99-320Council File # q9 - 3a
OR�G�NA�.
RESOLUTION
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Green Sheet # �o �� e�
�
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
2 WHEREAS, in Zoning File No. 98-288 and pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul
3 Legislative Code § 66.408, Speedway SuperAmerica LLC (SuperAmerica), made applicafion to
4 appeal the decision of the Saint Paul Zoning Administrator concerning a storm damaged sign
5 located on property commonly known as 287 East Sixth Street and legally described as: Whitney
6 and Smiths Addition subject to Sixth Street; vacated streets accruing in document #2278165 and
7 following; part of Kittson's Addition adjacent to and in SD Whitney and Smiths Adctition, Lots
$ 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5; and
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
VVI�REAS, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission (Zoning
Committee) conducted public hearings on the said appeal on November 23, 1998, and on
December 10, 1998 where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard. At the
close of the Decembex 10, 1998 hearing, the Zoning Committee moved to recommend to the full
Saint Paul Planning Commission that SuperAmerica's appeal be granted subject to the condition
that the sign be removed in 2007; and
WHEREAS, On December 18, 1998, the Saint Paul Planning Commission (Planning
Commission), after discussing the matter, moved to return the matter to the Zoning Committee
for additional review. On December 29, 1998, the Zoning Committee again considered the
matter in light of SuperAmerica's offer to remove the subject sign by 2015. The Zoning
Committee again recommended granfing the appeal; and
WHEREAS, The Plamiing Commission, on January 8, 1999 granted SuperAmerica's
appeal based upon the following findings and conclusions as set forth in Planning Commission
Resolution 99-01:
The sign in this case is owned by Dacotah Properties LLP and has been leased since 1987
to Speedway SuperAmerica LLC which owns the business next door. The sign is almost
four times the size of a standard freeway billboard but the message is changed only very
infrequently. The sign is designed to be visible from the nearby freeway which is
appropriate as the sign is intended to attract freeway drivers to the SuperAmerica store.
2. At the beginning of the summer of 1998, the sign blew over in the second of two major
windstorms to hit the city. The sign peeled back the roof of the build'mg and had to be
removed in order for the roof repairs to proceed. LIEP staff advised the contractors not to
reconstruct the sign without a building permit.
aq-3�o
2
�
6
7
8
9
10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
3. On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. appiied for a sign pemut to reinstall the sign
frame and panels which were blown down by the storm. Since at least 1987 - and since
1961, according to the testimony of the building owner - the sign has been used
exclusively to advertise SuperAmerica's (or its predecessor's) products for sale on the
premises immediately next door, almost below the sign itself.
On 5eptember 17, 1998, John Hazdwick of LIEP sent a letter denying the permit
application. The letter was received by the appellant on September 22, 1998. The City
received the appeal of Mr. Hardwick's denial from the appellant on October 19, 1998,
and a more detailed letter explaining the appeal was received on November 16, 1998.
T'he proper method to measure the thiriy (30) day appeal period is either from the date of
the letter denying the application for a sign permit to the date of the letter or document
invoking the appeal or from the date of receipt of the letter or document invoking the
appeal. By either test, in this case the appeal was perfected in a timely fashion.
The Zoning Administrator determined the sign to be an advertising sign. In its appeal,
among other points, the appellant stated the following grounds for its appeal:
�
C.
Re-anchoring the sign does not require a new sign permit.
The sign is a conforming sign under the ambiguous provisions of the
SPLC.
The historic district regulations do not prohibit replacing nonconforming
signs.
D. The sign is not an advertising sign.
E. Mr. Hardwick's denial misapplies the provisions of SPLC §§66301 and
66302.
4. The Zoning Administrator ened in deciding that the sign should be regulated as an
advertising sign. The sign, based on the evidence submitted at the public hearing, is a
business sign because;
A. The sign appeazs visually to be part of the SuperAmerica site.
B. The sign overhangs and partially encroaches into the air space of the
SuperAmerica properry.
C. The sign has been used continuously and exclusively for 37 years to
advertise the business on the SuperAmerica property.
D. The sign is leased directly to the appellant unti12007 and is not owned by
a billboard or display advertising company.
E. The sign is not a standard billboazd size and, therefore, would not be easily
leasable as part of an outdoor advertising campaign.
F. The sign is not required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to
obtain the pernut normally required of a billboard along a highway.
5. Because the sign is a business sign, the provisions on nonconfornung signs found in §
66301 of the SPLC, not those of § 66.302, are applicable to this case as follows:
Page 2 of 4
2
0
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
A. The applicant proposes to reinstall the sign exactly as it was before it blew p
over. The sign will not be enlazged or altered. �� 3 �
B. The damage to the sign did not exceed 51 % of its replacement value. The
sign blew over essentialiy intact onto the rooftop. The damage was to the
parapet wall upon which the sign sat and to the roof. The sign could have
been tipped upright and reinstalled. It was removed to a11ow access for
building and roof repairs necessitated by the storm.
C. Although the sign was removed from the buiiding premises while other
building and roof repairs were made, the owner intends to reconstruct the
sign in exactly the same spot. The "moving" of the sign was temporary;
no perxnanent change in position is proposed.
The remauung provisions of SPLC § 66301 do not apply.
6. Since the sign is a business sign, not an advertising sign, the current moratorium imposed
by the City Council on erection of advertising signs in the downtown and certain other
areas in the city does not apply to the reinstallation of this sign.
WHEREAS, the Planning Comxnission, in approving the appeal of SuperAmerica based
upon the above-stated findings and conclusions, added the following conditions to its approval
as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 99-01:
2.
3.
�
The same sign and same sign frame shucture shall be used to the percentage restriction of
tkae SPLC with oniy the minimuxn repairs necessary to ensure safety and the struchxral
integrity of the sign itself. The sign sha11 not be enlazged, raised, moved or extended.
The sign shall be used only as a business sign for the properiy on which it is located or
for the SuperAmerica properiy and shall not be used as an advertising sign.
The sign shall be removed at any future point when it is not leased to the owner of the
SuperAmerica properiy for use as a business sign or used by the owner of the properiy on
which it located as a business sign, provided, however, that the use of the sign, as
presently configured, shall cease no later than January 1, 2015. After that date the total
amount of business signage for the SuperAnnerica property shail not exceed the amount
currently permitted in 1999, which is 934 squaze feet, or the amount permitted in 2015,
whichever is greater. Also after that date the total amount of business signage for the
Allen Building property shall conform to the regulations in effect in 2015.
If required by the SPLC or any other applicable statute or law, a building permit shall be
secured before reinstalla6on of the sign. In the event that review of the building permit
application is required by any other public agency or body, it is the intent of this
resoluuon that such review be expressly limited by the finding that the sign is a business
sign.
5. The resolution and its conditions are expressly accepted in writing by Speedway
SuperAmerica LLC and Dacotah Properties LLP on behalf of themselves, their
successors, assigns and agents.
WHEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, Inc., pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative
Code § 64.206, did on January 8, 1999 duly file with the City Clerk an appeal from the
determination made by the Planning Commission and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul
City Council for the purposes of considering the actions taken by the said Comxnission; and
Page 3 of 4
1 WHEI2EAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.260- 64.208 and upon
2 notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on Febn.ia.ry q � _ 32�
3 24, 1999, where all interested parties were given an opporhxnity to be heazd; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the
6 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and
7 the Planniug Commission, does hereby;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Pau1 affirms the decision of the
Plamiing Commission in this matter. The Council finds that the Plamziug Commission
committed no error in fact, finding or procedure in this matter. Accordingly, the Council
approves issuance of a permit to reinstall the sign subject to the five conditions unposed by the
Planuing Commission in its resolution 99-01 dated January 8, 1999. Finally, the Council adopts
as its own the fmdings and determinations of the Planning Commission as contained in Planning
Commission Resolution 99-01; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Scenic Minnesota be and is hereby denied;
and be it
FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
Scenic Minnesota, Inc., SuperAmerica; the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission.
ORI�INAL
Requested by Department of:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
BY� � � ._ C s�
Approved by Mayor: Date
By:
Form Appx d]�y City f Attosney
g �G-� �./ ('iVt/hd-�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
By'
Adopted by Council: Date � � y ,`�.%
- � - �T �
qq - 3a�
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/CWNCIL DATEINITWTEO
c�t cou���� March 29, 1999 GREEN SHEET No 64026
CONTACT PERSON 5 M10NE tnnlylDate Inn�aubae
Councilmember Coleman o�,N„�xr,�cr,R a�rca�
MUSi BE ON C�UNCIL AGENDA eY (OAi�
.tiSS�cN
April 7, 1999 ��� mr�nen�Er rnratnrz
rtovrtxc
� nwseuamv¢ssooc wawu��amvi�ccrc
❑OaYOR1aRA39Btnr11) ❑
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
C7IOP1 RE�UESTm
Memoriali2ing the decision of the City Council taken February 24, 1999,denying the appeal
of Brian Bates/Scenic Minnesota to a decision of the Planning Commission allowing
reinstallation of a storm-damaged sign of SuperAmerica at 287 E. Sixth Steeet.
RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) w eject (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRAGTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESiSONS:
t. HasthispersoMfi�meverwoMeEUnderacontrac[forthisdepartment7
PLANNING COMMISSION YES NO
CIB COMMITTEE 2. Has this peisorVfirm ever been a dry employee?
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vES NO
3. Does this persoNfiim possess a sltill rwt rioimaltypossessetl by arry curreM city employeel
YES NO
4 Is ihis personlfirtn a targMetl vendoR
YES NO
E+�la(n alI Y� a�swers on separate sheet an0 attach to O�n sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR7UNITV (Wfio, Wl�at, When, Wliere. W�y)
DVAMAGES IF APPROVED �
DISADVAMAGESIFAPPROVED �
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION t COS7/REVENUE BUDGEfED (CIRCLE ONE� VES NO
FUNDIN6 SOURCE ACTNfTY NUMBE0.
FlNANCIAL INFORMAT10t1(IXPWN)
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
4a
CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL
Narm Coleman, Mayor
January 25, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
CiTy Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Divisron of Plmvtirzg
ZS West Founh Street
Sainr Paut, MNSSIO2
Telephone: 612-26fr6565
Facsimite: 612-228-331¢
�'n'F2�R�" ��;. . �� :°�;
� , . � ;� � r. �-'�
..Zf'i:: :d 3 :�w'v
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
February 24, 1999, for the following zoning case:
Applicant:
File Numbet:
Purpose:
Address:
Legal Description:
PREVIOUS ACTION:
BRIAN BATESlSCE1VIC MINNESOTA
#99-010
Appeal of Planning Commission decision allowing reinstallation of a storm-
damaged sign at 287 E. 5ixth Street for SuperAmerica. (The Zoning
Administrator denied permits to reinstall the sign. SuperAmerica appealed to the
Planning Commission, whicli reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision.)
287 E. Sixth Street (location of sign; SuperAmerica is on E. Seventh)
See file
Zoning Administrator:
Zoning Committee Recommendarion:
Planning Commission Decision:
Denial of building permit, September 17, 1998
Approval of SuperAmerica appeal with conditions; vote: 7-0,
December 29, 1998
Approval of SuperAmerica appeal with conditions; unanimous
voice vote, January 8, 1999
My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the February 24, 1999
City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Please call me at 266-6572 if you have any questions.
SSncerely,
L�arry 3eflerholm
Principal Planner � ' ��T�"'
xm7c� o F pusuc �nxnvc
cc: File #99-010 'fhe St. Paul City Council svi71 conduct a public hearing or� Wednesday. February
P2.U1 Dubritiei 24, 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the Cit3r Council Chambers. Third Fl4or. City Hail{Court
House to- consider the appeal of �Brian Bates/Scenic Minnesota to a decision �of the
�aT01 M1tLirieBU P3anning Commission allowing reins[ali�ati on of a storm-damaged sign of
SuperAmerica at 287 E. Sixth Street. � _ .
Dated: January, 27, 1999 . - - .
NRNCXANDERSON - - - -- __ . - , � . . � - , �
Assisk.aztt City CounciL Secretazy , ' �
� - - - � (Jazivary 29, 1999) - � � ' �
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�
'
Pamela WheeZoc7� Director
9s- 3ao
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coieman, Mayor
25 West Faurth Saeet Telephone: bi2-2b6fi565
Saint Paul, JvL\ 55102 Facsimile: 612-228-3314
February 17, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Councii
Room 310 Ciry Hall
Saint Paul, MN SS 1Q2
RE: Zoning File # 99-010: BRIAN BATES - SCENIC MINNESOTA
CiTy Council Hearing: February 24, 1999 at 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision on I18l99 that determined the fo]lowing: (a) that
a storm-damaged sign at 287 E• Sixth Street, which is four times as big as a standard freeway billboard,
is a business sien, not an advertisinQ sien, because it had been used continuously as a business si�n for
Ule SuperAmerica at 296 E. Seventh Street (b) that, as a business sign, it can be reinstalled even though
the sign was removed after a storm last spring to facilitate repair of the roof on which it stood and even
though there is currently a moratorium on biliboard permits in the downtown; and (c) that--because the
sign is so big and is located in the Lowertown Historic Aistrict, where billboards aze not permitted—
SuperAmerica and the property owner must remove the sign by 2015, a condition which they voluntarily
offered to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission's decision overLurned a decision on 9f 17f98 by the Zoning Administrator 3n
LIEP that the storrn-damaged sign was an advertising sign and could not be put back up. SuperAmerica
appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission.
Now Scenic Minnesota is appealing the Planning Commission's decision on the following grounds: (a)
that the sign is by definition an advertising sign because it is not located on the premises o£ the
SuperAmerica and cannot be reinstalled because of the current moratorium on permits for advertising
signs, (b} that if this sign, which has been treated by city staff in the past as an advertising sign, can
switch to being regulated as s business sign, then other billboards may also be able to switch; (c) that if
the sign is rebuilt it will be protected by the Federal Highway Beautification Act and the City may have
to Qay its economic value if it orders the sign's removal in 2Q15; and (d) the sign adversely affects the
Lowertown Aistoric D3strict.
LOCATION: Before it blew over and was removed for roof repairs, the sign was located on the roof at
287 E. Sixth Street immediately in back of and partially encroaching on the properry of the
SuperAmerica gas station and convenience store at 296 E. Seventh Sneet.
\�PED\SY52\SFIAILED\$ODERHOUZONING\94010CC.LTA
�J 9'.3�
• Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
February 17, 1999
Page 2
•
�
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Granted the appeal of SuperAmerica; reversed the decision of
the Zoning Administrator; and allowed the sign to be put back up with conditions that it can't be
changed, that it can only be used as a business sign, and that it must be removed by 2015 at the latest.
(Passed on a unanimous voice vote.)
ZONIAIG COMMI'�E RFCOMMENDAT'ION: The Zoning Committee heard the case on 11f23/98
and laid it over. On 12l1Ql98 they voted 6-1 to recommend granting SuperAmerica's appeal with a
condition that the sian be removed when the cunent lease expires in 2007. SuperAmerica then sent a
letter to the Planning Commission with legal azguments why the sunset condition would be
unenforceable. On 12/18/98 the Planning Commission sent the matter back to the Zoning Committee.
On 12/29/98 the Zoning Committee received the offer from SuperAmerica and the property owner to
remove the sign voluntarily by 2015 and recommended accepting this offer by a vote of 5-0.
PED STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION: Uphold decision of Zoning
Administrator; deny appeal of SuperAmerica that sign is a busmess s�gn; even if sign is a business sign it
should not be permitted to go back up.
SUPPORT FOR APPFAL BY SUPERAMERICA: Chuck Erickson, owner of the sign, which is on the
roof of the historic Allen Building at 287 E. Sixth Street.
OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY SUPERAMERICA: Brian Bates of Scenic Minnesota.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
BRIAN BATES - SCENIC MIl�NESOTA has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Plannin�
Commission to grant an appeal by Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, allowing them to reinstall a large sign
at 287 E. Sixth Street. The Planning Commission reversed a decision made by the Zoning Administrator
in LIEP to deny SuperAmerica a permit for the sign. The sign is leased to the SuperAmerica gas and
convenience store at 296 E. Seventh Street, which adjoins the property where the sign is located. The
sign blew over in a windstorm at the end of May 1998. The sign itself received limited dama�e, but the
roof and parapet wall to which the sign was anchored received more damage. The sign was removed and
put in storage while the roof was repaired.
The chronology of the case is as follows:
May 1998:
September 1998:
September 1998:
October 1998:
Sign blew over onto roof
SuperAmerica applied to LIEP for a permit to reinstall the sign
LIEP denied permit (either as a billboud or as a business sien)
SuperAmerica appealed LTEP decision to Planning Commission
\V'ED\SYS2�SFIARED\SODERHOUZONiNG�99010CC.LTR
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
February 17, 1999
Page 3
Nov. - Dec. 1998: Public hearing and discussion at three Zoning Committee meetings and
at one Planning Commission meeting
January 1999: Planning Commission adopted resolution granting SuperAmerica appeal
January 1999: Brian Bates - Scenic Minnesota appealed to CiTy Councit
Although there was relatively little public testimony in this case, the Zoning Committee and Planning
Commission engaged in extensive discussion of the matter. On January 8, 1999, the Planning
Commission passed the resolution granting SuperAmerica's appeal with conditions on a unanimous
voice vote.
