Roof signs which advertise a product, service or enfertainment which is offered, sofd or manufactured on the premises shall not be permifted, but a roof sign may identify the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. NONCONFORMlNG SlGNS Signs within the St. Anthony Park Special Sign District which lawfully existed prior to the adoption • of this Sign Plan by the City Council, and which would be prohibited, regulated or restricted under the provisions of this Sign Plan or amendments hereto, may conti�ue to exist as Iegal nonconforming signs under the provisions of Section 66.300, nonconforming signs, of the Zoning Code, subject to the following additional requirements: (a) No nonconforming sign shall be: (i} altered or en(arged in any way, or (ii) replaced by another nonconforming sign (but changing the message on the sign shall not be deemed to be a replacement), or (iii) relocated to any other location in ihe St. Anthony Park Special Sign District, or (iv) reconstructed after incurring damage in an amount exceeding 50% of its market value at the time of loss, as determined by the City, or (v) maintained through replacement of structural elements. (b) Any nonconforming sign shall be immediately removed from the St. Anthony Park Special Sign Districf af fhe cosf of fhe owner: (i) if it is an imminent danger to life or property, or • SAPCC-SignPlan (9875WPD,S) i i/Bl98 � "�� (ii} if it incurs damage in an amount exceeding 50% of its market value at the time of loss, or (iii) if use of suCh sign has been discontinued for a period of three consecutive months. (c) In any event, ail nonconforming signs shall be removed from the St. Anthony Park Special Sign District by no later than 10 years after approval of this Sign Plan by the City Council. ADMINISTRATtON AND ENFORCEMENT The Zoning Administrator shali enforce the provisions of this Sign Plan as a suppiement to Chapter 66, Signs, of the Zoning Code. Whenever a permit for a sign in the St. Anthony Park Speciai Sign District is required underthe provisions of Chapter66 ofthe Zoning Gode, such permit shaii noi be issued uniess the plans for the sign have been approved by the Zoning Administrator as in conformance with this Sign Plan. PROCEDURE Building permit appiications for signs in the St. Anthony Psrk Special Sign District shaii be submitted to the Zoning Administrator far review and approval. A fee to cover the costs of the review shali be established by resoiution of the City Council. Pians submitted for Zoning � Administrator approval shali be of sufficient detaii to demonstrate that the proposed sign complies with the provisions of this Sign Plan. The Zoning Administrator shall review the plans wvithin 30 days and notify both the appiicant and the Division of Housing and Building Code Enforcement of any decision to approve or disapprove the plans. Written reasons for denial shali accompany any decision to disapprove the plar�s. Any decision by the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Commission. � SAPCC - Sign Plan (9875 WPD CJ 71/9/98 �� a� • lnterdepartmental Memorandum CITY OF SA6�IT PAUL DATE: February 3, 1999 TO: Zoning Committee FROM: Nancy Homans RE: Saint Anthony Park Special Sian District Plan: Arnended Staff Report and StafJRecommendation Introduction On January 6, 1999, the City Council, by resolution, directed the PlanninQ Commission to consider the proposed Saint Anthony Park Special Sign District Plan and forward its recommendation to the Council by February 24, 1999. The foilowing is a discussion of the issues raised by the proposal. � Legislative Authority The Zoning Code provides for the adoption of comprehensive sign plans (Sec. 66.216): (a) A comprehensive sign plan may be provided for bz�siness or industrial premises w�hich are nol part of a new planned development district as provided in section 66.213 above, but i-vhich occupy the entire frontage on ttivo (2) or more adjacent block fronts. The intent behind this provision is to allotiv and even encoz�rage entertainment centers, shopping centeYS, histoPic districts and other corrzprehensive developments to buidd upon unique characteristics of certain sections of the ciry so tong as the visual landscape created by the plan is in keeping with the gener�al intent of this chapter. Such a plan sh�tll be subnzitted to the planning commission and shald incla�de the locntion, siae, height, color, lighting orientation, overall design justifcation, and other infor�mation �vhrch may be reasonably reqziired for the propnr considerntion of the matter. (b) Less restrictive as we11 as more resh•ictive ��rovlsions fhan specifred in this chapter muy be permitted if the sign areas a�xd devrsities for Ihe ylan ar a irhole aYe in conformit}- icitla tl�e intent of this chal�ter and if stich exception r�esuZts in an irii�r ovecl relationship betN�een the variozts parts of Ihe �lc�n. (c) AppTication shall be nzade m the cily council for consideration imder Uzis provision. � Appf may be granted by city coaincil resolufion, after reviem ancl r�ecommendation is nende by !he l�lcrrzning comnzission, ancl only after cr public lsearino before the planning conamission and the ci(y co�.incil. Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 PaQe two District Z2 Sign District Proposal In summary, tfie key elements of the proposai as submitted by the District 12 Community Council relate exclusively to advertising and roof signs and include the following: � L The district shall encompass the entire District 12 planning district. ?. The goals ofthe district include: (a) Maintain and enhance the scenic views of downto�vn Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, and other unique azchitectural and natural features visible from the residential and commercial areas and streets and highways of St. Anthony Park. (b} Protect investment in Westtrate and Energy Park and encourage redevelopment of the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial (SEMI) azea and other industrial properties in and azound St. Anthony Pazk in accordance with the standazds of planned business parks. (c) Reduce the clutter and chaotic diversity of signage that impairs the effectiveness of signs identifying businesses and institutions in St. Anthony Park. (d) Create a more desirable and memorable image of St. Anthony Park as the northern and western gateway to St. Paul. . (e} Protecf property values in St. Anthony Park and reflect the pride its residents, businesses and institutions place in the community. The major provisions include: (a) Advertising signs shall not be permitted in the district. E�isting advertising signs �eill become legally nonconforming signs. {b) Roof signs Uiat advertise a product, service or entertainment �vhich is offered, sold or mviufactured on the premisses shall not be permitted, but a roof sign may identify the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. (c) Nonconforming si�ns may continue to exist subject to requirements that they not be altered, enlarged, replaced, relocated or reconstructed; that they be removed if they pose danger Yo healYh and safety, incur si�nificant damage or are not used for a period of three consecutive months. (d) Nonconforming signs shall be retnove�d fi the disfrict by' no later ttian 10 years after approval of the sign plan by the City Council. The proposal includes procedures and provisions for the enforcement of tl2e district requirements. . � a�' �� Zoning Committee February 3, 1499 Pa�e three � Esisting Regulations Advertising signs (including signs on billboards, benches, transit stops) are permitted in the portions of the district zoned B-2, B-3, I-1 or I-2, subject to size, height and spacin� requirements as follows: Ciassification Maximum Minimum Maximum Existing Gross Spacing Height Signs Surface Beriveen (Feet) Area Signs (5q ft) (Feet) Principal arterials 700 1000 37 % T-94 Hwy 280 Minor arterials 4Q0 660 37 %z Cleveland (S of University) , Como (B-2 areas) Energy Park Drive Kasota Raymond ` University Vandalia Collectors 100 ?00 37'/z Eliis Hampden Issues for Discussion l. Ban on advertising signs in the district. The proposal to not permit additional advertisivg signs in the district and to make all existing signs ]egal nonconforming uses: (a) Is consistenf with other sian districts in the city (Grand Avemie, Smith Avenue and Highland); (b) Is consistent with the federal Highway Beautification Act that ca11s upon States to control the erection ai�d niaintenance of outdoor advertising signs ii� areas adjacent to ihe Interstate System and the primary system "in order to protect the public investment in sLich highways, to promote the safet}� and recreational value of public travel and to preserve natural beauty". � (c) Is similac to ordinauces in other cities (e.g. Seattle and San Diego) in which courts, including the Supreuie Court in Metromedia, Ina ��. City of San Diego, Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 Page four have found that a city's interest in avoidin� visual clutter suffices to justify a prohibition of billboards. (d) Is provided for in State la�v (173.20) �vhick states that nothing in Sections 173.13- 173.231 (ctddressing the f•egtrlation of advertising signs in other� than clesignated scenic areas) shall be constraied to abrogate or affect the provisions of any other law, municiperl ordinance, regtdation, or resoh�tion which is more restrictive concerning advertising than the pr-ovisions of said sections 173,13 to 173.231 hereof or of the regadations adoptec� her•eunden State permits for advertising signs along interstate or primart• highways are, indeed, subject to Iocai approvai 2. Ban on roof signs other than those that identifv the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. � Already banned in the Zoning Code are advertising signs constnzcted on a roof top or to overhang a roof, except: Replacements for nonconforming signs that are brought into conformance with the size and height requirements of the code and are less than 400 square feet in � size may be located on a rooftop. Atl such replacement signs may overhang a roo£ 66302 (a)(5) and 66302(b)(�) The proposed sign district provisions �tiould re�nove tl�at esception as well as forbid business signs (i.e. those that direct attention to a business, profession, commodiYq, service or entertairnnent which is conducted, offered, sold or manufactured on the Premises upon which the sign is placed) on roofs except tllose that identify only the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. All e�istin� business signs on roofs-excepi those tfiat identify onIy the name, logo and nature of tbe business- cvould become legally nonconfonnine. The applicant's intention is to curb the installation of signs that are, in all other respects, advertisino signs, but are considered business signs because they advertise a product that is sold on the premises (e.g. a billboard advertising liquor located on top of a liquor store that does not indude the