Last week I received a letter from Tim Keane, attorney for SuperAmerica, challengin� the standing of
Scenic Minnesota to appeal the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment F). He argues that ScenSc
Minnesota is not truly an affected or aggrieved parry. The Ciry Attorney's O�ce is reviewing the letter.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 24, 1999. Please call me (266-
6575) if you have questions and please notify me if any member of the City Council �vishes to have
slides of the site presented at the public heazing. I have slides of how the damaged sign looked after it
was blown over, but I don't have slides of how the sign looked before the storm.
Sincerely,
Larry erholm
Priacipal Planner - Zoning
Attacliments
cc: City Council members
Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
Tim Keane, attomey for Speedway SuperAmerica
Chuck Erickson, property owner of 287 E. Sixth Street
Peter Wamer, Asst, City Attorney
Wendy Lane, LIEP
John Hardwick, LIEP
\1PEA\SYS?VSHARED�SODERHOUZONRiC+�
•
i
�
�s-3ao
•
ATTACHD'�NTS
�
•
�
�
Appeal form and letter of exQlanation
Planning Commission Resolution
Planning Commission minutes for 12/18/98 and 1/8/99
�,
�
'� •
� ��
���
�-l2
D. Zoning Committee minutes for 11/23/98, 12/10/98, and 12/29/98 �, 1 7� ��J
E. Staff Report of I 1/16/98 and attachments D,�" �� I�/
ti
C.
F
G.
Letter of 2/12/99 from Tim Keane, attorney for Speedway SuperAmerica, challenging the
standing of Scenic Minnesota to file an appeal �,���v
Location and zoning maps � , � � �� �
\�PED\SY52VSHARED�SODERHOL�ZONING\99010CGL'17t 4
SAINi
PwL'L
�
AI1AA
APPLICAT[ON FOR APPEAL
Deparlment nf Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
II00 City Half Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
�(tr� C:�R
� �
�— S�-�'�,�� C/Irnnes=:
�1 �1 Zip SSI !1 � Daytime E
,,. � t �*�/L j� L1�a �-�F-
LOCAT O Address/Location �, � � �
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby mad or an appeal to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section Zi �, Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to
/1 '- A ' .
appeal a deci ion made by the !'LA�7�lA �(' tr
on r' � �� � , 19_ File
(d tea of dec i s ion)
_Z
•
�
PROPERTY Zoning Fite
I N
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an ercor in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
/� �-qnr!/���
Attach additional sheet if
AppiicanYs signature � /""—" � '
1
�/
f' � v �
� 2 � - � y s
Gt � zs �
� I City agent�
�- 6'r1�t
offfcers:
John Mannillo
Jeanne Weigum
Mic ytnar
Rub nt
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
Esecuttce Ofmlor
Brian Bates
1985 G2nd Avenue
Saint Paul, MIY 55105
612 690-9671
-3 a.o
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Department of Planning
and Economia IIevelopment
25 West 4th Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
January 8, 1999
RE: Speedway SuperAmerica Billboard at 287 6th Street East in
DoWntown Saint Paul.
Dear Larry:
Scenic Minnesota hereby appeals the Planning Commission
decision of this date allowing the subject billboard to be rebuilt.
We suppor� staff determinations that the wind-damaged sign removed
from the roof o£ the Allen Building is an advertising sign by
definition and cannot be replaced. The reasons for this appeal,
and our concern, are several.
1) By definition the sign removed from, and proposed to be
replaced on, the Allen Building is an advertising sign. It is an
advertising sign because it advertises products and services
navailable at the Allen Building - the premises on which the sign
located. Therefore, the siqn cannot be rebuilt because the
len Building is a historic site, or is located in a historic
district, and because there exits a temporary moratorium on the
construction of advertisinq signs in downtown. W 66r302 and a the
Paul Zoning Code Sections 66.013A, 66.214(j),
Capitol River Council April, 1998 resolution creating a temporary
moratorium on advertisinq signs for district 17.
2) If this advertising sign (billboard) is allowed to change
its legal status to a business sign by advertising a product or
service of a neighborinq business then an billboard in the City
can easily be converted from an advertising sign to a business
sign. This precedent may make it diff��ult to remove anv
billboards in Saint Paul.
3) If the sign is rebuilt the federal Highway Beautifiaation
Act will protect it from removal by the City or the State
regardless of the content of the advertised message or the
expiration of the current lease. Any restrictions, even with the
agreement of the current building owner and Super America on sign
content or future removal cannot be enforced by the City or the
5tate.
4) The sign adversely affects the historic values of the area.
� rian Bates
c: Wendy Lane
� �
�
city of saint paul
pianning commission resolution
file number �9-01. �
�te January 8, 1999
WHEREAS, SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC, file #98-288, has appealed a decision
by the Zoning Administrator, under the provisions of § 66.408 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code (SPLC), that its storm damaged sign cannot be reconstructed on propetty located
at 287 E. Sixth Street, being more particularly legally described as follows: Whitney and
Smiths Addition subject to Sixth Street; vacated streets accruing in document#2278165
and following; part of Kittsons Addition adjacent to and in SD Whitney and Smiths Addition,
Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
said appeal on November 23, 1998, at which all persons present were given an opportunity
fo be heard pursuant to said appea( in accordance with the requiremenfs of §64.300 of the
SPLC; and
C�
WNEREAS, based on the evidence presented to the Zoning Committee at the public
hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes and based upon the recommendation of •
the Zoning Committee, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
1. The sign in this case is owned by Dacotah Properties LLP and has been
leased since 1987 to Speedway Superamerica LLC which owns the business
next door. The sign is almost four times the si� of a standard freeway
biliboard but the message is changed only very infrequently. The sign is
designed to be visible from the nearby freeway which is appropriate as the
sign is intended to attract freeway drivers to the Superamerica store.
2. At the beginning of the summer of 1998, the sign blew over in the second of
two major windstorms to hit the city. The sign peeled back the roof of the
building and had to be removed in order for the roof repairs to proceed.
LIEP staff advised the contractors not to reconstruct the sign without a
building permit.
moved by Field
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
!
3
�9-3 �
• Zoning File #98-2$8
Page Two of Resolution
3. On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. app{ied fot a sign permit to reinsfafl the
sign frame and panels which were bfown down by the storm. Since at least 1987—
and since 1961, according to the testimony ofthe building owner—the sign has been
used exclusively to advertise Superamerica's (or its predecessor's) products for sale
on the premises immediately next door, almost below the sign itself.
On September 17, 1998, John Hardwick of LIEP sent a letter denying the permit
application. The letter was received by the appellant on September 22, 1998. 7he
City received the appeal of Mr. Hardwick's deniai from the appellant on October 19,
1998, and a more detailed letter explaining the appeaf was received on November
16,1998.
The proper method to measure the thirty (30) day appeal period is either from the
date of the letter denying the application for a sign permit to the date of the letter
or document invoking the appeal or from the date of receipt of the letter denying the
application for a sign permit to the date of rece+pt of the letter or document invoking
the appeal. By either test, in this case the appeai was perfected in a timely fashion.
• The Zoning Administrator determined the sign to be an advertising sign. In its
appeal, among other points, the appeliant stated the following grounds for its
appeal:
a. Reanchoring the sign does not require a new sign
permit.
b. The sign is a conforming sign under the ambiguous provisions of the
SPLC.
c. The historic district regulations do not prohibit replac+ng
nonconforming signs.
d. The sign is not an advertising sign.
e. Mr. Hardwick's denial misapplies the provisions of SPLC §§66.301
and 66.302.
4. The Zoning Administrator erred in deciding that the sign should regulated as an
advertising sign. The sign, based on the evidence submitted at the pubfic hearing,
is a business sign because:
a. The sign appears visually to 6e part of the Superamerica site.
b. The sign overhangs and partiaily encroaches into the air space of the
Superamerica property.
�
�.�
Zoning File #98-288
Page Two of Resolution
3. On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. applied for a sign permit to reinstall the
sign frame and panels which were biown down by the storm. Since at least 1987—
and since 1961, according to the testimony of the building owner—fhe sign has been
used exclusively to advertise Superamerica's (or its predecessor's) products for sale
on the premises immediately next door, almost below the sign itself.
On September 17, 1998, John Hardwick ofi LIEP sent a letter denying the permit
applic2tion. Thv fe?'�r �^?as receive� by the aopellant on September 22, 1998. The
City received the appeal of Mr. Nardwick's denial from the appeilant on October 19,
1998, and a more de:ailed letter explaining the appeal was received on November
16, 1998.
The praper method to measure the thirty (30) day appeal period is either from fhe
dafe of the letter denying the application for a sign permit to the date of the letter
or document invoking the appeal or from the date of receipt of the letter denying the
application for a sign permit to the date of receipt of fhe letter or document invoking
the appeal. By either test, in this case the appeai was perfected in a fimely fashion.
•
The Zoning Administrator cletermined the sign to be an advertising sign. In its •
appeal, among other points, the appeliant stafed the following grounds for its
appeal:
a. Reanchoring the s+gn does not require a new sign
permit.
b. The sign is a conforming sign under the ambiguous provisions of the
SPLC.
c. The historic district regulations do not prohibit rep(acing
nonconforming signs.
d. The sign is not an advertising sign.
e. Mr. Hardwick's denial misapplies the provisions of SPLC §§66.301
and 66.302.
4. The Zoning Administrator erred in deciding that the sign shouid regulated as an
advertising sign. The sign, based on the evidence submitted at the pubiic hearing,
is a business sign because:
a. The sign appears visually to be part of the Superamerica site.
b. The sign overhangs and partiaAy encroaches into the air space of the
Superamerica property.
s
�
� y-3�o
•
Zoning File #98-288
Page Three of Resolution
c. The sign has been used continuously and exclusively for 37 years to
advertise fhe business on the Superamerica property.
d. The sign is leased directty to the appeliant until 2007 and is not
owned by a billboard or dispiay advertising company.
e. The sign is not a standard billboard size and, therefore, would not be
easily leasabie as part of an outdoor advertising campaign.
f. The sign is not required by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to obtain the permit normally required of a biliboard
along a highway.
5. Because the sign is a business sign, the provisions on nonconforming signs found
in § 66.301 of the SPLC, not those of § 66.302, are applicabie to this case as
fol{ows:
a. The applicant proposes to reinstall the sign exactly as it was before
it blew over. The sign will not be eniarged or aitered.
• b. The damage to the sign did not exceed 51 % of its replacement value.
The sign blew over essentialiy intact onto the rooftop. The damage
was to the parapet waff upon which the sign sat and to the roof. The
sign could have been tipped upright and reinstalled. lt was removed
to aflow access for building and roof repairs necessitated by the
storm.
c. Aithough the sign was removed from the buiiding premises while
other building and roof repairs were made, the owner intends to
reconstruct the sign in exactly the same spot. The "moving" of the
sign was temporary; no pesmanent change in position is proposed.
The remaining provisions of SPLC §66.3�1 do not apply.
6. Since the sign is a business sign, not an advertising sign, the current moratorium
imposed by the City Council on erect+on of advertis+ng signs in the downtown and
certain other areas in the city does not apply to the reinstal�ation of this sign.
WHEREAS, Speedway Superamerica, after consuitafion with the sign owner, voluntari{y
offered to remove the sign in 2015 as an acknowledgment that the size of the sign does
not conform to the intent of the city's sign regulations;
�J
�
Zoning File #98-288
Page Four of Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission tfiat,
under the authority of the SPLC, the appeal by Speedway Superamerica LLC is hereby
granted and the appellant and Dakotah Properties LLP are allowed to reinstali the sign
subject to the following conditions:
The same sign and same sign frame structure shali 6e used fo the percentage
restriction of the SPLC with only the minimum repairs necessary to ensure safety
and the structural integrity of the sign itself. The sign shall not be enlarged, raised,
moved or extended.
2. The sign shall be used only as a business sign for the property on which it is located
or for the Superamerica property and shall not be used as an advertising sign.
•
The sign shail be removed at any future point when it is not leased to the owner of
the Superamerica property for use as a business sign or used by the owner of the
property on which it locafed as a business sign, provided, however, that the use of
the sign, as presently configured, shall cease no later than January 9, 2015. After
that date the totai amount of business signage for the Superamerica property shall •
not exceed the amount currently permitted in 1999, which is 934 square #eet, or the
amount permitted in 2015, whichever is greater. Also after that date the tota!
amounf of business signage for fhe Ailen Building property sha(I conform to the
regulations in effect in 2095.
4. �f required by the SPLC or any other applicabie statute or Iaw, a building permit shall
be secured before reinstallation of the sign. In the event that review of the building
permit application is required by any other public agency or body, if is fhe intenf of
this resolution that such review be expressly limited by the finding that the sign is
a business sign.
5. The resolution and its cortditions are expressly accepted in writing by Speedway
Superamerica LLC and Dakotah Properties LLP on beha(f of tfiemselves, their
successors, assigns and agents.
•
�
�
C�
{�7 ��
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hal! Conference Center
15 Kelloag Boulevard West
�1'Y�1�f}9'1'�
11`1�h�°��b 99-3ao
A meeting of the Planning Commission of tlie Cih� of Saint Paul Fvas held Friday, December 18, 1998, at
830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hafl.
Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and
Present: Messrs. Field, Gervais, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Mardell, Maraulies, McDonell,
Nowlin and Vaugiit.
Commissioners Messrs. Kong and Sliarpe
Absent:
*Excused
•
Also Present: Ken Ford, Plannin� Administrator; .lean Birkliofz, Beth BaRz, Donna Drummond,
Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Susan Kimberly, Larry Soderho(m and Jim Zdon,
Department of Plannin� and Economic Development staff.
I. Approv�l of blinutes of December 4, ]99$
MOTIOti: Con7nrissio�rer Field n:nved npprov�rl ojtlre nrin�des ofDecenrber 4, 199$;
Cns�anaissinrrer Krrrneer sero�trlert tlre n:otinrt wleicl� carried rutanin:otrsli' nn a voice vote.
�I. Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton announced the annua( IioGeta} part�• to be held in the Ramse} Count} Koom ofthe
Landmnrk Center today at noon.
Chair Morton called attention to 1 letter she recei�ed From Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota, that
�cas copied for each commissioner. She added that she had afso receired a phone call from
John �ianillo, president of Scenic Minnesota, who indicated that f�e had not seen Brian Bates'
letter before it had ?one ouL nor had amone else in the or�anization.
Commissioner Field responded to the allevations made in the letter. At the committee level
and in the past. Conunissioner Field stated, that he has disclosed that his buildine has a
bil(bolyd «hich is o��ned b� Efler Ad�ertising, and he has a 1!6 undi� ided interest in $2,500 -
SZ.600 per } ear. Prior to sen�in_ on the task force. he constdted «'ith �tr. Naraer. City
Attorne�'s Office and ��as ad� ised that diere �cas no conflict of intereit for him to serve on
either ti�e Le��islati�e Ad�'isorc Ta;k Force or the Plan�iina Commission. He noted that he has
abstained from cnrin�= on ad�ertisin�� si�=ns onl�' «hen the� direct{� imol�e an Eller sian, not on
all ad�erti�ing si��ns. He �tient on to sa� that fie finds �fr. Sates� commznts to be inflammator}.
.
Commissioner Kramer said he thouvht thzre ���is a fundamental misundzrstandins in Mr. Bate>
�
letter. tiVe should keep in mind that the recommendations of Yhe LeLislative Advisory �
Committee and tl�e Planning Commission on zoning code chanoes are purely advisory to the
City CounciL Tn the past, Mr. Field has abstained on zoning cases related to billboards where
the Planning Commission made a potentiail}� final decision. There cannot be a con8ict of
interest in a pureiy advisory capaci[y. He feeis Commissioner Fietd has been �vron�ed by the
al(egations in the Mr. Bates' letter. �
Commissioner Faricy staYed that tl�ose of the Planning Commissioners who sit on tlie Zoning
Committee make decisions regardin� properties tl�rou�hout tlie City of Saint Paul e��ery other
�veek. She sYated ihat al! members are liighly conscienteous re�arding any kind of conflict of
interest. If there is a possibility of a conflict of i�terest, it is checked out w�izh Mr. \\�arnec If
there is a conflict, the Zonin� Committee members don't vate, and slie knoc�s the same
conscientiousness prevai(s on the entire Pianninq Commission. She added that she has had it
�� ith letters comin� to individuai commissioners because most of these situations coutd have
been cleared up �vith one phone ca11 to the individual commissioner. She �cent on to say that if
anyone �vrites a Ietter such as this about her performance as a commissioner, she i�ill regard it
as a personal slur and tivil! be headins for Mark Vau�hPs office.
Commissioner Vau�ht commented that �4r, Bates' letter is an outrage. Tlte comments in it are
possibly defamatory and 8iey are hardl�• deser��in� of a response, aithough he did sze the reason
wity i[ needs [o be responded to. He sta[ed [hat durina the [ime he has been on the Commission
���ith Commissioner Field, he has never seen an}rtltinR abotR Ntr. Fietd's behacior under any
circumstances tha[ �could ca(� into question his ethics. This t��pe of letter has vep Iitt1e place in
public discowse, and it ou�_ht to be treated �� ith tl�e disrespect tl�at it dzsen zs.
Commissioner Gordon asked if a response is beiitg prepared. Giair �tona� ans�cered that it is. •
III. Plannin� AdminEstrator's Announcements
�,1r. Ford announced that there has bzen an appealed fiied on Louie's Billiards and that public
helrin�* is scheduted before the Cit� Cotmcit allanuary 6, (999.
h9r. Ford mentioned that there is a second pam' scheduled toda}' Iater in PED. It i; a bit of a
holida� get-together, but tl�is one has a special theme because it is PED�s fare»ell recepEion for
Beth Sartz. She «i!I be leavii�g plam�i��g to «ork �cith a consultine firm nhich is cer}' rtace fer
her bat PED u'il! iiiiss her a,reat deaL �
IV. Zonins Committec
#93-238 Speed��a� Snper.4mcrica LLC - tlppeal oPa decision bc the Zonin�! Adminis�rato*
that a sturii�-damased billboard cannot be reconstructed at?37 Si�th Street East (betwee�si Vr211-
& Broadi�a�': zoned I3-�): Lan'� Soderholm. 36G-6i7�.
Cotnmi;sioner Fi�icl inFonned mmmissiotiers ihat the 1�niu�_ Comti�it[ee �ot�d t-� €�pprave Y�:i>
app�ai �� ith Commi>sianzr Gordon �otin�_ av_ainst [he moti��n.
�IOTIO\: Cr�mvci.�si�nter Field vrui�ed approv�d of tlie reytaestetf nppert! uf n derisinn by- tlic
r _
L—
f�
/
99 - 3ao
. Zonino Arin:inisrrator that a stnrnt-dan:aoed billboard cm:not be reconstr«cted at 287Siztlt
Street E�crt.
Commissioner Field directed attention to a handout from Mc Soderhoim, which is a letter from
SuperAmerica objecting to the "sunset provision" in the Zonin� Committee resolution.
Speed�vay SuperAmerica is citing leaal preeedences that support their objection to the sunset
provision. �
Commissioner Vau�ht asked Mr. Warner to �ive �� l�atever analysis or opinion he wishes to
offer with respect to the points raised in Mc Keane's Ietter. Mr. Warner thinks that the points
made in the ietter are accurate. He informed the Commission that they can move forn�ard with
1an�uage that came out of the Zonin� Committee or t)ley can eViminate it. He felt that a�y
decision the Pia»nina Commission made today �cit4i respect to the langua�e of t(te resolution is
not Qoing to impact 4vhat happens to thlt sien toda}�. If the sign o��ner or SuperAmerica
chooses to do something about it in the future as the 2007 deadline approaches, they are free to
do it.
For ciarificltion, Commissioner Gordon asked if liis understandin� is con�ect that the Planning
Commission 1i1s authority to either approv�e tlie resok�tion without the su�iset or disapprove it
altoaetller but not take the midd(e course of appro� in? it �vitlt the sunset procision. h1r. Warner
repfied that they could move to disapproce it in its entirety, too. Commissioner Gordon asked if
tlie Conunission �could be on finner legal sround if they would disapprove it al[ogether than if
they would lppro��e it widi the sunsei pro�'ision. �3r. �Yarner responded that he did not think so
because there is another sicie to this issue as �cas przsented at tfie public hearins. and they have
• 1e�al arQuments that cotdd be made as o'ell. Mr. ��'arner thinks that tc} in�* to steer a course that
is »ot goin�_* to produce a legal chalfen�e fran either side of the i;sue is eoin�� co be � ery
dif}ic�dc. He thinks the Commission ma�' be on firmer le�al ground iFthe�• took the sunset
clause out of the resolution. The points rai;ed in ihe letter are accurate. Ha� in_ had just a fe�c
minutes to iook at the letter, Mr. �� arner thinl:s. ;i�'en that there is a moratorium in affect and
that the City' Council �� ilf eventuaily look at tlie si_n code, perhaps it might consider ptit[ing
amortization in the code: perhaps it mig4it co�isider lookin� at the cost of remocin� biflboards.
If die Planning Commission ��oidtf decide to put the sunset pro� ision in there roday, it really
cloes tiot become effective untif the ��ear 200Z �lr. �\'arner ��as not sure if he could sive the
Conunission a solid answer on �chether it�s best to move to dem the recommendation from the
Zonin� Commit[ee in its entiret�, mo� e to accept it but remo�'e the smiset pro� ision. or {eave it
as is because it is �'er� difficult to determine �chat either oft4ie t��o interested parties �tiill do
�cith it. �Uith respect to {imitin�� the size of the siga. Commissioner Go�don asked if Vlr.
�1'arner�s position «ould be the slme or differe�it. Does che Pfannine Commi;sion have more
authorit� to limit the size ofthe si;�n tf�an it does �+ith the sunse[ pro�'ision or ��ould those rivo
be the same? Mr. �Vlrner said di�t tlie sisn is too big: a confonning sign �wulci need to be
much smallcr. f lo��e�er. he felt that size more of a policc decision ieft up to the Commission.
He understoad that the maker of the motion offerad �±ood reasons co fea�e the sicu as it is;
;omcone else could crniie �cith good reason; to reduce the size. Eithzr «a�. h� l�4t it could
possibl� lead ro potential legal cha(leii�=zs. and he cannot adci:z as to ��hich �;oufd be better.
�s p��lic� make�'�. tlie Commission has fht[s the� can us< diat nta� be I�_ �u,minable. He
thut6s thi; is a difticult case for the Commi>;ion t�� ��re;de ��iti�
. -
�
Commissioner Vaught stafed that he made the motion at Zoning Committee and he wrote the •
resolution. The sunset provisiai was put in at the sug�estion of Commissioner Gordon.
Commissioner Vauglit said that he didn't like it and would have voted for the original motion
without the sunset provision in it because he thinks it is reasonably clear thaY this is a business
sian and not an advertising siLn. Commissioner Vaught thinks there are probably many ways
that this could be sliced and diced.
MOTTON: Cn�nmissiouer Va«ghf mover! to refer ihe �nai[er of this nppeal back to tbe
Zonins Comn�if[ee anc1, if necessary, to ir�voke mt additional 60 rla}'sfor corrsideration;
Conrnzissioner Cnrrlor: seconded the ntotion wlric% carrietl trnanin:ousl}•.
Mr. Soderl7olm announced t17at lie already sent the applicant notice e�tending this case 30 days,
assumin� tl�at it would take more time.
�98-293 Michacl Nadeau - Rezone property at 377 Maryland Avenue Nest from S-3 (general
business) to R-4 (sin,le-family� residential) to retiect the existin� use of the property (Donna
Drummond, 266-6»6).
MOTION: Cai�mrissiaier Field mnved tn apprni�e tGe request to rezate properry at 377
tllruylantlAveuue frnn: B-3 (�ei:era/ husiuess) to R-4 (sinpfe fitmilJ• residentirt(} to re,fleM tlte
etisting use of the prnpertl', «�IticG carried «nmtimously on n voice vo[e.
#93-290 Cavuan Street, LLC - Rezone proper[q at 199 and 201 Ca} i�ea Street from RT-1
(tu-o-family resideittial) to I-1 (industrial) in order to develop parking (Donna Drummond, 266-
6i56). •
bIOTTO\: Cnnvuissio�rer Fie/d mnved tn ttpprnre tlie request m rezmie properrr at I99 ated
201 Cql'u, a street from RT-1 (nro fieinilr re.rirlentiril) tn I-1 (industria!) in orrler to develop
p«rkian, x�leich cnrrierl ua�ininmusli� nn a rnice core.
n9S-296 Universitv ot'St. Tiromas - Determiiiation of similar use to allon permission to tfse
temporarily the recenth' ��acated, uni� ersit}'-o��ned b�iildin�, at 3097 Gra��d Avenue for offize
space for the Saint Paul Police R'esrern District Bic�cle Patrol and a Saint Paul Policz storzfron:
operation (Jim Zdon. 266-6559).
NIOTTON: Cnnunissioner Fie1d rnnred upprnrnl of the reqaested determinatioa ofsimilar
tese to allox� penrtission to use tempnrmrilr tke recentlr vacatet! rurire�silr-o�r�red hrtilrlino a1
2097 Grrurd R renrte for nffice space jnr 1lre Saitet Patr! Pnlrce 6t%stern Dis7rict Bict•cle Patrot
�rrrr! tt Striirt Prred Pr�lice slnrefroir! r�peralioir, x•Iric/r c�arried eutaitinrnrulP ruz a rnice vatz
Commissioner Pield informed commissioners that the Zonine Committee recommend refa�din_
the a�plfcation fee (in the resolutionl since the Cih is t(ie app(icant.
r93-297 i.a�� renee Si�n - Signa�_e cariance at 16�i East Co[ta<_>z A� ent�e: bas�d on proposed
stthacl., a heieht o( 7S" is allo«ed and a hei��ht of 92 is proposecl. a�ariance oi I�' reque5ted.
= U sq.it. of si��nnc< is alic���ed �� ith :3.� sq.fr. proposed_ rec�urstin�� a�ariance of �.� iq.fr. A J_
ti�uc setbac6 i: proposed Irom both I�ennard and Cotta�le. (\ane} Fric},.'_6G-6��-t�
�
�
'�
� � � � �,,,� �
Saint Paal Planning Comm��ssi;� ��� 9 � 3a D
�
�
City Hail Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boule�•ard West
A meetin� of the Planning Commission of tlie Cit}� of Saint Pau] was held Friday, January 8, 1999, at
8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of Ciry Hail.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissianers
Absent:
Mmes. Duarte, £ngh, Geisser, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs.
Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Mardel{, McDonell, Nowlin and Vau�ht.
Mmes. *Faricy and Messrs. �`Jotinson, *Kong, �`Margulies and Sharpe
*Excused
Also Present: Ken Ford, Pfanning Admin+strator; Jean Birkholz, Tom Harren, Nancy Homans,
Tony Schert(er, Larry Soderhotm and Lucy Thompson, Department of Planning and
Economic Development staff; Tom Beach and Bob Kessler, the DepaRment of
License, Inspection, and Environmenta! Protection; and Mike Klassen, the
Department of Public Works.
I. Approval of Minutes of December 18, 1998
MOTION: Conrnrissiar:c�r Fie1r1 nroverl approva! of t/te ntiiiutes ojDecember I8, I998;
Conrnrissio�rerMnrrie!lseconded the nrotioit wkick carried renanin:ously ort a voice vote.
II. Chnir's Announcements
Chair Morton reco�nized out-goin, Commissionecs Treichel and Vau�ht by reading them
tl�eir special{y prepared resolutions.
IIL Planni��g Actministrator's Aonouncements
On bchalf of staff, Mr. Pord commented on retiring commissioners. This year, because of
the timing of the ordinlnce limiting terms on city commissions, this is a particularly large
turno�er oit the Plannin? Commission. Staff is very ntuch a��•are that �ve are saying
goodbyc to some commissioners that we ha��e worked with a very long time, and to whom
�ve are deeply indeUted. Staff 1'eels that the Saint P�ul Plannin� Commission has been not
only die largest commission in the country, birt undoubtediy, the best. He e�;tended staffs
congratula�ions and tlianks to ihose �� ho �re icaving.
Pictures fiom the holiday aathering are on ihe table in �he alcove for �•ie�ving and orderin�.
,
Mr. Pord announced that the Dcpartment of Pianning and Economic Development �3�iVl
under�o another chamle of leadership.
"f�he bilyor's recommendations for ne�v pl anning commissioners has �one to the City
Council; presinnabl�, they will be acied on i}est u,�eck. Thc appouitees are Shem Shakir,
with Progtown nction Alliance in \Vard l; Harold Potsch.an attorney in Ward 4; Sugene
��
shops have, and many oF them are a Iot more dan�erous and have a lot more affect on
surrounding communities. Perceptia�s are not fact. He added that he thinks Senator
Kelly's letter is not even anecdotal. but dema�oguery. •
Commissioner Gordon stated that afrer hearinp Commissioner Field's reason why he thinks
this ou�ht to go back to the Za�ina Committee, he tivill vote against sending it back because
tl�ere are Commissioners here wlio are prepared to vote. And some Commissioners �vho are
stip here have spenY a!ot of time on this issae and �vi!! be deprived of any opportunity to
vote on ii if it's not dealt with Yoda�. Also, he is generally opposed to moratoriums and
thinks That this one has been in place lona enou�h.
CaamissionerNowlin commented that he 8iinks members are gettin� many thin�s
coizfused in this issue. There is confusion aboi�t anacking a business that has a questionable
ima�e via zoning. The Plannin� Commission should not do that; he a�rees absolutely �vith
Commissioner Vaugltt on that point. Bu[ ihe people �vlto testifiec! in favor of the 1,000-fooT
separation are, ia fact, in the business of �rorkin� on development, redevelopment, etc., in
Saint Paul. CommissionerNowlin fliou�ht their evidence was enormously credible. They
talked about development, ttie image of a neighborhood and perception. This is one good
reason to send it back to the Zonin� Committee. Also, he Yhinks tlzat if the proposal would
n�ove pawn shops to B-3 and make these uses conditional, the Commission is essentially
sayiii� there �vill be no more pawn shops in Saint Paul. Witl� the 1,000-foot separation, we
are not doin� that. Canmissionertio�clin noted that he titi�ould like more discussion on that
rather thaii tryina to make a decision riaht now. He is in favor of the motion.
Commissioner Field added that another reason �vhy he made the motion is because he is
cwiflicted in much the same tivay as Commission Nowlin has sueQested. He needs more �
Lime to sort out the issues. �
Tlae n�olinn nu tlee flnnr m close 11ie public benring nnr! refer the Pnwn Sleop Zof:irtg
Studi' tn tlre Znning Cnmmittee arrrie�! ar « rol! cn(/ vnte of 8- 3(Geisser, Cordof:,
va,�g�,r). .
V. Zoninb Committee
#9S-288 Speedrvav SuerAmerica LLC - Appeal of a decision by the Zonine Administra-
tor that a storm-damaged billboard cannot be reconstructed ai 287 Sisth Street E(between
�Va!! R Broadway; zoned B-5); Larn Soderholm, 266-6575.
D107'ION: Cnnrmissinner Fie/d raoved apprnvn/ qf t/re nppettl of a rlecisiorr h�� rke
.Zorriug Adnaiiiisirotnr tlint n sfnrin-dru�urgerl billGnrird cruuint be recorstrncted ru 287
Sist/r S�reet Eri.+7 3nith corulifious t/�at, iir effect, prescriGe !/rrrY d�e sig�e rncq• rernriiit iaitil
Junu�tr�• 1, 2075.
Commissia�er Pield noted th�t the Zoning Commiitee allo�ved a representati�e to indicate
that i! �vas agrceable to the t�<<c� parties affected.
Commissioncr Nordin asked if the 7_onin� Committec camc u�i �� ith a definition otthis type
of sign. Com�uissioner Vau�ht replied that tl�e resolution f inds that this is to bz considered
a business si;n ratl�er ihan an ad��ertisin� simi. Commissioner T�ordin then asked what the
current ordinance �vas for Ihat site for a business sian? Mr. Soderhohn repliec! that tl�e �
f3
��
F• � �
resolirtion states that the current re�ulations for business signs «ould allow 934 sq.ft. of
• business siena�e at tliat location, and that after 2015 when they take diis si�n down, they
���ill conform to that standard.
Commissioner Nordin asked ho�� much business signage this business has besides this
signaQe. Mr. Soderholm replied that it was his recoliection that it was approximately 430
sq.ft.. Commissioner Nordin stated that she wondered 4vhy this business needs more
signa�e than any odier business. She added that she finds putting up this sign just doesn't
fit and she cannot vote in a�reement �vith the Zoning Committee untess someone could tell
her why-
Commissio�ier Vauaht a�reed that if that sign �t�ere to be placed ihere today, it would be
inappropriate �vith respect to size and it would not be a legal use. The sinn, as it existed
before the storm dama;ed the roof of tl�e buildin� and caused the si�n to come do�vn, was a
le�ai nonconforming use. He said it struck him as being unfair to someone to say that
because a storm comes alono and dama,es the roof on which the si�n is, that destroys the
nonconforming use. Tfie dendiine of 2015 �vas a compromise and gre�v out of Utc Warners
ldvice. Ifthe ori�inalresolution had been passed and enforced,there would be a substantial
likelihood that the city would have been stuck �vith the same sign until 2Q3Q. But, one
never knows what the courts would hare done.
Co��imissio�ier Kramer commented that this is probably the best deal the city can get on this
issue. This is 1 guarantee that the si�n �vilf come do�vn ia 2015.
Tire urntiorr nn UreJloor to r�ppr��ve ilte t�ppeal of « decisiorz of Ilte Zonirta Adnt��trstratot
• tGrrt a.rfnrni-rlm�aaeed Gi(lbnartl crrn�iot be reconsinreted a1287Sist/: Street Enst with
coitditions th�u all�iv 11re si;�r tn ren:ain �uuil Jrututrry 1, 201 S, carried un�uziieux�sly on a
' ' vnice vntt. �
#98- Willarct �Vielke - A special condition use pennit to allow for an auto car �vashing
buildino at 1770 Old 1 Road (Allan Torstensan, 266-6579).
Commissioner Fie1d reported tliat tlic Zoning Committee voted to lay this matter over until
tl�e January 14 meeting.
#98-309 St Anthonv Pnr{c Communiri• CoLmcil - Appeal of an administrative approval of
site plan for an automobiic conrenience store at the north�rest corner of Kasota Avenue and
liiglnvay 2S0 (Donna Drummond. 266-6556).