name of the liquor store). It is conceivable that such signs would be located on a rooF, but it is equaIly conceivable that ttiey �voutd be freestanding signs. The proposed proeision may be confusing inasmuch as it essentiall} creates a definition of business signs different fiom that in the Sign Ordinance. It may also not be entirely efiective in addressing the concern it is intended to address. The Grand Avenue and Highland Special Sign Districts include the following provisio��s: � � �� -�� Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 Page five Grand Avenue Business signs should clearly and concisely ident� the bt�sinesses on the premises. The name of the bzrsiness should be highlighted; extra information tends to reduce the impact of the sign. Signs which advertize a prodtrct and inclzrde the name of the bz�siness on the premises zrpon tivhich the sign is placed shall not be permitte Hiahland No more than 10 percenr of rhe gross sauface dispiny nrea of bxisiness signs permitted on a lot shall be used for prodtict signs which are not integral to the name of the bzrsiness. Prodt�ct signs, business signs tivhich actvertise a product s•o1d on the premises, shozrld be avoided. Sa�ch signs-which are often provided by soft drink, beer or cigarette companies fail to highlight the important information, the barsiness name, and clzrtter the appearance ofthe village. 3. Removal of Non-conformitta Signs � • The primary issue raised by the proposal relates to the requirement that nonconforming signs-of all kinds--be removed from the district within ten years. Four issues are raised. The first relates to whether the City intends to adopt a policy of removing exisiing signs tluough the process of amortization. Committing the City to such a strategy is a more significant policy decision than was encisioned by the Zoning Code provisions establishing special sign districts and, therefore, merits careful review. In recent weeks, the CounciPs Legislative Advisory Committee Iias recomnlended against the use af amortizatian and has placed the question into the hands of the Planning Commission and City Council for resolution. A recommendation is now being formed by the Planning Comniission and is, as a resLilt, not yet before the City Council for discussion and final resolution. 2. The second issue relates to the legality of depe�ading on amortization as a means of compensation on federal interstate highways and pcimary coadways. Siiace 1978, federal law I�as required cash compensation for the required removal of nonconfomzing billboards along federal inier-state and primary highways (I-94 aud I�«}' 280), regardless of whether the billboarcl's nonconfonning status is the result of federal law or some other govern�nental action. � 3. The ihird issue ielates to wt�ed�er the City, should it decide to pursue a strategy of amortization oi7 local zoadwrays, should i�iake findings related to the appzopriate amortization period. The proposed special sign district does not make any such iindings. Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 Page six The decision to pursue a strategy of amortization on local roadways (University Avenue, Como Bou[evard, Raymond Avenue, Cleveland Avenue} is a matter of local discretion and would require carefizl justification of the amortization period. The City Attorney has advised that "if the amorti_>ation period tivas found to be lacking and therefore constiFzrted a`taking' of private properry Yvithout jt�st compensation tivhich is prahibited zazder the Fifth flmendment of the United States Constitution as well as Minnesotn Constitution �trticle I, Section 13, Che City would be exposed to substantial money dnmages." � A related issue concerns the status of University Avenue. While State officials have indicated that, with the recent transfer of University Avenue from State to County jurisdiction, amortization became a matter of local discretion, industry representatives contend that since the billboards were erected when the roadway received State aid, they continue to be protected by the provisions of the federal law that require cash compensation for the removal of signs on primary highways. Additional legal opinions have been requested. � 4. Finally, the proposed sign district calls for the removal of al] non-conforming signs (not just advertising siens) ��ithin ten years. Presumably, there are signs in the.district that became non-conforming, because of their size ar height, for instance, when the City's sign ordinance was adopted. The City does not presently have'records on all the si�ns in the district in order to establish their non-confonning status and ensure their removal. Staff Recomrriendation Staff recomcnends: Approval of the St. Anthony Pazk Special Sisn District with the foliowing amendments: 1. Replace the provision related to roof signs with the Following: Business signs should clear�ly cind concisely identify the bassiness(es) on the prenzises. The name of the bi�siness shozdd be highlighted. A�o rnor�e than 10 �er�cent oJthe gross swfcrce cllsplay ur•eu of business signs permitted on a Zot shall be zrsed fo1 product signs which ur�e not integr al ro ihe nanae of the business. 