Con�inissioner Pield reported that the "/_oning Committee �roted to lay Uiis matter o�•er to the
.ianuarp 14 tnce[in�;.
#94-310 Per��oln Im estments, l.LC - AE7plication for nonconformin� usc permit to allow a
picture framin�� shop ai 201 Western nvenue North (Jim Zdon, 266-6559).
Comniissioner Field reported that the 7_onin� Gommittee voted to Iaq this matter over to the
Januan� lA mccting.
�9S-313 7it��uart J. K:�nstul - P.erone propert�� from R-4 (aie-family residcntial) to R1'-1
' (t�+o-f;nnil�' residentia{) to allo�� for suhdivision of propert}' at 976 1 iazel�vood Stmet (at
ia
MINUTES OF THE ZQN(NG COMMIITEE
Thursday, November 23, 1948 - 3:30 p.m.
City Councit Chambers, 3`° Ftoor
City Hail and Courf House
15 West Keliogg Boutevard
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Faricy, Field, Gervais, Kramer, Morton, Vaught and Wencl
Gordon
Geri Boyd, Donna Drurmmond, and Larry Soderhoim of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA, LLC - Zoning File 98-288 - Appeat of a decision by fhe Zoning
Adminisfrafor that a sform damaged biilboard cannot be reconstructed at 287 East Sixth Street.
Larry Soderholm gave a slide presentation and reviewed the staff report. Mr. Soderhotm stated that staff
recommended deniai af the appeai. He further stated fhaf CapitalRiver Counci! decided to make no
recommendation and that he understood that the Heritage Preservation Commission would be considering
the application later in the week.
n
U
In response to Chair �ieid, Mr. Soderholm explained that almosf aA of the district council requests for
bi[(board moratoriums came to the city before the two windstorms that damaged a number of signs and �
he believed the downtawn biilboard moratorium was effective before the storms. The CEty Council upheld
the moratoriums in July.
At the question of Comm+ssioner Vaught, Mr. Soderholm stated that the appeilant's letter to John Hardwick
was written on 10/15l98 but was nof recei�ed by LIEP unfi110/19/98.
ln response to Commissioner Vaught, Wendy Lane stated that a person affected by the decision of the
Zoning Administrator may appeal a decision within 30 calendar days of the decision. LI EP's practice is
to use L1EP's mailing date as the sfarf dafe and the date LIEP receives an appeal as the end date. She
said this application was accepted because the LIEP office was aware that it was forthcoming. She
further sfated thaf if the Planning Commission was to turn down this application because +t was not t+mely,
LIEP wouid not accept any other application in the future under the same circumstances.
Upon the question of Commissioner Faricy, Ms. Lane expiained that fotlowing the May 30"' storm, due to
all of the damage, the city did send out a letter to ali of the outdoor advertising companies informing them
that if there was damage to their signs they would need to submit repair ptans to the city fo see if petmifs
would be required, depending on the extent of the repairs. Dakotah Properties wouid not have received
a letter because they are not a biiiboard company.
Tim Keane, 7900 Xerxes Avenue, with Larkin, Hoffman, Daily, and Lindgren, appeared on behaif o;
Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC. Mr. Keane stated that he had spoken with Peter Wamer and Mr. Hardwick
and stated that the appiication was intended to be timely. He said tfiat he had a temporary secretary on
the day the letter was mailed who apparentiy failed to carry out his instruction to f� the appeai as welf as _
mait it.
��
gy-3�
Zoning Committee Minutes
November 23, 1998
• SuperAmerica, LLC (98-288)
Page 2
Upon the question of Commissioner Vaughf, Mr. Keane expiained that the sign is large and SuperAmerica
depends on thaf fact for their business. Mr. Keane stated that tfie damaged to the sign was minimai, and
had it not been for the damage to fhe parapef and roof, it coufd have been put back up and refastened to
the building.
Mr. Keane stated thaf he was former a city planner and fhat he understands sign reguiations and
believes that section 6&.301 is the applicable secfion of the code in this case.
At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Keane stated thaf the telephone number on the
billboard does nof belong to the store directly beiow the sign.
In response to Commissioner Vaught, Mr. Keane stated that the application and fee was in the
office of the city on 10/20/98. Mr. Soderholm stated that the envelope for Mr. Keane's prior letter
of 10J15198 was postmarked that day, but was misaddressed and stamped by the post o�ce "no
such number", which wouid expiain why it wasn't received until 10/19/98.
Upon the question of Commissioner Gervais, Mr. Keane drew a diagram and explained that when
the wind hit the sign, the sign frame itself did not collapse; rather, the whole parapet wall below
the sign peeled back. The "A" frame support members held up except for a few that hit fhe roof-
•top air conditioning unit.
Roman Mueller, 1240 W. 98' Street, Bloomington, appeared. Mr. Mueller stated that this
particular sign used no wood stringers; it had metal stringers and the sign paneis had an interlock
system that held the entire structure together. He further stated that the repair cost would be
$40,000, and Lawrence Sign Company gave them a replacement estimate of $203,150.
In response to Commissioner Morton, Mr. Muelier stated thai a solution could probably have
been engineered to repair the roof without removing the sign, but not in a cost effective way.
Chuck Erickson, 287 East Sixth Street, appeared. Mr. Erickson stated that he is fhe owner of fhe
Allen building, and that he represents the partnership of Dakotah Properties. He said the sign
was erected by his fiamily in the early 1960's and the only use of the sign has been for
SuperAmerica. He further stated that there has been no other outside advertising on that sign.
Brian Bates, 1985 Grand Avenue, representing Scenic Minnesota, appeared. Mr. Bates spoke
in support of the stafF recommendation to deny the appeal because the definition in the code for
"advertising sign" is based on "on-premises" vs. "off-premises". This SuperAmerica billboard is
not on the premises of the SuperAmerica store. This sign is on fhe premises of the AI(en Buiiding
and owned by Dakotah Properties. Therefore, the stricter standards of 66.3D2 apply.
• Mr. Keane reappeared in rebutta4, and stated that out of alf of the public hearing notices that went
out, only Scenic Minnesota, which is not a property owner in the vicinity, appeared in opposition
to SuperAmerica's appeal.
��
Zoning Committee Minutes
November 23, 7998
Speedway SuperAmerica (98-288)
Page 3
At the question of Commissoner Kramer, Mr. Keane stated that a 10-year lease for the sign was
executed in 1996 or 1987, and as long as the store is there SuperAmerica wiil want the sign.
!n response to Commissioner Vaught, Mr. Ericks�n agreed to the use of the sign only for the
business located af fl�at property.
The public hearing was ciosed.
Commissioner Vaught moved to recommend approval of the appeal with the condition that the
sign be used as a business sign only for the proprietor of the SuperAmerica location. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Faricy.
Peter Wamer suggested that Commissioner Vaughf's solution wou(d be very workable, however
it would be better if there were a friendly motion to lay over to the December 10�' meeting to aliow
the city attorney's office to talk to staff about the implications for the city and alsa to the applicant
and the building owner about the proposed conditions.
C�
Commissioner Kramer said that he didn't know how they wouid condition somefhing if fhe 6uitding owner .
is not the applicant in this case. !n response to Commissioner Krame�'s questiort, Wendy Lane stated that
LIEP has handied this as an advertising sign because it was not on the same premises as the business
being advertised. Sometimes, third parties have been formal parficipants involved in zoning decisions.
Commissioner Vaught withdrew his origina! motion and made another motion to lay the item over to the
December 10'" meeting as Mr. Warner suggested. Commissioner Faricy accepted fhe new motion.
Commissioner Vaught also moved to extend the deadline the for an additional 60 days if necessary. Both
motions passed unanimously.
Concluding Business ltems
Mr. Soderholm informed the Commission about a copy of an application he received regarding a Sf.
Anthony Park speciat sign district. In response to Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm stated that
this area is covered under the biilboard moratorium. He further stated that the application wiil
probab)y be referred by the Planning Commission to City Council.
Commissoner Kramer moved to adjoum and to put the remaining item on the agenda for the next meeting.
it was seconded and approved.
Adopted
Drafted by:
Geri Boyd
Recording 5ecretary
Yeas - 7 Nays - d
Submitted by:
L�lYy
Larry derholm
Zoning Section
Approved by:
Litton Field
Chair
r7
L�
��
9 y-3a.�
•
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
QTHERS
PRESENT:
MlNUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Tfiursday, December 10, 1998 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3` Floor
City Ha(1 and Court House
15 West Keilogg Boulevard
Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, Morfon, Vaught and Wenci
Gervais
Geri Boyd, Donna Drurmmond, Nancy Frick, Larry Soderholm, and Jim Zdon of
PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SPE@DWAY SUPERAMERICA - Zoning File 98-288 - Appeai of a decision by the Zoning Administrator that a
storm-damaged biilboard cannot be reconstructed at 287 East Sixth Street. Commissioner Vaught stated that
he distributed a resolution before the meeting and moved this resolution to grant the appeal of the appiicant and
a!!ow the re- installation of the sign at that location. Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion.
Commissioner Vaught explained that essentiafiy the resoiution overtums Mr. Hardwick's decision thaf this is an
advertising sign, and finds that this is actuatly a business sign. It contains five conditions which are basically
�ngruent with the ones that were in Mr. Soderho{m's draft of the resolution.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Vaught stated that the resolution contemplated
only the identical sign, exactly the same size and location as the one that blew down.
Gommissioner Gordon opposed the motion and resolution as drafted. He said that ifi there was a
modification of the resolution as to the size of the biliboard, he wouid consider supporting the motion.
ln response to Commissioner Kramer, Wendy Lane stated that for a fot with this street fronfage in a B-5
district, the totai business signage permitted is 934 sq. feet. SuperAmerica has 346 square feet of
smailer business signs plus the biliboard in question, which is 3,200 square feet.
Commissioner Vaught stated that under the conditions of the resoluction the sign is to be used as a
business sign, and a business sign only. He said that he would consider accept+ng friendly amendmenfs
to the resolution, however, the size of the sign was not one of them.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Vaught stated that the term of the lease runs
to the year 2007. Commissioner Gordon moved fo amend the resolution to incllide a sunset provision
cons+stent with the length of the current lease. Commissioner Vaught accepted ihe amendment, an�
Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion.
�ommissioner Gordon expressed the fact ihat he stiii had a problem with the size of the biilboard.
In response to Commissioner Wenc1, Commissioner Vaught sfated that the sign was a{ega{ norr
conforming use. Mr. Soderhoim stated that the sign was buift fegally in fhe ear{y 1960's.
��
Zaning Committee Minutes
Dacember 10, 1998
Speedway SuperAmerica (98-288)
Page 2
�
Mr. Soderf�o(m explained thatthe sunsef amendmentwouid address his concern fhatthe Comprehensive
Plan calis for residenfial redevelopment of the North Quadrant of lowertown and that housing may be
buift kitty-comer from the site.
Commissioner Kramer cailed the question.
On a voice vote of 6 to 1(Commissioner Gordon), the motion to recommend approva! was passed.
Commissioner ICramer thanked Commissioner Vaught for work done on the resolution.
Adopted Yeas - 6
Drafted by:
.1.2G �
Geri L. Boyd
Recording Secretary
Nays -1 (Gordon)
Submitted by:
larry 5�rholi
Zoning Section
Chair
r�
L
�
'�
���..
� ��`s`� J '.
'"� ES'�fi�l
����,�:
_�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, December 29,1998 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3f° Floor
Cify Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boutevard
PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Kramer, Morton, and Vaught
EXCUSED: Gordon ABSENT: Gervais and Wencl
gy-3a.a
OTHERS
PRESENT: Donna Drummond, Martha Fausc, Patricia James, Laurie Kapian, and Larry Soderholm of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC - Zoning File 98-288 - Appeal of a decision by the Zoning Administratar that a storm-
damaged bifiboard cannot be reconstructed at 287 East Sixth Street.
Chair Fie{d explained that this item has come back to the Zoning Committee from the Pianning Commission after a
representative of SuperAmerica raised a legai fssue the evening before the Planning Commission to act on the resolution,
which did not allow the City Attorney enough time to give an opinion on the matter.
Mr. Warner explained that the letter receive from SuperAmerica expressed concerns about the attempt by the city to sunset
the length Qf time the sig� couid be up. He further stated that he could not find any existi�g language that wouid work.
At the question of Commissioner Vaught, Mr. Warner stated that the committee could not unilaterally impose the sunset
� vision.
missioner Vaught moved to ailow the appiicant to respond to these issues pertaining to a workable solution on the sunset
provision. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Faricy and approved,
Tim Keane, 7900 Xerxes Avenue, representative of SuperAmerica appeared. Mr. Keane stated that he did have the
opportunity to discuss the matter with the buiiding owner. He further stated that the buiiding owner, when asked about a
requested that it he were voluntary sunset provision, suggested the period o4 time that the tax code provides for amoRizing
a sign of this nature, that being 30 years. Mr. tCeane said that he suggested to the building owner that they should propose
a reasonable compromise and agree to a term that reflects some give an take with the city.
Mr. Keane further stated that they are prepared to agree to 6ri�g the sign into conformance with the existing code in 2015.
Mr. Kea�e stated that they are offering to enter a voluntary agreement to remove the existing sign, at that time.
In response to Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Keane stated that as part of this agreement a new iease wili be written to extend
SuperAmerica's lease to 2015.
Commissioner Vaught moved that the existing resolution be modified to indicate the date and require some written expression
of the agreement before the decision goes into effect. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Faricy.
Commissioner Kramer suggested that the documentation should incfude afl parties invoWed.
adopted Yeas - 5 Nays - 0
) Sy:
aurie Kap(a �
ecording Seaetary
Submitted By:
Larry S d rholm
Zoning ection
� .. . -. :.�
. '��/
. -.
��
ZONIlVG COMNIITTEE STAFF REPORT
FILE # 98-288
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
APPLICANT: SPEEDWAY SUPETLAMERICA DATE OF HEARING: I I/23/98
CLASSIFICATION: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Decision
LOCATION: 287 SIXTIi STREET (billboard seen over 3uperAmerica on E. Seventh
St.)
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See file
PRESENT ZO1vING: B-5
ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 66.408
STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT BY: Lany Soderholm DATE: 11/16l98
8. DATE RECEIVED: 10/20/98 DEADLINE FORACTION: 12/18/98
A.
B.
C.
D.
PURPOSE: Appeal of a decision by the Zoning Adminisuator that a storm-damaged
billboard cannot be reconsiructed.
PARCEL SIZE: 287 E. SiYth St. is 31, 896 sq. ft.
EXISTiNG LAND USE: Office-wazehouse, a significant lusforic building in the
Lowertown Heritage Preservation District
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
North: SuperAmerica on E. Seventh; freeway ramp, freeway right-of-way and pazkiug
across E. Seventh
East: Across Broadway St., freeway right-of-way and E. Seventh bridge
South: Office-wazehouse space in the J.H. Atlen Building, which has a 7-story section on
E. Sixth St, and a 3-story addition (address 417 Broadway) on top of which the
sign was Iocated. The 7-story section has "freeway-size" roo$op biIlboard that
faces east.
West: 2-story office of Buckbee-Meazs, Ina and the parking ramp for the Lowertown
Business Center
1
•
�J
_
��
99
• E. ZONIiVG CODE CITATIONS:
Sec. 66.408(a) on Appeals. "Any person affected by the decision of the zoning
administrator dealing with the provisions of this chapter may appeal this decision to the
planning commission within ttrirty (30) catendar days of the decision...."
Sec. 66.103 and 66.104 on definitians. "Adverfising sign. A sign which directs attention
to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment which is conducted,
offered, sold or manufactured elsewhere than on the premises upon which the sign is
placed. It shall be considered as a nonaccessory sign." "Business sign. A sign which
directs attention to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment which is
conducted, offered, sold, or manufactured on the premises upon which the sign is placed.
It shall be considered as an accessory sign."
Sec. 66.214(j) on Advertising Signs. "Heritage preservation districts. Advertising signs
shall be prohibited from all historic preservation sites or districts designated by the city
council."
Sec. 66.301. Intent of regulations on nonconforming signs. "...It is the intent of this
chapter that nonconforming signs shall not be enlazged upon, expanded or extended, nor
be used as grounds for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same
district. It is further the intent of this chapter to permit legal nonconfomung signs existing
• on the effective date of this chapter, or amendments thereto, to continue as legai
nonconforming signs provided such signs aze safe, maintained so as not to be unsightly,
nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following provisions: (1) No sign shall be
enlazged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity; (2) Should such sign or
sign structure be destroyed by any means to any extent of more than fifry-one (51 }
percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the
provisions of this chapter; (3) Should such sign or sign structure be moved for any reason
for any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located after it is moved..."
Sec. 66.302. Nonconforming signs; exceptions. "Any advertising sign existing as of the
date of this section [February 2, 1988] which is located in a zoning district which does
not permit advertising signs or which does not conform to the size, height andfor spacing
requirements of this chapter may be replaced, relocated or renovated in the manner
provided in this section; provided, however, that snch activity shall bring the sign into
greater compliance with the provisions of this chapter and satisfy the following standards:
(a) Advertising signs to be replaced, relocated or renavated on the same zoning lot:
(1) The zoning lot must be within a zoning district in which advertising signs are a
permitted use, as specified in section 66.214(a) or (i), or as permitted in a speciai
, 2
0
sign district approved by the city council;
(2) The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height
requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b);
(3) The gross surface display area of the advertising sign shall not be made larger nor
shall the height of the advertising sign be made higher than was the previously
existing nonconforming sign;
(4) The advertising sign may be relocated or replaced within the original wning lot
and tke spacing requirements of section 66.214(b) and (k) sha11 not apply thereto;
provided, however, that the sign may not be placed within one hundred frfty (150)
feet from the I-35E Parkway right-of-way;
(5) An advertising sign which is less than four hundred (400} square feet in azea may
be located on a roof top, and all advertising signs may overhang a roof..."
F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION
•
The sign in this case is a very lazge rooftop billboazd owned by Dacotah Properties LLP
and leased since I987 to Speedway SuperAmerica, the business next door. Because the
sign is almost four times the size of a standard &eeway billboazd, it must be custom
painted and therefore the message is changed infrequeatly. The billboazd is visible from .
the nearby freeway and is intended to attract freeway drivers to the SuperAmerica.
At the beginning of the simuner the sign blew over in the sewnd of two major
windstorms that hit the city. The sign peeled back the roof of the building and had to be
removed in order for the building repairs to proceed. LIEP staff advised contractors not
to replace the sign and that a building permit would be needed to do so.
On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. applied for a sign pemut to reinstall the sign
frame and panels that were biown down by the storm. On September 17, 1998, 7ohn
Hardwick of LIEP denied the permit applicarion. The Ciry received an appeal of the
decision from Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, on October 19, 1998. A more detailed
letter explaining fhe appeal was received on November 26, 1998. (Atthough the appeai
was received a couple of days late, the appellant had been in communication with LIEP
staff eazlier and the appeal was e�ected. Staff recommends that the Plaiming
Commission decide the appeal on the merits of the case.)
The sign pernut application is aIso being considered by the Heritage Preserva6on
Commission since the property is in the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District Their
review is expected on November 19, 1998,
�
t�'1
99-3ao
• The Pianning Commission had a case about two storm-damaged billboazds during the
surtuner. The Commission decided that billboazd companies could, without sign permits,
replace sign face panels that had blown down if no damage had occurred to the sign
structure. The decision was appealed to the Ciry Council, wluch upheld the Planning
Commission. Scenic Minnesota is now appealing the City Council decision to district
court.
The present sign appeal is the first one to come to the Planning Commission regazding a
sign where the sign structure was damaged by the two windstorms in May and June. It is
likely that addifionai, similaz appeais will come to the Planning Commission.
G DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMIVVII�NDATION: The CapitolRiver Council decided to
make no recommendation on this case because of the unusual circumstance that the
Speedway SuperAmerica sign was so similaz to an on-premise business sign inasmuch as
the sign advertised the SuperAmerica right below it. Generaliy, the CapitolRiver Council
wants to reduce the number of billboazds downtown. They requested a biilboard
moratorium, which was approved by the City Council, for District 17 during the current
billboazd zoning study.
H FINDINGS:
1. The sign that blew down in the storm had some chazacterastics of both an advertising and
� a business sign. It was big like a billboard and looked like a billboard. But since 1987 it
was used exclusively to advertise SuperAmerica products for sale on the premises
immediately next door, almost right below the sign. Under a straight reading of the
definitions in the Zoning Code, the Zoning Administrator determined the sign to be an
advertising sign because it was not on the premises of the SuperAmerica. It was on the
premises next door. Accordingly, John Hazdwick of LIEP wrote to the applicant and
denied the sign permit application pursuant to the Zoning Admuustrator's interpretation
that the sign was a billboard; then he went on to explain why the permit would likewise
be denied if the sign were considered a business sign--either a nonconforming business
sign to be reconstructed or a new business sign.
2. On their appeal to the Planning Commission, Speedway SuperAmerica states the
following grounds for their appeal:
a. Re-anchoring sign does not require a new sign permit.
b. Sign is a conforming sign under the Code's ambiguous sign regulations.
c. The historic district does not prohibit replacing Zegal nonconforming signs.
d. The sign is not an advertising sign.
e. The denial misapplies fhe provisions of the St. Paul Code of Ordinances Section
66.301 and Section 66.342.
• 4
�'�
Their appeal is explained in more detail in a letter submitted on November 16, 1998. �
3. Accepting the Zoning Administrator's determination that the sign was a nonconfomung
advertising sign, it cannot be replaced for three reasons:
a. The City Council has imposed a moratoriwn on pemuts For advertisiug signs in
the downtown and several neighborhoods until the current billboazd zoning study
is completed and amendments aze enacted or until December 3I, 1999, whichever
comes first.
b. Section 66.302(a)(1} providas that in order for an advertising sign to be replaced
or renovated on the same zoning lot, it mast be in a zoning district where
advertising signs are a pernutted use. The property at 287 E. Si�cth St. is located
in a part of the B-5 zone where an advertising sign would be permitted except that
the property is within the Lowertown Heritage Preseroation District, and no
advertising signs aze permitted in historic districts.
c. Sectioa 66302(a) goes on to provide in paragraph (5) that billboazds over 400
squaze feet in size cannoY be replaced or renovated on the same zoning lot. The
SuperAmerica sign was 20 high and 160 feet long, totaling 3,200 square feet; it
was a giant among billboazds. Standazd "neighborhood billboazds" aze under 400
squaze feet and standard "freeway bilIboards" aze under S00 square feet. The
sign in question was eight times lazger than the code pernzits. �
3. Assuming that the sign was a nonconforming business sigre as the appiicant contends, it
cannot be reconstructed for two reasons:
a. It cannot be removed. nor can it be moved. Section 66301 states that "...it is
fiirther tl�e intent of this chapter to pemut legal nonconfornung signs ... to
continue as legal nonconforming signs provided such signs are safe, maintained
so as not to be unsightly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following
provisions..." These provisions go on to say Yhat nonconforn�ing signs cannot be
moved. Section 66.301(3) staies that "(3) Shonld such sign or sign structure be
moved for an�reason for any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to
the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located after it is moved."
(Underlining added.) The applicant's letter of 11/16/98 concedes that the sign
was indeed removed to facilitate repair of the roof and pazapet waIl that supported
the sign. The damage to the building, staff believes, woutd not have occurred if
the sign had not been acting as a sail in the wind.
b. The sign cannot be reconstructed unless the damage was less than 51% of the
replacement cost of the sign or sign structtue, The sign permit application
submitted by Lawrence Sign Co, estimates that the reconstruction project would
�
��
y Q-3ao
• cost $ l OQ,000. Staff normally asks the applicant to provide an estimate of the
replacement cost in order to derive the percentage of the damage. The applicant's
letter of November 16, 1998, contends that "this provision does not apply, since
this sign was not destroyed at all by the storm; it remained essentially intact while
the building roof failed." The estimated cost of $100,000 for reinstailation of the
sign and the claim that the sign and sign structure remained "essentially intact"
areinconsistent.
STAFF RECONIlVIENDATION:
Based on findings 1 and 3, PED staff recommend denial of the appeal. The Zoning
Admuustrator conectly deternuned that sign was an advertising sign under the terms of
the Zoning Code. Even though the billboard advertised the SuperAmerica next door, it
was not on SuperAmerica's premises. Moreover, even if the Zomng Administrator erred
in determining that the sign was a billboard, and the sign should have been considered a
business sign, the denial of the sign permit application was correct as explained in
finding 4.
�
.
G7
2�
OCT 17 1770 14�-S-M1 rROM CI71' Of' .r,l' f'RUL LIQ' TO
�pucanoN
Department of Plmrr�ru
Zontxg Sectiox
11�0 Crtyfl'a1lAnnex
25 ii'est Paurth �heei
Saiat Paul, IK1V 551J/2
Z6G-6589
APP�A!
and EconomicDevelapmmr
APP�LLAN7'
1240 l�Test
T,ip 55431 Daytime phone887-6100
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Name �
:atien 287 Sixth Street East, St. PauZ, Minnesot�
C_%.
'�YPE aF APT+EAL: Appiic<
p Board of Zonin
uncler the provisions of Ch<
appeal a decision made by
an Septe�tt�er 17
fdate of decision)
is hereby made for an appeal to the: •
peals ❑ City Councit x Pl�u�ing Co�nission
64, Seetion _ , Paragraph af the Zaning Code, to
i 9 98 . File number.,
GR4UHDS FOR APF�AL:�xpiain why you feet there has 6ean sn ercar in any requirement,
permiY, decisian ar refusai m de by an administrafive official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finc�ing made by the Board Zoning Appeats or the Pfanning Commission.
1. Re-anchoring sign does not require a new sign permit
2. The sign is a conforming sign under the Code's ambiguous siga reguIations.
3. The historic district does not prohibit replacing legat non-conforming signs,
4, The sign is not an advertising sign.
5. The denia[ misapplies the provisions of St. Pau( Code of Ordinances Sec�ion ���fl�����n �
66302. �„����
Attach addi6onaf sheet i�
ApplicanYs
City
'G. a O
��
�
.�' .
•
�
�
�
1 18���
� r.�
S��M1
�� I
�
CITY OF SANT PAUL
IPITERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 29, 1998
TO: Wendy Lane, Frank Berg
FROM: 7ohn Hardwick�
RE: More storm damaged billboards
99 -3�a
Today our office issued a permit to remove a storm damaged billboard form the roof of the Allen
Building at 287 E Th Street. The bIllboazd blew over and peeled back the roof of the building. It was
necessary to zemove the billboard structure in order to repair the roof of the building. Since this
is in the Lower Town Preservation area the billboard can not be rebuilt .The contractor doing the roof
repair was told not to replace the sign. While I was out looking at this sign I noticed thai a Universal
billboard at 421 E Th Street had also blown over onto the buildin� at that address damagin� the roof.
There was a Universal repair crew at the site (they did not have a permit). I spoke with the foreman
and told him that he could remove the si�n but could not rebuild or replace the sign without first
� obtainin� a pernut. The foundation had puled out of the ground and the only thing holdin; the si�n up
was ihe roof of the buildin;. This si the first sign I have seen where the foundation failed and pulled
out of the ground. Maybe �ve need to require a soils test before we issue any more freestandin�
billboard permits? Would it be a good idea to have our building inspectors inspect for these signs
since they are familiar with footings and soils?
cc: Bob Kessler
Peter Wamer
Virginia Palmer
�
�
September 4, 1998
b.;. Ed Locke
City of S*.. Paul
L�v�lding InspecYi�n and Design
=5Q St. Peter Street, Suite �QQ
SY.Pau�,Atl� SSiQ2-1510
IZE: Si�r. Permi?, SuFer.America
De� Ed
cugerAmerica weuid like tQ restQre their storm dama�ed si�n tha± �vas at 4I7 Sroadwzy
Street. Thanks for revie�vin' the enclosed pernut application, site plan and dra�vin�.
When agproved, please have someone notify us and �x�e wiil fon��ard a check.
Thanks a�ain, please call u�ith any quesYions.
Cordiaily,
� � a€t
Encts.
�, 945 PtERCE BUTLER ROUTE � ST. PAUt, M[NNESOTA 55104 � 612.485.6711 � FAX 612.488.6713
La.wrence �
.
ig�,
��
�
2'j
AUG-21-98 FRI 8 LRWRENCE SIG�
BUILOING INSPEC7tON AN� OESIGN
OFFICE OF LlCENSE, INSPECTfONS AND ENV(RONMENTAI
350 ST. PETEft S7REET. SIJITE 3C0
57. PAUI, MINNESOTA 55102-1510
(See back of farnt for
FAX N0. 651488671�
�. o:
99-3 ��
SIG�
PERMIT APPLICATlQN
�n nnd
Number SUeet Name St,61vd„Ave,etc. N S E W Cross Street Da!e
PROJECT �, 1 V('Ua�WA JV G. � f�' C L. b` �Q'. � r 1
ADDRESS
stgn Contractar Address Gf �{.g f�� e,.�� (.� (e.t (�o��� Phone
��A�^+�Q.ncC�c ✓� City c5�-. �w�.l� I^tN. SSIo�{ ��df'i-�s� 11
In�!uda Contatt Person ¢ a�� ���L1 E State,Zip
�Business/Owne L L/� Address a�� � (D'� -�. f, Phone G
�. pA<o�a� �rope�}.:e$, /' City a-�{f.�, a (d�
Inciude Contact Person �� w c�i C r; �icS o-� State,Zip �-� ,�y � � t'U_ SS / CS �
I New Ssgn Aiter Ezisting Sign / � Estlmated Start Oste Estimatad Comple4ian Dete ES7IMATED VAIUE OF PROJEC7
� feSS�S-r-1 } �Cl��� �s�� S �d0 C9U0 ^
Completc Stctian I(os Section II foc PoRable Signs) and Section AI
t30TICE: A Site Plan and a Dnwing of each sign must accompany this permit applicatioA.
SEC170N T - GENE.ItAL StGNS
�
i
Ptace X or check marK m square neut lo sign type. Enle� number ai gigns oF aeiected type, width and iength In faet antl Lot Dimensions S.rxet Fron;a�a (
In�has, and tola! square leet of sign. Use addltional columna (or s(gns of difteren! sizes or lis; in Descripfion o( Arof ect. Widlh teng;h (N�-�her o` fee jf
W9t1 Waii Wal1 Wall Wdtt EsfeHng Si¢napa (�3 X s �(�U I
on tho haperty
Frna Standing Free Standing Free Sfanding Free Standing Free Standing aforo �h�e project
Projecting Proje
R Roof
ity � Quan
Widch � Widtl
Le�cU � � ,,.� Lcng�
Rooi Root
Quanuty nuenti'
Wdth Width
Le�B�h Langch
Sque�e Spuare
Nning inciuded YES projechon away Stru�ture
� ❑ Gom 0uiiding {fUln) S¢e:
in Permit.
Manyt +Square 6eet
�ilt nxt WU secaoa iorLtcuniv a �xt
Tlfaninn;c� `-'� i_.�I
� _%'�'
:opy to Reatl �
S u P e� �or�5
y S �j - cAF�
Roof
Qusntity
Witlth
Length
Squ&�d
Height Length
- P(�RTA&LE S[GNS
n Height
wqmc(Sq. Feet�
� O— 75 the Sign Loca'ed
on a Comer LoYI YES ❑ PA �!
�
Slgnega to be
Removad (�n
SQ�ara Feet}
�U—
���
Totaf Squ�ia
�Bat af SiBns f
thie Permit
� �oo
cnption af Profect 4
�e.�S���l �<�r`1
r
�
Qlow� p �
Appifcant certifies that alf information is cofrect and thaf all
pertinent state regufations and city ordinances will Be complied
with in performtng the work for which fh+s pemtit'ss issued.
� �� .� -- �� �'-6 71.�
ppficanYs'Signature 7elephone Number
ming Remarks
{s Sign in 2 Shepp�ng YES �!:O �
CenledStnp Mall�
Does the S:gn p�cjact over yE5 NO �
a PubllC Rr ofVlay7 rl �
iJ
Enler amounl o( Projzction cvx�'
Aub'i:Right l.�—�.
is the S�gn Locatetl YES � NO �'
cn a Comer �ct�
t6e S�fi�t u il7u�unated nriti�an r�xtrics:
tw�c'� ._ --
u �.br
►^aw. e. � �c.n e 1 S
�
S�,Q �
Sign Perm{t Fee
Ptan Check fee
Sta;e Surcharge
Total Permit Fee
I PIN
o�
s
S�
$
s�
�
mmg �ietnct I (
1 �Q,
ovra^;e Signage Reeiewed 6y �Ja!e YFJ Recl�xved
�
�
-�-
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
g
.�';�
�
� �
� �
���
� �
� S
�
� �
�
N
x
�
�
� �.,
0
�
�f
OFFICE OF LICEDISE, NSPECTtO�iS A?ID
EWIRO�i.�fEYiAI PROTEC770V
Robert Kessler, Di�ettor
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, 6layor
September 17, 1998
Geoff Michael
Lawrence Signs
945 Pierce Butler Route
St Paul, Minnesota 55104
LOWRYPROFESSIOhAL BUILD/.\G
Sui+e 300
3i0St PererSrreer
Sairti Paul, Afinnesota 55102-I5f0
RE: Sign permit application for Super America at 287 East Sixth Sueet.
Dear Mr. Michael:
99-3aa
Telephans: 6l2-266-9090
Facsimik: 6(2d 66-9099
61I-266-912f
Your permit application for the referenced sign has been denied for the following reasons:
1. The proposed sign is located on and attached to the building at 287 6 th St East. Since thz si�n
is advertising goods or services offered off the premises, it is an advertising sign. (b6.103 a).
The building at 287 6 th St, East is located within a Herita�e Preservation District and
advertising signs are not permitted within heritage preservation districts. (6b.214 j)
2. Since the sign was removed in order to repair the damaged roof of the buildin; we must treat
any permit application to replace the sign as a new sign permit. In addition to the fact that the
proposed sign is located in a heritage preservation district, the proposed sign does not meet ihe
spacing requirements of Section 66.214 which requires a minimum of 1,000 feet of spacinQ
between advertising signs on the same side of the street. As a new advertising sign, section
66.214 (h), which prohibits an advertising sign to be located on a roof, would also apply. If this
application were considered to be a request to replace a nonconformin� advertising sign on the
same zoning lot, the regulations in 66.302 would apply. Based on sections 66302 (1), which
states that the sign to be replaced must be located within a district w�hich allows advertisine
signs, and 66302 (5) �vhich states that a sign greater than 400 squaze feet may not be located e=
a roof, the sign may not be "replaced, relocated or renovated".