2. Detete the provision related to the removal of nonconformin� signs until such time that the City Council has addressed die issues related to amortization and adopted it as a strategy for advertisin� sign removal, makin� tl�e appropriate fiudin�s to support its decision. Enclosure � Council File # q� - 012 Presented Refeaed To RESOLUTION CITY OF �AINT PAUL, MlNNESOTA Green Sheet # fa�a��o Committee Date 1 WHEREAS, the Saint Anthony Park neighborhood has worked to develop a neighborhood policy on 2 billboazds which enhances the livability of azea while maintaiuing its commercial viability; and 3 WHEREAS, the Saint Anthony Park neighborhood has asked for designarion as a special sign district 4 under the current Saint Paul City Code; now, therefore, be it 5 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council directs the Planning Commission to consider the Saint 6 Anthony Park Special Sign District Plan and forwazd a recommendation on it to the Council by February 7 24, 1999. Requested by Department of: � Furm Approved by City Attomey � Approved by Mayor for Submission to Councii By: B Approved by D te �_ 7/�/ �j� BY: /h'/ �J' Adopted by Council: Date , \ � Adoption Certified by Council Secretary �1R -a�' DEPARTMENT/OFFICEfCOUNCIL DATE u1RWTED C�f �ocu�e�:/-�/a .�e.-rdHav /-19-�i9 GREEN SHEET No 63526 OONT T PER�J 8 P�-pNE InMiaWri InXBUDah �QIl.�! �//�� N� � � O �D �� oRUtrreROwKrat ancartl MUS7 BE ON COUNCIL AGQJDA BY (DATE� /+ I\SEIG�1 !-(� - 7 9 - S/,�s e�zs�� cn.�.muE. arcmu Routvic � w+�xouamv¢unw. nuxcuLLamvi.are ❑ WYORIOR�YStfYrt� ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES i (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) GTION REQUESTED rCera/c�fi'orv ct�i�tc�.� �l�.e f�lnilrncir(' C.�n/�ssidYr fo cons.� �xa Sca.rt f�Gcor.NPa.r.� �S �S.�n•,�;slr;�f /'/an �,Zq��;-�svar�/ � �'ecDr.�in.�a�/a�i�. �o ,Ylr¢ C�'au,zecy � f:e,6�ua�� Z� /999. RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) or ReJect (R) PEILSONALSERVICE CONiRAGTS MUSTANSWER TNE FOLLOWING QUESTiONSi 7. Has this persoNfirtn ever xrorlced under a canhact for this departmeM? PLANNING CAMMISSION YES NO CIB COMMITTEE 2. Hss tFiia persoNfirtn eoer Deen a city empbyee? CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vES NO 3. Does Mis pe�soNfirm 0� a sldli not 1rormallYP�ssed bY anY curterd cHY emploYee? VES NO 4. Is tfus pe�soNfirm a tarpeted ventloYt VES NO E�in alt yes answms on separate sheet and attach fo green sfieet INIiIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (Who, What, When, YVhere, Why) ADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAIAMOUNTOFTRANSACT10Nf COSTIREVENUEBUDGETED�CIRCLEON� YES NO FUNDING SOURCE RC7iYiTY NUMIBER FINANCIAL INFORMqT10N (EXPWI� DEPARTMENTOFPLANN[NG & ECONOM[C DEVELOPMENT a 7om Hanen, Acirng Director � � - � • CI� �F' .Sf1�r PA�. 1� W¢stFourlhStreet Telephone: 651d66-6�6� b"orm Colemon, Mayor SaintPaul, M.�� SJIO? Facsimele: 651-228-326! February 17, 1999 Council President Dan Bostrom and Members of the Gity Council 320B City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Council President Sostrom and Members of the City Council: On January 6, 1999, the City Council forwarded the proposed St. Anthony Park Special Sign District to the Pfanning Commission for its recommendation. The resoiution of referral directed the Commission to return its recommendation by February 24, 1999. • On February 4, 1999, after legal notice, a public hearing on the proposed sign district was heid by the Zoning Committee. At the conclusion of the hearing, the attached resolution was recommended to, and subsequentfy adopted by, the Commission. The Commission's recommendation on this matter is that action on the proposed St. Anthony Park Sign Plan be laid over until there is a final resolution on the recommendations of the city-wide Legislative Advisory Gommittee on Advertising Sig�s. Feel free io call me or Nancy Homans (6-6557) if you have any questions. Sincerely, �� Ken Ford Plan�ing Administrator Enclosures: Planning Commission Resolution City Councif Resolution St. Anthony Park Sign Plan Planning Staff Report � LJ �a _ a-�— � city of saint paul planning commission resolution fiie number 99-12 UQte Februarv 12, 1949 ST. Ari'THONY PARK SPECTAL SIGN DISTRICT WHEREAS, on November 16, 1998 the St. Anthony Park Communiry Council submitted to the Saint Paul City Council a proposal for a Special Sign District under the provisions of Sec. b6.216 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and �VHEREAS, on January 6, 1994 the 5aint Paul City Council forwarded the proposal to the Planning Commission for its recommendation; and WI-IEREAS, the City Council's resolution directed the Commission to return its recommendation to the Council by February 24, 1999; and �VHEREAS, ihe Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on # February 4, 1999 afrer posting the required notice in the St. Paul Pioneer Pzess; and RrHEEtEAS, at that hearing, the Zoning Committee received a staff recommenda?ion and heard public testimony in favor of and opposed to the prop'osed district; and �VHEIZEFIS, among the issues raised by those opposed to the district related to the timeliness of the proposal in light of an on-going effort by the Plaruiing Commission to examine proposals b}� the City Council's Legislative Advisory Committee on Advertisang Signs to develop new city�vide policies and re ;ulations on advertising signs; and . tiUHEREAS, the Planning Corpmission's ad hoc committee on advertisin� siQns is slated to make its recommendation to the Commission some time after February 22, 1999; NOW, THHREFORE, BE IT RESQLVED, that the Saint Paul Planning Comznission recommends to the City Council that action on the proposed St. Anthony Park Sign Plan be laid o1�er until there is a final resotution on the recommendations of the Legislatio�e Advisory Committee on Advertising Signs. ��ed 6,J� Field secconded by _ {� �`�' �o�" Unanimous c`��lE�S� CITY OF ...r� r.�`. � ( � - . Green Sheet # ID �S�c � P�srnrea Refezred To T PAUL, MINNESOTA l�-�� Commictee Date t WHEREAS, the Saint Anthony Pazk neighborhood has worked to develop a nsighborhood policy on Z biiiboards which enhances the livability of azsa while maintaining its coaunercial viability; and 3 Vvf�REAS, the Saint Anthony Park neighborhood has asked for desig�aiion as a special sign district d vnder the ciurent Saint Paul City Code; now, therefore, be it 5 RESOLVED, that the Saint Paul City Council disects the Planning Commission to consider the Saint 6 Anthony Park Special5ign Disn Plan and forward a recommendation on it to the Council by February 7 24, 1999. � . �� • �;{�(�� :� �� '�lx�� ,o Rcqucsced by Dcpattmrnt of: � Furm Approved by Ciry Attorney Bv: Adopiioa CcrSficd by Coux�cii Secrttary By. Appro.•cd by Mayor: Date Approvtd by Maya fot Submission co CounciS � By: Adapced by Co�mcil: Ds[e � Anthony Park Community Counci[ c� �_� a- 16, I998 Council President Daniel Bostrom Room 310, City Hall St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Counril Presicienl Rost�om� Enclosed please find a copy of the St. Anthony Park Special District Sign Plan. This document was adopted on Wednesday, November 11, 1998, by the St. Anthony Park Community Council. We are now asking that the City Council and Planning Commission review this document and make it part of the Zoning Ordinance. • We would aiso like an opportunity to discuss our pian with the Zoning staff prior to the City Council review. Please cali me at 649=5992 if you have questions regarding the Plan, or would like to discuss it further. Warmest regards, St. Anthony Park Community Council i � / �'t�'t-�z�'� �`7��G�z.r � � Heather Worthington � Executive Director cc: Councilmember Iay Benanav Mayor Norm CoIeman Pamela GVheelock, Director, PED � Gladys Morton, Chair, Pla ng Commission Lany Soderholm, PED � Wendy Lane, LIEP 890 Cromweli Avenuq Saint Paul, Minnesot� 55114 •: 551/b49-5992 volce {• 651/649-5993 fax � ST. ANTHONY PARK S1GN PLAN �� INTENT AND PURPOSE The St. Anthony Park Special District Sign Plan, as provided in Section 66.216 of the Zoning Code, is being adopted to provide sign controls that build upon the unique character and identity of St. Anthony Park. This Sign Plan is intended to (a) maintain and enhance the scenic views of downtown Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, and other unique architecturai and natural features visibie from the residential and commercial areas and streets and fiighways of St. Anthony Park; (b) protect investment in Westgate and Energy Park and encourage redevelopment of the Southeast Minneapolis industrial (SEMI) area and other industrial properties in and around St. Anthany Park in accordance with the standards of pianned business parks; (c) reduce the clutter and chaotic diversity of signage that impairs the effectiveness of signs identifying businesses and institutions in St. Anthony Park; (d) create a more desirabie and memorabie image for St. Anthony Park as the northern and . western gateway to Saint Paul; and (e) protect property values i� St. Anthony Park and reflect the pride its residents, businesses and institutions place in the community. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION The provisions of this Sign Plan are supplementary to the provisions of Chapter 66, Signs, of the Zoning Code. The provisions of this Sign Plan that are more restrictive than provisions of Chapter 66 shail prevail and supersede any conflicting provisions of Chapter 66. All other, provisions of Chapter 66 of the Zoning Code shall continue to apply to signage within the St. Anthony Park Speciaf Sign District. All words and terms sha!! be defined as in this Sign Plan and in Cnapier 60 oi ihe Zoning Corie. i-rovisions inai use 'tne word 'snali" are manoaiory. Provisions that use the word "should" or "recommend" are advisory to carrying out the intent and purpose of this Sign Pian but are not mandatory. SPEGIAL SIGN DISTRIC7 AREA The St. Anthony Park Special District Sign Plan shail apply to the area defined as follows: Commencing at the extreme northwest corner of the city, the boundary shall extend east along the city limit to C4eveland Avenue, south along the city limit to a point near Como Avenue, and east along the city limit to the center-line of vacated Aldine � Street, thence continuing south along the center-line of vacated Aldine Street to the SAPCC - S�gn Plan (9875.WPD 4) 71 /9/98 center-Iine vf Wynne Avenue, east along the center-line of Wynne Avenue to the . center-(ine of Snel(ing Avenue, south along fhe cenfer-line of Sneiling Avenue fo the northeriy right-of-way line of The Burlington Northern and Sante Fe Raifway just south of Energy Park Drive, westerly along such northeriy railway right-of-way line to the center-line of Cteveland Avenue extended north along the section line from University Avenue, south along the center-line of Cleveland Avenue extended and Cleveland Avenue to the center-line of interstate Nighway 94, westerly along the center-line of Interstate Highway 94 to the western city limit, and thence north along the city limit to the northwest corner of the City where the boundary line began. SPECIAL SIGN RESTRICTIONS Within the St. Anthony Park Special Sign District, signs shali be subject to the following