� Since I have the unpression from my conversations with representatives of the principals
involved �vith this proposed si;n that our interpretations and determinations in this matter «�ill be
appealed, I am including the following information in order to expedite the process.
N.�J
permit application page 2
�
If the referenced sign were to be considered a business sign rather than an advertising si�n it
would still be a nonconformina sign due to the size of the sign. As such it would be subject to the
provisions of Section 66.301 (2) tivhich states that a sign destroyed by any means to an e�ctent of
more than 51 % of its replacement cost, may not be reconstructed except in conformance with the
code. The si�n would also be subject to 66301 (3) which states that if a nonconforming sign is
moved any distance for any reason it inust thereafter conform to the code.
I£ the proposed sign were considered a new business sign, it esceeds the maximum allowable
signa�e for this location and a variance �vould be required. It also «•ould require review and
approval of the Herita?e Presee Commission. Since appeals and variance requests
conceming signs are both heazd by the Pianning Commission, it would expedite matters to
include the appropriate variance requests in any appeai application.
Finally, you should be aware that any sign greater than 50 squaze feet requires struciurat
drawings signed by a structural en�ineer registered in the State of Minnesota of both the sign
structure and the buiiding that the sign is attached to or on.
Any decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator re�azding signs may t;e
appealed to the Plannin� Commission by submitting an application stating the reason you be.i:cc
the decision is in error alon� with the appropriate fee to this office «ithin 30 days of the dat� of�
this leTter.
If you have any questions regardin� this matter you may contact me at 266-9082.
Si e ely, o
%��.t� ���
John Hazd�vick
Zoning Specialist
cc: Larry Solderholm, Principal Planner
Wendy Lane, Zoning Manager
Aazon Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Staff
�
3�
r
.W.ESP.URYp1
ROBfFTL HOFFMIN
4ERHD M iitlEDE'LL
FWIMDJ.CPoSLQI
<a+[ x. FuiFrc
,aou o. nni�a
fx++aci_wxvEr
aWtlFSSW�aEtt
deasronfxxuErgx
• uwnwnssn
n+oussa. sraiuw
wcw.�-i,c+r�aux
A141E pFH
JCN 3 SYAfF2EV/Sq
TqMesJ. RttN
x�sv,awrv
TCCOI.fREp/hV
cx�,un� scac
awa wodasc
o+na xow� •
�aww coners•
P/YL0.0.lM.�R
AW�L pILCW
1 tFTfID!l4�A£1'/AUi
WRNFLB.I�rWQY
CitEWRYEKCNSts➢
G+RYA VPNREYE'
6VrE L B^JAtES
I1MOTrvJ.%Eqlg
PtM1M. MAf,R�J�N
Wlh4L RCQAGK
M�QNEL W.57LEY
FONi & %RFPS
iERRENCEE&SHOP
usaa cwnr
G1iYA RFiWE1(E
aa�srco�cxx+van�sn✓a
KEVOFII o�v.¢ocGE
&0.lKEJ D'JIN3A5
wuweC. c.¢imM ae.
.
October 15, 1998
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY ceL I,INDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORVYEST FINANCIAL CEMER
790a XERXES AVENUE SOU7H
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-7794
TELEPHONE(672)835�epp
FAX (612) 846-3333
John Hazdwick
City of St. Paul
Lowry Professional Building, Suite 300
37Q Sauth St. Peter Street
St. Paul, MN 55102-1510
Re: Sign Permit Appeal - 287 East 6'" Street
Dear Mr. Hardwick:
9 �1-3ao
JYNRIHI
PE:FRA COnE
VaWYANWIW
.K`EE B�EMER
�a«isre�eeric.+�
�eon&.,t sun�
H{REW i. G�M91
saecaawcw.weaFe
NBY.W G MYMPV
ue�u�
api��.uo¢a�
OW'"!p°IERKµFA
WWCYRFAOSi
QA' i3.I311 Nl6flY
srrrefxi Kr�a
TA'%4l5 F. NEXNtFR
m�aatwu<
suaw,tiw�e++
.rowvr. rt�
c Raw�s
GBapRpc0BV5
.pin E TON�R
r••'�°�t 315n0
A�LREW0.M.W ^
[WAalPA{SMN£
Usni RM91NSIXJ
WL�SGlA55�iC
50nY.�A INtup56+.SFJG'�
J]SfR{l i1R0.VSF� R
A4V1(0, PWSfOFtER�R �ON
K CG]5El
NG(FOWY
0.16lfiEll�tDIX:REN
ILUNE MtAtJG/rV
.KISEPf{qii5
' asoonMmEDwvnswsu
` pLYAOWRmW
uat,vpu�rts
••• aarenfurrtOwiaw
The purpose of this letter is to serve, pursuant to St. Paui Code of Ordinances Section 66.408, as the
appeal for your written determination dated September 17, 1448, of the application of SuperAmerica for a
sign permit at 287 East 6'� Street. SuperAmerica wiil suhmit a memorandum in support of this appeal
eazly next week. Please advise our office of the schedule for hearing this appeal. Additionally, we
respectfully request you copy our office on any correspondence the city receives relating to this appeal.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 896-3203.
3incerety,
.
Timothy J Keane, for
LARKIN, QFFMAN, DALY
& LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Sam Van Tassel, Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC
Chuck Erickson, Aacotah Building
Peter Warren, Assistant City Attorney
.
oaseszo.oi
3y
aa�sv.un�w
qLgFATL IICfiAW1
GQWDtlR(ll�HL
mvurm�. cavui
GEiEN FU1Ht
JOIN0. FlLLWEP
FPNKLIYR/EY
LTIeHIF9SlY..C6L
PWST�fEft1 NEfE�i'
uesnn �isgrt
t1KkAA4P.5i0.TA4W
MIC}U84.NCqNN
ClNE d@/
!]IiBANERltlKM
ThqMPSJ.RYlN
JN.E$P.CUMI
mro�x�auav
c�r¢n� s�c
.NMf16 UMMUST
WTIEfpIN('
JOWALDTI$t�
PNAB.FWN(EiT
P1ANLplWN
NAT1i�TIM. NLOTIENEl1MIJl
NKlYF18.LF8W0l1
b�EGMYE KCQSfOD
GMYA VON ¢EVE'
bVABL 9THE5
TINOMYA KFME'
011�HKPfCER3Q1
6'�lfNL0.C81CK
AUC3S4F1 W. SOlEY
0.GN61PEP5
IHiPENCEEBINqP
(14A0. GRAY
G>AY0.�F181p¢
CHUSTCRERJ. HORRLSTW.
NpBrLC 1C1i120IX£
em��.muc�ns
wivawc. c�eimni. w.
�ctober 20, 1998
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY ceG LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS A7LAW
Y560 NORWESTFINANCfALCEN7ER
7900XERXESAVENUESOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431•1194
TEtEPHONE (612) 635�3800
FAX (612) 8963333
John FTardwick, Zoning SpecialisY
City of Saint Paul
350 St. Pefer Sireet
Suite 300
Saint Paui, MN 55102-1510
Re: Sign Permit Appeal
Dear Mt. Hazdwick:
AlNRNLL
PETFRA CDY3E
VARYD.WRPN
.Mt1EEBN@ER
J}N1S(fHHl4Vfl1
lIKl49EI.A SWRI
NtftEW F, �diN
mEneu�cx;wmua
11fi3M1IG
MNAl�E19!
�s�.i+neor+
ClPISTCPI£RKtPRtB
1lWGYRFi06f
OWGlA4LLP/J.0.ER
s�»e+awnrtma
IFKMNSL.NF.YNNEQ
uaaar.wars
&wa+nwvw�mv�
.K{NF plM
C HtlNi4u�E5
C9iB�IRCfiPJtA
JpNEttIHER
JN.ESAl9fi0L
MLREWARYMI "
dJY6J.B411M1lE
116f�SRGPASIX�
mcas.u�
Sq4YAR gNLN.�C1fABG"'
J�EAIJ.FlRANIE.R
WHK40ARIOREASON
Cf 'tl�lN�F. 1
J�CiCF.OLLY
0.1�tiEMUW(iia
N1.WE W!lGAV
.RI5641(YfIS
' aSOwumIDxN6WMSIN
� cn.v.�u�rtmw
rus+�rts
-^ owxin�unmwwwn
VTA MESSENGER
Please find enclosed in support of the Speedway SuperAmerica appeal letter of October 15, 1998, and in
response to your letter of October I9, 1998, a check in the amount of $380.00 and an executed appiication
for appeal stating the grounds for the appeai.
Shou2d you have any questions, please contact me at 896-3203.
Sincerely,
..._-----
Timo . �eaue, for
LARKIN, FFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
hmb
Enclosure
0437879.01
•
.
�
�
OFF[CE OF LIC�iiSE, (NSPECT[O\S AtiD
E�IViRO`�SE�lTAL PROTECTIO\
Rabert Kessler, Director
SATNI
PAUL
�
Al1AA
GITY OF SANT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Ala}•or
October 19, 1998
Timothy Keane
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
1500 Nonvest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
(AfVRY PROFFSSIONdL BUlLOL�'G
Suite 300
3JOSt. PelerSaeet
Sairtt Paul, Afirtsesota 35[01-I510
RE: Sign permit appeal - 287 6th Street East.
Dear Mr. Keane:
y9-3ao
Tefephone: 612-266-9090
Facsimile: 611-266-9099
6lL266-91?J
Sent via fax and regular mail 10/19198
� received yottr letter da:ed 10/15/93 today stating your intent to appeal our decision denying a
� permit application for the referenced sign. Our determination was issued on 9/17/98 and by
ordinance, 66.300 (j), you have 30 days from that date to file an appeal. Appealing a decision of
the Zoning Administrator requires a submission of an application for appeal form along with the
required application fee, ($380), and an explanation of the grounds for appeal. Your letter ���as
received after the 30 day appeal period was expired. Furthermore, the letter itself does not
constitute filin� an appeal. However, since you have stated your intent to appeal our decision
regarding thz referenced sign several times previousiy, I will accept an application for appeal if
the proper form is submitted alona with the appropriate fee and a letter stating your grounds for
appeal, if it is received in this office by October 21, 1998. Although I am w to accept your
late application, I don't know if the Planning Commission, because of the untimely submission,
wi1( be willin� to hear the matter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter you may contact me at 266-9082.
Sinc,erely, " ,
i ,.,.,
� John Hardwick
Zoning Specialist
ec: Wendy Lane
, Larry Solderholm
Peter Warner
�
rnu.� . n v.. �i✓.s�.n r���n
�
LAItKJN, H01'FMnN, DALY & LiNDORLN, Lru.
AT70RNEYB AT LAW
November
I.any Soderh
City �i' Si. Pa
Depa��inicnt c
1) UU City He
25 West Pow
St. Paul, MN
Re: Specd
28? S
Desr Mr. Soi
Tliis lettcr is
Application 1
SuperAmeric
admissian th
be necassary
rac:��s
In Ja��uary l'
source o� mc
llacotah is a
7'hiw Supc:rA
Lowcrtown.
on the si�i !
fncc � rusidc
1987, perfoi
1998
Principal Planner
Planning and Lc:onomic Development
Annex
i Streel
i5IO2
SuperAmeriea LLC Zoning Appeal
Sixth Street Esst
VIA FACSIMILE 228-3220
& U. S. MAtL
�bmitted in s«ppoi�t of Specdway SuperAmerica LLC's (SupezAmerica ot AppellanQ
• Appea} dated actaber 20, 1998, appealing the determination of the Zon[ng Section of
s request w zeinstell its sig+� located at 297 Sixth Straet Hast. Tl�is appliCation is not an
a sign permit or ai3y action by the zoning administrator of other City officiais is ar mi�t
� allow Appellani io lawfully repair SuperAmerica's sign at 287 Esst SixU� Street.
87, SuperAmerica and Charles rsickson, owner of the DaCotah, signed e lease for
� to use the then-existing sign mounted on 4�e Dacotah. The lease income is a significeat
�me i'or the Dacatah and helps make it commereiaUy viable despite the building's age. 'Tha
lvee and five story building immediateJy adjacent to a single-story SuperAmerica statian.
nerica was specialiy designcd pnd constructed of red and buff bxiek to blend in with
Ti�e si�n face sits directly ahove the station canopy and stote. The Dacotah building surCece
de is modern metai corrugatet} siding. Tha sign face az1d station both face T-9Q. They dsr not
itial or commercial area. SuperAmerica has ]awfuliy used and maintained the sign si�tce
ninR maintenance tasks and repairs as necessary. On May 31,1996, by latter to
�
....u..vdd 1��W�
1600 NORWEST cINaNC10.LCENTER
7p0pXER%ESAYENUESOUTN
B1001AIN0TON.MINNE80TA 66�91•H94
TEIEPNONE (812) 836.tB00
FAX (8t2) BYB��.17�
�
�
-
a oa�ne�
Ydtr. orir
a. ka+wraiwme+
+�a.rm. wtuaw
mwxorcw
' /1lOMMItmN4AlOON�W
•• y1�+�4R1NN
"' CW.Y�M�O�M
LARKIN, HOl>FMAN, I7ALY & LINDOREN, L'3'D.
Larry Soderho
November 1 G,
• 3'E�gc 2
n, Principal Plsnncr
998
q 9-3a o
SuperAmerica s sign-maintenance contractor, I.awrenca Signs, the City of SY. Peu3 advised thal when
"existing sign anels are removed and ncw pancls are reinstalled" "(t]he Csty views the current work an
the �•eference s��;n as rouiine maintenunce snd as such did not require s parmit: '
ln the May sto m oi' ] 998, the roof of the building at 287 Bast 5ixth Stree;t sustained struciural damage,
induding the of poriion on which the sign was mounted. 1'he sign at�d supporting stnicture remeined
essentially 'ss�t ct. However, thc huilt-up roof suffered extensiva dantage, SuperAmeriea quickly detached
the si�n struci �re to faci(itate the roof repairs. Both the building ovmor and SuperAmerica intended ihe
sign to be re-a�tached as soon as the roof'repairs were completed.
'1'l�c roof is no repaired, and SuperAmerica has hired a contractor ta re-attsch the sign. The contractor,
I,eiwrence Sig s, Soliows a business practice of a)ways applying for sign permits whenever they do any
signircant sig i work. They do nat analyze wheiher a permit is required or i�ot under different zoning
codes. 1'0llo ing this standard business practice, Lawrence Signs suhmitted a"Sign Permit Application"
to the C;ity of �;i. I'aul for re-anchorin� the SuperAmerica sign, on Septamber I, 1998. By ]otter to
LE�wrence Sig s dated September 17, 1998, snd received September 21,1998, the City 6f St. Paul denied
thc pennit, co struing the appJic�tion es one for a new sign, advertisi»g �oods offered off the premises,
anJ a sign to e constructed in a Neritabc Preservation District. Mr, Hatdwlek did not expres� a position
mi whether or »ot u permit was required in the first place.
� Gi20UNAS �'OR AP1'TAL
,
Rc-nnchorin��thc sign to the repaircd roof after it was removed only to make it easier to repair that roof is
nul placin�; or erecting a sign. The City CounciS did not intond to imposc Q pem�it requirement to
re-anchor the •eme sig�a in the snme place, especially here, wliere the sign was detached only in responsa
to w;nd dama e to the building. Itequiring a perrnit here provides the City sn unexpected method of
re6ulating sig is. If ¢ permit is required and denied, the City will be andorsing an offrcial policy of usin�
nadural disast�r und the resulting good acts of propesty ovmers to puntsh those property owners. This is
ncither the le er nor the s�irit of the zoning code.
7"he St. Paul 'ity Adn�inistrstive Code (Code) § 66.2Q1 governs signs in genarel. It states thet sign
pern�its are r quired to place, ereci, or maintain a sign. Since the Gode in other sections uses ihe word
« ��
"rcplace" wh n a sign is to be pui buck wherc it already existed, "place" as usad in this sectson means
i»it.ia,i placc� ent where a si�n has not bcen placed bafore. (See § b6,302 "replaco, raiocate, or renovate").
SuperAmcric does not seek to piace the sign, since the sign will be re-a�tichored in exactly the same
positiosti it w s before, SuperAmcrica likewise does not seek to "arect" the sign, since ihe sign was
esscntittl]y in act afier the roof Sxiled. SuparA�nerica removed anchor bolts and detached the sign
siructure to f ciliwte thc roof repair. '3"he Code's use of "maintain" most logicelly meazis "keep in glace
without A re �niC' rather than "perform mainienance on", 5inca the City does not contend that sigu owners
nce�f a sign p to perform day-to-day maintenance sueh as paint, raplaee bolts, changa light buibs, and
sc� futtit. Su�berAmerica is not "maintainin�" a sign within this Code meaning. No section of the Code
�
!��■
LARKIT�f, I�Or�MAN DA[.v & LtNDGREN, LT�,
Larry Sodezho n, Principal Planner
November 16,�i99$
mandates a sig i pcnnit !'or re-anchoring of a sign wliieh has merely been moved to aliow repairs on the
building belavl.
lu ff�ct, in the � 9961etter referenced Above, the City expressed exaetty ihis common-sense position to
SuperAmeriea repairs which tempocarily remove the siga or parls of the sign ara repeirs which do not
reyuire a pem� t. To reyuire a permit at this time contradicts the City's earlier position end teads to thc
a�nciusion tha the City is ncting azbitrarily. Under the cieaz languaga o�the Code, and consistent with
the City's prio position, re-anchoring the sign is a repair which doas not require a permit.