restrictions: (a) Advertising signs shall not be permitted. (b) Roof signs which advertise a product, service or enfertainment which is offered, sofd or manufactured on the premises shall not be permifted, but a roof sign may identify the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. NONCONFORMlNG SlGNS Signs within the St. Anthony Park Special Sign District which lawfully existed prior to the adoption • of this Sign Plan by the City Council, and which would be prohibited, regulated or restricted under the provisions of this Sign Plan or amendments hereto, may conti�ue to exist as Iegal nonconforming signs under the provisions of Section 66.300, nonconforming signs, of the Zoning Code, subject to the following additional requirements: (a) No nonconforming sign shall be: (i} altered or en(arged in any way, or (ii) replaced by another nonconforming sign (but changing the message on the sign shall not be deemed to be a replacement), or (iii) relocated to any other location in ihe St. Anthony Park Special Sign District, or (iv) reconstructed after incurring damage in an amount exceeding 50% of its market value at the time of loss, as determined by the City, or (v) maintained through replacement of structural elements. (b) Any nonconforming sign shall be immediately removed from the St. Anthony Park Special Sign Districf af fhe cosf of fhe owner: (i) if it is an imminent danger to life or property, or • SAPCC-SignPlan (9875WPD,S) i i/Bl98 � "�� (ii} if it incurs damage in an amount exceeding 50% of its market value at the time of loss, or (iii) if use of suCh sign has been discontinued for a period of three consecutive months. (c) In any event, ail nonconforming signs shall be removed from the St. Anthony Park Special Sign District by no later than 10 years after approval of this Sign Plan by the City Council. ADMINISTRATtON AND ENFORCEMENT The Zoning Administrator shali enforce the provisions of this Sign Plan as a suppiement to Chapter 66, Signs, of the Zoning Code. Whenever a permit for a sign in the St. Anthony Park Speciai Sign District is required underthe provisions of Chapter66 ofthe Zoning Gode, such permit shaii noi be issued uniess the plans for the sign have been approved by the Zoning Administrator as in conformance with this Sign Plan. PROCEDURE Building permit appiications for signs in the St. Anthony Psrk Special Sign District shaii be submitted to the Zoning Administrator far review and approval. A fee to cover the costs of the review shali be established by resoiution of the City Council. Pians submitted for Zoning � Administrator approval shali be of sufficient detaii to demonstrate that the proposed sign complies with the provisions of this Sign Plan. The Zoning Administrator shall review the plans wvithin 30 days and notify both the appiicant and the Division of Housing and Building Code Enforcement of any decision to approve or disapprove the plans. Written reasons for denial shali accompany any decision to disapprove the plar�s. Any decision by the Zoning Administrator may be appealed to the Planning Commission. � SAPCC - Sign Plan (9875 WPD CJ 71/9/98 �� a� • lnterdepartmental Memorandum CITY OF SA6�IT PAUL DATE: February 3, 1999 TO: Zoning Committee FROM: Nancy Homans RE: Saint Anthony Park Special Sian District Plan: Arnended Staff Report and StafJRecommendation Introduction On January 6, 1999, the City Council, by resolution, directed the PlanninQ Commission to consider the proposed Saint Anthony Park Special Sign District Plan and forward its recommendation to the Council by February 24, 1999. The foilowing is a discussion of the issues raised by the proposal. � Legislative Authority The Zoning Code provides for the adoption of comprehensive sign plans (Sec. 66.216): (a) A comprehensive sign plan may be provided for bz�siness or industrial premises w�hich are nol part of a new planned development district as provided in section 66.213 above, but i-vhich occupy the entire frontage on ttivo (2) or more adjacent block fronts. The intent behind this provision is to allotiv and even encoz�rage entertainment centers, shopping centeYS, histoPic districts and other corrzprehensive developments to buidd upon unique characteristics of certain sections of the ciry so tong as the visual landscape created by the plan is in keeping with the gener�al intent of this chapter. Such a plan sh�tll be subnzitted to the planning commission and shald incla�de the locntion, siae, height, color, lighting orientation, overall design justifcation, and other infor�mation �vhrch may be reasonably reqziired for the propnr considerntion of the matter. (b) Less restrictive as we11 as more resh•ictive ��rovlsions fhan specifred in this chapter muy be permitted if the sign areas a�xd devrsities for Ihe ylan ar a irhole aYe in conformit}- icitla tl�e intent of this chal�ter and if stich exception r�esuZts in an irii�r ovecl relationship betN�een the variozts parts of Ihe �lc�n. (c) AppTication shall be nzade m the cily council for consideration imder Uzis provision. � Appf may be granted by city coaincil resolufion, after reviem ancl r�ecommendation is nende by !he l�lcrrzning comnzission, ancl only after cr public lsearino before the planning conamission and the ci(y co�.incil. Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 PaQe two District Z2 Sign District Proposal In summary, tfie key elements of the proposai as submitted by the District 12 Community Council relate exclusively to advertising and roof signs and include the following: � L The district shall encompass the entire District 12 planning district. ?. The goals ofthe district include: (a) Maintain and enhance the scenic views of downto�vn Minneapolis, the University of Minnesota, and other unique azchitectural and natural features visible from the residential and commercial areas and streets and highways of St. Anthony Park. (b} Protect investment in Westtrate and Energy Park and encourage redevelopment of the Southeast Minneapolis Industrial (SEMI) azea and other industrial properties in and azound St. Anthony Pazk in accordance with the standazds of planned business parks. (c) Reduce the clutter and chaotic diversity of signage that impairs the effectiveness of signs identifying businesses and institutions in St. Anthony Park. (d) Create a more desirable and memorable image of St. Anthony Park as the northern and western gateway to St. Paul. . (e} Protecf property values in St. Anthony Park and reflect the pride its residents, businesses and institutions place in the community. The major provisions include: (a) Advertising signs shall not be permitted in the district. E�isting advertising signs �eill become legally nonconforming signs. {b) Roof signs Uiat advertise a product, service or entertainment �vhich is offered, sold or mviufactured on the premisses shall not be permitted, but a roof sign may identify the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. (c) Nonconforming si�ns may continue to exist subject to requirements that they not be altered, enlarged, replaced, relocated or reconstructed; that they be removed if they pose danger Yo healYh and safety, incur si�nificant damage or are not used for a period of three consecutive months. (d) Nonconforming signs shall be retnove�d fi the disfrict by' no later ttian 10 years after approval of the sign plan by the City Council. The proposal includes procedures and provisions for the enforcement of tl2e district requirements. . � a�' �� Zoning Committee February 3, 1499 Pa�e three � Esisting Regulations Advertising signs (including signs on billboards, benches, transit stops) are permitted in the portions of the district zoned B-2, B-3, I-1 or I-2, subject to size, height and spacin� requirements as follows: Ciassification Maximum Minimum Maximum Existing Gross Spacing Height Signs Surface Beriveen (Feet) Area Signs (5q ft) (Feet) Principal arterials 700 1000 37 % T-94 Hwy 280 Minor arterials 4Q0 660 37 %z Cleveland (S of University) , Como (B-2 areas) Energy Park Drive Kasota Raymond ` University Vandalia Collectors 100 ?00 37'/z Eliis Hampden Issues for Discussion l. Ban on advertising signs in the district. The proposal to not permit additional advertisivg signs in the district and to make all existing signs ]egal nonconforming uses: (a) Is consistenf with other sian districts in the city (Grand Avemie, Smith Avenue and Highland); (b) Is consistent with the federal Highway Beautification Act that ca11s upon States to control the erection ai�d niaintenance of outdoor advertising signs ii� areas adjacent to ihe Interstate System and the primary system "in order to protect the public investment in sLich highways, to promote the safet}� and recreational value of public travel and to preserve natural beauty". � (c) Is similac to ordinauces in other cities (e.g. Seattle and San Diego) in which courts, including the Supreuie Court in Metromedia, Ina ��. City of San Diego, Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 Page four have found that a city's interest in avoidin� visual clutter suffices to justify a prohibition of billboards. (d) Is provided for in State la�v (173.20) �vhick states that nothing in Sections 173.13- 173.231 (ctddressing the f•egtrlation of advertising signs in other� than clesignated scenic areas) shall be constraied to abrogate or affect the provisions of any other law, municiperl ordinance, regtdation, or resoh�tion which is more restrictive concerning advertising than the pr-ovisions of said sections 173,13 to 173.231 hereof or of the regadations adoptec� her•eunden State permits for advertising signs along interstate or primart• highways are, indeed, subject to Iocai approvai 2. Ban on roof signs other than those that identifv the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. � Already banned in the Zoning Code are advertising signs constnzcted on a roof top or to overhang a roof, except: Replacements for nonconforming signs that are brought into conformance with the size and height requirements of the code and are less than 400 square feet in � size may be located on a rooftop. Atl such replacement signs may overhang a roo£ 66302 (a)(5) and 66302(b)(�) The proposed sign district provisions �tiould re�nove tl�at esception as well as forbid business signs (i.e. those that direct attention to a business, profession, commodiYq, service or entertairnnent which is conducted, offered, sold or manufactured on the Premises upon which the sign is placed) on roofs except tllose that identify only the name, logo and nature of the business carried on in the premises. All e�istin� business signs on roofs-excepi those tfiat identify onIy the name, logo and nature of tbe business- cvould become legally nonconfonnine. The applicant's intention is to curb the installation of signs that are, in all other respects, advertisino signs, but are considered business signs because they advertise a product that is sold on the premises (e.g. a billboard advertising liquor located on top of a