1f a permit is r�;q��ired and thc sign is deemed a noncomforming sign, Cdde § 663d1 app}ies.
Scc. G6.30I. Intcnt
' Jt is recogn9zed that signs exist within the zoning districts which
� were lawful before this chapter was enacied, which would be prohiUited,
� regulated, or restricted under the terms of diia chepter or future
� amendmonts. It is Aic intca�t of ihis chapter that non-canfbrming signs shall
� not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for
i adcliug other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the saq'te distr+ct. It is
. further the intent oP this clfapter to permit legal nonconforming signs
� existing an thc effective date af this chapter, or an�endments thereto, to
cuntinue as Icga1 nonconforming signs provided such signs are safe,
maintained so as noi to be unsightly, nor removed and no'z abandoned
subject to the fo)lowuig provisions.
7he ciearly e�ressed intent of iho Code is to allow nonconfortning slgns to stay where they sre, provided
thcy meet Co e requirernents. SuperAmeriea's sign satisfies the provisions of the nonconformity end
should bc allqwed to bc re-a�schored on ihc same place.
Tl,c first
loc:ation is
Thc second
m�ans to an;
apply, sinr.e
building roa
The third p
exactly the
The i'ourth
•r.oninb dis
sion is "No sign sl�all be cnlarged or altered in a way whiph increases its nonconformity."
proposes only to re-anchor thc sign to the new roof; the sign's dimensions and
aro exactly ihe same �as before the roof damage, the structure remains the same, end the
sume. I�o enlargement or aiteration witl occur.
ision is thAt no sign shall be replaced or reconstructed sfter beiag "destroyed by any
ent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of 9ts repiacemant cost." This ptrovision does not
sign wus not destroyed at all by the storm; it remained essentielly intact while the
'on applies to signs that ere �noved. As stated above, tItis sign witl be r�-anchored in
, place. Since it will not be moved, this provision does not apply.
sion baa�s enlarg(nb, extcnding, or moving signs devoted to a use not permitted in tI�e
No enlnrging, extending, or moving will occur, sa Yhis provision does not apply.
�
•
_
�'�
LARKIN, IiOPFMAN, DALY & LINQC'iREN, LTD.
Lrvey Soderho
T}ovember 16,
i Page 4
n, Arincipal Planner
998
Ti�e fiflh provi��ion applies onfy wl�en a structurc loses its nonconfortning status. Neither the
SuperAmerica�st�ation the sign advertises nor the building at 2$7 East Sixth Street have lost
nonc�nformin status, so this provision does not apply.
�I9'3ao
The sixth prov sion sllows repainting, rcp�sting, or replacing when there is a chenge of nonconforming
use. Again, n change of use is proposed, so this provlsion does not apply. Since the sign conforms to a11
the provisions f§ G6.301, and the clear intent of t1�et section is to allow the sign to continue as it existed
bcfore, the re- nchoring is permitted.
qncstions,
Si erely,
umrt
�moty, �.
I.ARKiN
� lanb
C: Jto�
Steve
�444G72.G1
,
respcctfully rec�uests approval of its Application for Appeal. Should you have any
se contact mc at 896-3203.
/ �9�
UA Y & LINDGREN, Ltd.
Mueller, Specdway SuperAmcr;ca LLC (via Pacsimile)
Zeckinger, Speedway 5uperAmerica I,LC (via facsimilo)
��
•, ••• • • • .. rwkEND�r• • • ,•
1VAE50.{PRptl
h�°9tTLKMFMAV
GH(O1DHfPIFLHl
Evxum�.uuscou
fF.NENMIH2
.KfN0.flM11fAER
FANJ(I.IIOAVEY
cwn�s s rnoo¢�
cvmsronatiaFrtrn
woan v�r+
T:(MVSP. ST0.lWJ�
MFW+II.G.NQPVN
plNEO18i
avua� ewn.Es
nurnwri�
w.nwa�me.esow
CIXPNL RCC/SK
MIG'Ofl.W.bGIEY
FIXdiA uYG@S
]E¢R6�KEE &SHCP
fNtYA�
CIFISTCPFEkA HPAftibTVl
NQ0liJ.Ci¢RV�^6E
BRtKFJ Oq%iA5
vauuun a c�o-xmt a+.
JqNR MLL
FEtEftJ.CAYIE
UPFYO. WQfIN
Febntary 12, 1999
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Mr. Peter Warner
� usocn�mtmwwsca+six
^ diYOA(REDW
Ws&np36E1'IS
^ qiY0fY1TE9Ell0/w
Department of Planning and Economic Development Office of the City Attorney
Zoning Section City of St. Pau1
1100 City Hail Annex 15 W Kellogg Boulevard
25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: SuperAmerica Sign at 287 East Sixth Street, St. Paul, MN
Dear Messrs. Soderholm and Warner:
Our office has been notified that Scenic Minnesota opposes the Planning Commission's decision
regarding the SuperAmerica sign at 287 East Sixth Street in downtown St. Paul. Scenic Miunesota seeks
to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Councii. It is our opinion that Scenic
Minnesota lacks standing to seek such an appeal. This letter sets forth our reasoning for challenging the
Seenic Minnesota appeal.
St. Paul Code of Ordinances § 64.206 provides in relevant part:
An appeal may be taken to the city council by any person, firm or
corporation or any officer, deparcment board or bureau affected by a
decision of the boazd or planning commission. (Emphasis added.)
This "affected by" standard repeats identieal language from Minn. Stat § 462357, subd. 6. The precise
meaning of "affected by" is not defined in Yhe Code of Ordinances, state statute, or in Minnesota case Iaa.
Authoritative treatises on municipal law and case law in many other jurisdictions have interpreted that a
person must be "aggrieved by" a decision to have a right to appeal it, and assign the same meaning to
"aggrieved by" and "affected by". It is manifest the intent of "affected by" in the St. Paut City Code is to
incorporate this "aggrieved by" standard. It would be bad public policy for the Minnesota Legislatuse, or
St. Paul City Council, to grant appeal rights on all decisions to any gerson, including non-residents and
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8L LINDGREN, LTD.
A7TORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORWEST FlNANCIAL CENTER
7900XERXESAVENUESOUTN
BIOOMINGTON, MINNESO7A 55431-1194
TELEPHONE (612) 835-366a
FAX (67� 8963333
�
C�
-
�� �
OFCq118
NLKF.blY
D.I�INEM�
p1I1NE WLLKrW
.KC6MCiIi6
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. " 7_ ��
Mr. Larry Soderholm
• Mr. Peter Warner
February 12, 1999
Page 2
non-resident corporations. Consequenily, the "aggrieved by" standazd and decisions are a sound place for
St. Paul to draw the line.
Scenic Minnesota's Interest Does Not Dif£er from Anv Other Citizens'
Generally, to be "aggrieved" or "affected," a party must have a stronger interest than unaffected citizens; a
legal properry interest in either the subject properiy or adjacent properiy impacted by the decision.
Commonly any person aggrieved or affected may take an appeal from an
administrative decision to the zoning board. ... Although a party in order
to be aggrieved need not show a legal injury, the party must ailege and show
injury or damage other than as a member of the general public.
McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, § 25.258. Here, Scenic Minnesota has neither alleged nor shown
that they are any different from ordinary taxpayers. In fact, their aesthetic/historic concerns aze exactly
the same as those that could be raised by any visitor or resident, taxpayer or not, in the City of St. Paul.
Scenic Minnesota Has No Propertv R_ght in the Neiehborhood
• To be affected, and consequently to have a right to appeal, a party must have a properry right in the azea or
neighborhood:
The appropriate parties in appeal ... or other proceedings for relief against,
or reversal of decisions of boards of adjustment or other zoning authorities,
generally must be those aggrieved by the decision, by reason of its adverse
affect upon properry rights. ... the words "any person or persons
aggrieved" include any land owner or resident within the city whose
situation is such that the decision of a zoning boazd may adversely affect the
owner in the use of property owned or occupied by that owner. ...[A]n
owner of property not directly affected by the action of a zoning board
cannot assert merely a general civic interest so as to come within the
meaning of "person aggrieved." However, there can be no aggrievement
when the zoning regulations of a municipality aze amended in such a way
that no particulaz area or property is affected. ...[A]ggrieved is not broad
enough to include anyone other than a person directly affected by the action
of an administrative official or board chazged with the enforcement of the
ordinance.
McOuillin on Municipal Comorations, § 25.318. T'his language is broad enough to inciude a wide variery
of property interests, including adjoining property owners, nearby property owners whose property value
• is affected, tenants, neighborhood or overiay district residents subject to the same zoning reshictions, and
seliers or buyers of land. See Mc uillin § 25318.10. But "[a] property owners or taYpayers assaciation,
whether or not incorporated, which itself pays no taxes or owns no properry affected by a zoning boazd's
decision, is not qualified as an aggrieved party to appeal from a zoning decision. Mc uill' § 25.318.10.
r �
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, I3ALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Larry Soderkokn
Mr. Peter Warner
Februaiy 12, I999
Page 3
Scenic Minnesota Has No Propertv Ri h�t Impacted bv the Decision
We are not aware that Scenic Minuesota owns any land in the City of St. Paul, nor are we aware that any
property they might own is diminished in any way by the Plaiuung Commission's decision. To our
knowledge they have never claimed or alleged such ownership or injury. Obviously, if Scenic Minnesota
owns no property, tken there is no property for the decision to impact. Even if Scenic Minnesota were to
own properry somewhere in the city, that properry is not impacted by the decision. The Allen Building
and the contiguous SuperAmerica store are fhe only property impacted. Finaily, diminishment of propem•
rights is affected, and the decision enhances both the Allen Building and the adjacent SuperAaierica
Store. The decision diminishes no properry right. Without injury in fact, a party cannot have standing.
Virginia Beach Beautification Commission v. Bd. Of Zonine Appeals of Vir�inia Beach, 344 S.E.2d 899,
902-903 (1986}
Associations Such as Scenic Minnesota Never Have Standine
C�
An association which neither owns adjacent properiy, nor has members owning adjacent property, has
never been granted standing to contest a zoning decision in the United States. 8 A.L.R. 4th 1087
(surveying United States cases on standing of civic or property owner associations to challenge zoning
board decisions as aggrieved parties). Without propeny neazby that has been hanned by the Planning
Commission's decision, Scenic Minnesota and its individual members do not have standing to bring this -•
appeal. We suggest that the St. Pau1 Ciry Council follow the lead of coutis in many other jurisdicYions, in
setting sensible limits on who may appeal City decisions.
Scenic Minnesota Does Not Renresent the Nei¢hborhood Interests
Even if Scenic Minnesota members awn impacted property, Scenic Minnesota is not tke proper
organization to pursue this appeal. Most jurisdictions that have considered the question, follow the
reasoning in Douglaston Civil Ass'n v. Galvin, 324 N.E.2d 317 (NY 1974), to detemiine wfien an
association properly represents the interests it claims to protect. Douglaston and the many courts
following it have held that the association must have four prerequisites to pursue an appeal on behalf of its
members:
The organization has the capacity to pursue an adversary position;
2. The size and the composition of the arganization fairly represents the communiry of
interests it seeks to protect;
3. Full membership in the organization is available to all residents and property owners in the
affected neighborhoods; and
4. The adverse effect of the decision sought to be reviewed on the group represented by the
associarion is within the zone of interests sought to be protected. �
AWAItE v. Town of North Hempstead, 367 N.Y.S2d 374, 376 (1975) (quoting Dou lg aston).
�
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINAGREN, L�. �j q 3ao
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Mr. Peter Warner
S February 12, 1999
Pa�e 4
5cenic Minnesota does not fulfill these prerequisites. Scenic Minnesota appears to have made no effort to
involve Lowertown neighborhood residents or owners of lustoric buildings in their membership. See
United Civic Associations v. Planniug Bd. Of Clifton Pazk, 583 N.Y.5.2d 901, 903 (1992) (holding that
the interests of a group with fifty-one members living all over town "are not necessarily the same as those
persons residing in the vicinity of the project ") This, despite the fact that they claim to protect
neighborhood aesthetic and historic interests. In this matter, in fact, they directly oppose Charles
Erickson, owner of the Allen Building, in his effort to preserve the building as a viable commercial
enterprise. In pursuing their agenda for the aesthetics of Lowertown, they ignore mazket realities. The
agenda of Scenic Minnesota threatens to "preserve" Lowertown and the greater City of St. Paul, by
discouraging investments, precluding modemization, and conscripting owners, like Mr. Erickson, into
service of Scenic Minnesota's aesthetic. Scenic Minnesota does not fairly represent the community it
purports to represent, nor does it include key members of the communiry in the affected neighborhoods.
While not dispositive of the issues argued herein, it is interesting to note that none of the truly "affected"
parties who received tegal notification of the original appeal in this matter objected at any point in this
process.
COI3CLUSION
• We urge the City of St. Paul to interpret "affected by" to sensibly limit appeals to the City Council in
accord with authority in every other jurisdiction that has considered the question. Specifically, a party
seeking appeal must own a property interest, and that property interest must be hanned by the decision.
Without these prerequisites, a pariy lacks standing to appeal. For the reasons contained here, Scenic
Minnesota is not a pariy "affected by" the decisaon, and the City Council should not hear their appeai.
Verf truly yours,
�
Timothy J. K ane, for
LAIZKIN, H FMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Qaentin H. Wood, Esq., Mazathon Ashland Petroleum LLC
Roman Mueller, Speedway SuperAmerica LLC
Charles Erickson, Dacotah Properties
0460496.OI
�
Y�II
i
•
1. SLJNRAY-BATIT.ECREEK-HIGHWOOD
2. HAZEL PARK HAUEN-PROSPERTT'Y HILLCREST
3. WEST SIDE
4. DAYTON'S BLIT�F
5. PAYNE-PHALEN
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ii.
12.
13.
14.
15.
17.
NORTH END
THOMAS-DALE
SUMMTT-TJNIVERSTTY
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE-MIDWAY
ST. ANTT-iONY PARK
MERRTAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLIIv'E-S?rTELLING HAhiLI'��
MACALESTER GROVETAND
HIGHLANb
SUIviMIT HILL
DOWNTOWN
Z�NING F�LE4 -2
�
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICrS
99-3�0
� _.. - - - ----
r
�� ,� .«,
ZON�NG �iLE -��
,•
;E<: - �
K _'r's� '} i `
S J. _
if.. . _ . _ : `-. _ . .
-�'."-::�.__�. � - � �T�- 3 � - _ � � s �� , g �a
td 1 y
Y � ���• s��� 3 i3 ���3��8�� 2��y3.�4� I
1 9 �. s a gx as .c .i• ine� � g zdi Is
� a . . . � �-. i�� gy � II�z€ '15a i ' � y �;�� •x ��
�� x � 3 �s �x�ii ��t3� �`3' 4�•r �a�@'F•s sr 3aS3&
i a� �t.�a ��s $ s¢ . sQwB � i°i�
� � � � � �� . $ � 1 �$ ��� ��..� 3� . � � y � g 3�s �
J� w .� � di[ ^sie� ��g'Y � i 4 s��
LY Q�� r'� ����� ~ S� 6 �;i����#��� fi s}�.j�
�` � �. - . .�- o'" , a � - -�$ �: �3' gg a � � ° • ` a � �s
� _ R �' : ga � _3r s3 3§��6�$ s: � '
.?.. . ..�3 ss ..��' � la aE Eg'� s" °` ss
s '�`�� � •. .� q w 9��°. •fi �y��e3 ¢�oe3����idi � ��3��� 9A �f�3 ie
�� i. : a { �, §��
-_ stlb4� 9�Sd�R:r.:$aG:Y3 3zxJ� Jari�<°ais� 3s i��'J��s
�'`_ � s
-3ua ' a
r" � Ri
�-;.; . �
� � `°-
� ��<>
;^; � ���� .
rr �.. . � - ' , � ------- G�� n co c y�Q
°:�,; f�.�:°.:� ;' , `��, a��� ��
� .
� y, � � ` �
- � � �� :' �q� , ,f°`;`/ C �` • � ,.
'{"T� . "l 9 $ { t //
'
eY ?.�W^ �.�� . ia'� �.� 8� "
�^': _ _`,? '-�T � � ``1 ` � '.• : � ' r��s�6�'
�, s �`-�"'_ ' � � � ' .
� �-� � � -_:�� ¢ ��;
� � � �
�
� �a ��r � � � � _.� -��.
� � _� : -
, � � r a
�
�� x �� ,_ J _ j i�� g�
_ - , �
�. _ # � . �` '� ` �
�� ` .� � : � 5 � �� � �.
" � < � ,� r '.
���� ^ r � � - ` w ��" �.
w"� ,� r � ' �' .,
�
� � � -�� . � a ,/ �, ! u � '
� � �Yr` p-` �.` v. , �--^ � � __ -
�� �. � - .
`� � �' � �.- s �
� - � �^- �� �+, -
���
'� ->,.. aY � y,
'ko . r' I' ' �' ��� yyy y, !�5 ' � ,
T . . �S �'YI � � � � � J . • � � � J_ � !f�
� f =i.'�'�y"�-�`_ : <� � \ �•. �\ ` �r
1_f�'"�y�"P_A"A' �,�,�'�~ ��� � � . ' 4 � - �. \ f .•.