liquor store that does not indude the name of the liquor store). It is conceivable that such signs would be located on a rooF, but it is equaIly conceivable that ttiey �voutd be freestanding signs. The proposed proeision may be confusing inasmuch as it essentiall} creates a definition of business signs different fiom that in the Sign Ordinance. It may also not be entirely efiective in addressing the concern it is intended to address. The Grand Avenue and Highland Special Sign Districts include the following provisio��s: � � �� -�� Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 Page five Grand Avenue Business signs should clearly and concisely ident� the bt�sinesses on the premises. The name of the bzrsiness should be highlighted; extra information tends to reduce the impact of the sign. Signs which advertize a prodtrct and inclzrde the name of the bz�siness on the premises zrpon tivhich the sign is placed shall not be permitte Hiahland No more than 10 percenr of rhe gross sauface dispiny nrea of bxisiness signs permitted on a lot shall be used for prodtict signs which are not integral to the name of the bzrsiness. Prodt�ct signs, business signs tivhich actvertise a product s•o1d on the premises, shozrld be avoided. Sa�ch signs-which are often provided by soft drink, beer or cigarette companies fail to highlight the important information, the barsiness name, and clzrtter the appearance ofthe village. 3. Removal of Non-conformitta Signs � • The primary issue raised by the proposal relates to the requirement that nonconforming signs-of all kinds--be removed from the district within ten years. Four issues are raised. The first relates to whether the City intends to adopt a policy of removing exisiing signs tluough the process of amortization. Committing the City to such a strategy is a more significant policy decision than was encisioned by the Zoning Code provisions establishing special sign districts and, therefore, merits careful review. In recent weeks, the CounciPs Legislative Advisory Committee Iias recomnlended against the use af amortizatian and has placed the question into the hands of the Planning Commission and City Council for resolution. A recommendation is now being formed by the Planning Comniission and is, as a resLilt, not yet before the City Council for discussion and final resolution. 2. The second issue relates to the legality of depe�ading on amortization as a means of compensation on federal interstate highways and pcimary coadways. Siiace 1978, federal law I�as required cash compensation for the required removal of nonconfomzing billboards along federal inier-state and primary highways (I-94 aud I�«}' 280), regardless of whether the billboarcl's nonconfonning status is the result of federal law or some other govern�nental action. � 3. The ihird issue ielates to wt�ed�er the City, should it decide to pursue a strategy of amortization oi7 local zoadwrays, should i�iake findings related to the appzopriate amortization period. The proposed special sign district does not make any such iindings. Zoning Committee February 3, 1999 Page six The decision to pursue a strategy of amortization on local roadways (University Avenue, Como Bou[evard, Raymond Avenue, Cleveland Avenue} is a matter of local discretion and would require carefizl justification of the amortization period. The City Attorney has advised that "if the amorti_>ation period tivas found to be lacking and therefore constiFzrted a`taking' of private properry Yvithout jt�st compensation tivhich is prahibited zazder the Fifth flmendment of the United States Constitution as well as Minnesotn Constitution �trticle I, Section 13, Che City would be exposed to substantial money dnmages." � A related issue concerns the status of University Avenue. While State officials have indicated that, with the recent transfer of University Avenue from State to County jurisdiction, amortization became a matter of local discretion, industry representatives contend that since the billboards were erected when the roadway received State aid, they continue to be protected by the provisions of the federal law that require cash compensation for the removal of signs on primary highways. Additional legal opinions have been requested. � 4. Finally, the proposed sign district calls for the removal of al] non-conforming signs (not just advertising siens) ��ithin ten years. Presumably, there are signs in the.district that became non-conforming, because of their size ar height, for instance, when the City's sign ordinance was adopted. The City does not presently have'records on all the si�ns in the district in order to establish their non-confonning status and ensure their removal. Staff Recomrriendation Staff recomcnends: Approval of the St. Anthony Pazk Special Sisn District with the foliowing amendments: 1. Replace the provision related to roof signs with the Following: Business signs should clear�ly cind concisely identify the bassiness(es) on the prenzises. The name of the bi�siness shozdd be highlighted. A�o rnor�e than 10 �er�cent oJthe gross swfcrce cllsplay ur•eu of business signs permitted on a Zot shall be zrsed fo1 product signs which ur�e not integr al ro ihe nanae of the business. 2. Detete the provision related to the removal of nonconformin� signs until such time that the City Council has addressed die issues related to amortization and adopted it as a strategy for advertisin� sign removal, makin� tl�e appropriate fiudin�s to support its decision. Enclosure �