�Y„�, 'bY' `� . _ � #RS 2' , �- a 1 < ' �, .'.
� � C 4� � ' :
� �� � "� ` r
� -���" .`� � §�� _ " - `� =
r
��, , � �-�¢� \ � �; �`: �'�
�G;;r: u . : - _ 'h � \'', ' .��-�
� 3.� L \ �
� `� ° �' f '� ",-^:�' •� ��..: �, /F, /
,�n. %';,�. , __ .� r���j
'C�.:' _ ' / .:,
� u'r;a`: � . - .. : �- \ � 'j`
.,:;' -- � / W ---
�,-,. . /� ,= ' �.
`�` -� ' , S � � � a � �
�z� . : Sr ' �� _ +��' � ',
�� u < �`; � _, " 3
" � '..,- ^C%�✓':.: • S� ` -- S� � ��°' }e • X(
' � ' � t '' • �3: ' _ _ F
:.���' `'. -_ ' `�6����' �i,
-v .,..� � c;�x � ,
�°�. �:�. .. ''" . ,.�����.
1�v..£.: ^�pr�yL.: `�\ �
p.Y� •.i[. :�^i�.c. .- _ _ .
� ya� Y 1�.. . . . �
st �'� . ; a �i:.,���"y.��'.$•.�� -' ':.5.
? - } a � y .,• .
r�o !. ,t s t �...� .- ,
...�.e,._...s_...s,.R.,..�_'.�_....�. ,. ._._ .._ ._ . - •
i � .
�� )
:� � e d �� � �� " -
� g�3���. . .,� a g.
��
�a��8� 3 � � � �
i-,���-�:'� � �F=s i s u�
�''.�'3 �§�t�3���� : .
£ is3�� .+�a�%s=: i � � b �.
}, �=�3^'�e;;��� 9 Fp� �� �m �.
�-��� ���g�3���$�� � . ``.'
��aSSS �}"�:r•��8t@a 8 ' a3 r d- ^ sq .:
�y.�g�} � �1� ,t�} F � a �,a �
� a �a a
�9�ss$ ��$�s�5��� �� r �� a � �
8"'��'� aa ���'• a �'� � � �'- ;
s � 3
� •9g4 �''��'_� ��� s=
a�`$a33 �-3.:.� xia� : a � FO- � ��
��� a'� s
� ��� �����
---�-- j, � �e�� `�ga ��
/ °'
, �` °'°` � �
1 � / �' ,�� 2.
' �} �� �'� ��°; �� :
e 3
€� _ ��
�'��� � r§g��� 5s'y � g :_
�-� ����-��- � ; ��� � � `.
/ � �\''\� �� � ,
�, �. � � � 4 Z 3S'� �'2 �,
, �. \� ��' �
, \
����._� � _��� �� :;�
:� �
�, � -;��: � ,�
F �� :� � ��e , t- �
' ,��_ '�, � , � `
� � S
�' .;
� � _ � _ � -� n = -
g �,, / ,,�'''�f � s �o '
r. �/��k' a
^ +� / 9 � Y „
�� �� � , ' �! •`• , xl
�� � �4 � � _` a �
. g5�� �\ : j• w : $ : -: �
`�- e I��� p� y ' `` �, u:� ..�
�f$ S � �' "' "
���� yg-•{ � � �
� ///3 � •
___'_' ' _ f� -_�
a� °S��
-��� f ' � �
m��.
�
:_ �
� I
�
�
z
;a �
�
. �
i
,
�:_.
e ^ com,urc:-::
..o,..� indus;rc::
V V�IC.'.�i
.�T,"�� .K�.� li;
! �' � ' '�� V / 2\
%' '" In � � • �� �✓��
1
� �'"\ � :'�� �, � , , i ��
��/'��O
BY-I,AWS OF SCENIC MINNESOTA
f:�d:�:i:�:i>i�l
ARTICLE I.
Name of Corporation_ The name of the Corporation is Scenic
Minnesota, Inc.
ARTICLE II.
Location of Princinle Office. The Corporation's principle office is
1985 Grand Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105, or such other
addresses as the Corporation may from time to time use and register
with the Secretary of State of Minnesota. The principle office of
the Corporation is also the mailing address.
ARTICLE III.
Purposes o£ the Corporation. The Corporation's purposes shall be
operated for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes as
defined by � 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Specifically,
and limited by the foregoing general purposes, the Corporation's
purposes shall be:
1. To promote and carry out programs that protect natural
beauty in the environment, preserve and enhance landscapes and
streetscapes, protect historical and cultural resources, promote
the enhancement of scenic approaches to, and settings of, cities
and towns, improve community appearance, and foster establishment
and preservation of scenic road systems.
2. To promote education of the public about the economic,
social, and cultural benefits of protecting and enhancing scenic
resources and community appearance.
3. To coordinate local, regional, and state efforts to
preserve and enhance visual resources.
4. To provide information to appearance commissions, garden
clubs, historic preservation groups, environmental organizations,
civic groups, government agencies, and other individuals and
organizations interested in preserving and enhancing visual
resources.
5. To research, study, and analyze federal, state, and local
policies affecting visual resources.
6. To encourage and Poster any other such activity that has
the purpose of promoting appreciation and preservation of visual
resources.
7. To do anything, perform any act, and exercise any right in
any power now hereafter conferred by the laws of the State of
Minnesota upon a general not-for-profit corporation organized under
1
qq -3�
the laws of the State oP Minnesota, and in general to carry on any
of the activities herein set forth to the same extent and as fully
as a natural person might or could do. However, nothing set forth
in these Articles shall be construed as authorizing the Corporation
to possess for any gurpose, any object, or any power to do anything
forbidden by law to a not-for-profit corporation organized under
the laws of the 5tate of Minnesota or to engage in activity not
approved by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,
inciuding any substitute or successor section. The Corporation
shall not gossess or exercise any power or authority, either
expressly, by interpretation or by operation of law which will
prevent it from, at any time, qualifying and continuing to quali£y
as a corporation described in section 501(c){3) of the Internal
Revenue Code, including any substitute or successor section.
B. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ARTICI,E V.
Board of Directors. The Board of Directors (Board) shall govern the
Corporation and control its property and business and shall have
all the usual powers of a corporation Board in setting the policies
and managing the business and affairs of the Corporation. They
shall make all rules and regulations they deem necessary and proper
for the government of Scenic Minnesota, Inc. and the orderly
conduct of its business and affairs consistent with the
Corporation's charter and by-laws. The Board shall have the power
to appoint such subordinate officers, employees, or agents as they
deem may be necessary to conduct Scenic Minnesota, Inc.'s business
and to design their titles and compensation, if any. To this end,
the Board may engage an Executive Director, who shall help carry
out policies approved by the Board and, subject to Board approval,
enter into all contracts required for the conduct of the business
of Scenic Minnesota, Inc. The Board shall use their best efforts
and act in good faith to fulfill Scenic Minnesota, Inc.'s purpose
and exercise the Board's powers as expressed in the Corporation's
charter and by-laws. The Board may, by a two-thirds vote of its
entire membership, suspend or expel any member upon evidence of a
material violation of these by-1aws, public laws or regulations or
practices of Scenic Minnesota, Inc.
rs������r��
CQm_position. The initial Board shall be comprised of three members
and the Board shall thereafter be comprised of not less than three
nor more than fifteen members. The Board shall appoint the
directors at the annual meeting from a slate presented to them by
2
99 -3ao
��
-� �
�
� ���- �
;, �
.
.
� ��
�
�,. i + ` �, �_
i +- �-�� �' � � ��
�
� � ��
. � �;., ;� •
� / � .,�.
�:
i ,.
1 � _ r � i. � �:
� 1V-ci
z g-3
2ti�
2
£ebruary 22, 1999
., � i r1v� � r�ii �� �� ���n u �v�� •
BRIAN 6&'�ES
ATfORt�E'( A7 UVW
t986 drmd Avenue
Selnr PoW, MMR�ssota 551D5
�6,2j ssags�,
BY FAX ONLY
Mr. Larry Soderzclm
Department of Planning and
Economic Development
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
99 3ao
R E�E►UE�
F � g � 21999
ZoN��
Mr_ Peter Warner
O£fice of City Attorney
City Hali
15 Wes� Kellogg B1d.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Speedway SuperAmerica Billboard Appeal.
Dear Messrs. Soderholm and Warr.er:
Z have just reviewed Mr. Keane's letter of February 12,
1999, in which he challenges Scenic Minnesota's standing to bring
the referenced appeal. This letter responds to the issue of
standing and raises the issue of the jurisdict,ion of the Planning
Comr,�ission to overtuzn the zoning AdministYators decision which
disallowed the rebuildinq of the subject billboard.
�. •f • -�!_f• •1 _�� • •'.- :��-.
As the record indicates SuperAmerica missed the orzginal.
appeal deadline of the Zoning Administrator's decision not to
allow the subject billboard to be zebuilt, The appeal deadline
was thirty days after September 17, 1998. In his letter
rejecting Mr. Michael's application for a permit to rebuild the
billboard, Mr. Hardwick was specific about the appeal process.
"Any decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator
regarding siqns may be appealed to the Planning Commission by
submitting an application stating the zeason you believe the
decision is in error al _��l,c� w� h h �gp* fee �o th� s
of��e w�thj�n�0 dav� oP t e d te ef th+c letter " Record p. 31.
Mr. Keane responded with a brief letter on October 15,
R-32. The letter did not state reasons for the appeal and,
significantly, did not contain the required fee. Eailure to
timely submit a notice of appeal and appeal fee is fatal to
appeal. County of Ramsey v. Minneso�a Pub. Utilities Comm'n,
1S.W,2d 740, 744-45 (Minn. 1989)(notice of appeal timely but
day late was fatal).
1998.
more
any
345
fee a
rCD 1G•Gl J� �n�� r�ni}i}anu a c�,�ir o�.cc�...�.-+ �•c.... v.�
9 9 -3ao
Soderholm, Ptarner
February 22, 1999
Page 2.
.�. ..
Soenic i�Rinnesota has members who hava p�operty interests
within twa blocks of the propased billboard site. These memhers
will submit affidavits supporting their interests at the heazing
on riednesday, Febxuary 24, 1999. Scenic Minnesota obtains
ozganizational standing through these members. Organiaational
standing is a common and well-accepted legal concept.
Regards,
_•_� � � r .
Brian Bates
cc: 3ohn Mannillo
, TOTAL P.02
�v
District 17
CapitolRiver
Council
332 Minnesota Street Suite N150, Saint Paul, T.Pi I SS101
9y-3aa
6512210488 FAX 651221 0581
- Webrite: www.capitolrivaorg E-mail: capriveiCpionee[planet.in5.net
Larry Soderholm, PED Zoning
25 West Fourth Street
1100 City Hall Annex
Saint Paul, Mn 55102
Re: Zoning File Number 99-010
Dear Mr. SoderhoLn,
R ECEIVED
FE8 2 31999
������
The information sent to the District Council office regazding the appeal ot the decision of the
Planning Commission #99-010 also included the information sheet on Speedway SuperAmerica
LLC's appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administration #98-288.
The packet of information included several correspondence's between Zoning Specialist, John
Hardwick and Mr. Timothy Keane, representative of Speedway SuperAmerica. In a letter dated
October 19, 1998 (attached) from Nlr. Hazdwick to Mr. Keane he indicated that Mr. Keane had
not properly filed an appeal of the zoning administrations decision to uphold the special sign
district that a storm damaged billboazd can not be reconstructed. In ttils letter it states that not
only did the 30 day time period for apQeals expire he also did not complete the proper appeal
forms or submit the appropriate fee. Mr. Keane was granted an extension to submit the necessary
documents. Mr Keane's anneal was acce�ted and the Plannina Commission heard and suanor[ed
his anneal. T
I would like to bruig to your attention a separate zoning matter File # 97-87 mt�ilul December 22,
1997. The CaipitolRiver Council, Distriet 17 (CRC) opposed the decision of the Zoning
Commiltee of the P(unning Commission to allow a slgn vuriunce for AUiance Bunk. 'Cl�e
information slteet on d�is matter indicated that all appeals must be filed witlun 15 days. As you
maybe aware this was during the Holiday season and end of the year business. As a result of the
timing of this zonir.g matter the CRC filed it's appeal on January 21, 1998. Our anoeal was not
accented hv staff and subseauentiv was not heard bv Citv CouncH.
Our concem is with the inconsistent handling of important zoning matters such as these. The
CapitolItiver Council requests that fair and consistent pracuces be assured in zoning matters for
the downtown community.
Please inciude this information in your staff report for the February 24th public hearing.
Sincerely, \
�� �J��U r lJ
elson, Community Organizer
� PUBLIC HEARING NOTiCE
• � z SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL
{ ?a: satKr '�akt c�ty cou���l
f� - t3a�tto.� co�^�a�Y
We ow.� Ptoper�'y �r 6rh_a.,d 57vtef ,� sf.Oau! a.�d � G � u p e SuP�
�tl.A �S 5 r�yut �ta Re��stut� - rl�e:v s�'qh . �3a.%/� Cr � Gitj'
stg�1 D�'�a� I GGa.r.�rati•
� TO Property Owners within 350 feet;
Representatives of Pianning DistricF 17
�� �
= � � APPL{CANT
PURPOS�
�oca�r�a�
OF PROPEF�TY
TlME OF HEARiNG
PLACE OF HEARII�G
HOW TO PARTICIPATE
ANY QUESTIONS
Brian Bates - Scenic Minnesota
Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission that would permit
reinstaila;ion of a large storm-damagad sign until 2015.
287 Sixfh Streei between Wall and Broadway
Wednesday, February 24, 1939
5:30 P.M.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall - Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard - Sainf Paul, Minnesota 55102
1. You may attend hearing and testify.
2. You may send a letter before the hearing to
25 W Fourth Street, 1100 City Hail Annex, St Paui Minnesota 55102
3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of public hearing.
Call Larry Soderholm of the Zoning Office at (651) 266-6575 or your District
Council Representative at (651)221-0488 with the following information:
Zonsng File Number: 99-01�
Zoning File Name: Brian Bates - Scenic Minnesota
Mailing Date: February 10, 1999
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY �/�
C[ayton M Rabinson, Jr., City Attomey
Civil Division
400CiryHa11 Tetephorre: b512bb-8710
ISWestKelloggBlvd Facsimile:657298-i6I9
Saint Paul, Minnesofa 55102
I�AND DELIVERED
Nancy Anderson
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Ciry Hail
RE: Appeal of Scenic Minnesota, Inc.
Zoning File 98-288
Council Action Date: February 24, 1999
Dear Nancy:
Attached please find the signed original of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint
Paul City Council in the matter of the appeal by Scenic Minnesota, Inc. which concerned the
SupexAmerica sign located at 287 East Sixth Street.
In addition, af you could, would you please caption this and other similu matters invoiving the
approval of zoning related appeals appeazing on the consent agenda as a resolution
"memorializing the deczsion "of the city council. The council made its decision on Febnxary 24,
1999. This resolution merely reduces the decision to a writing. Ca11 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
���I "' �V�'�'
Peter W. Warner
Council File # q9 - 3a
OR�G�NA�.
RESOLUTION
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Green Sheet # �o �� e�
�
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
2 WHEREAS, in Zoning File No. 98-288 and pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul
3 Legislative Code § 66.408, Speedway SuperAmerica LLC (SuperAmerica), made applicafion to
4 appeal the decision of the Saint Paul Zoning Administrator concerning a storm damaged sign
5 located on property commonly known as 287 East Sixth Street and legally described as: Whitney
6 and Smiths Addition subject to Sixth Street; vacated streets accruing in document #2278165 and
7 following; part of Kittson's Addition adjacent to and in SD Whitney and Smiths Adctition, Lots
$ 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5; and
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
VVI�REAS, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission (Zoning
Committee) conducted public hearings on the said appeal on November 23, 1998, and on
December 10, 1998 where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard. At the
close of the Decembex 10, 1998 hearing, the Zoning Committee moved to recommend to the full
Saint Paul Planning Commission that SuperAmerica's appeal be granted subject to the condition
that the sign be removed in 2007; and
WHEREAS, On December 18, 1998, the Saint Paul Planning Commission (Planning
Commission), after discussing the matter, moved to return the matter to the Zoning Committee
for additional review. On December 29, 1998, the Zoning Committee again considered the
matter in light of SuperAmerica's offer to remove the subject sign by 2015. The Zoning
Committee again recommended granfing the appeal; and
WHEREAS, The Plamiing Commission, on January 8, 1999 granted SuperAmerica's
appeal based upon the following findings and conclusions as set forth in Planning Commission
Resolution 99-01:
The sign in this case is owned by Dacotah Properties LLP and has been leased since 1987
to Speedway SuperAmerica LLC which owns the business next door. The sign is almost
four times the size of a standard freeway billboard but the message is changed only very
infrequently. The sign is designed to be visible from the nearby freeway which is
appropriate as the sign is intended to attract freeway drivers to the SuperAmerica store.
2. At the beginning of the summer of 1998, the sign blew over in the second of two major
windstorms to hit the city. The sign peeled back the roof of the build'mg and had to be
removed in order for the roof repairs to proceed. LIEP staff advised the contractors not to
reconstruct the sign without a building permit.
aq-3�o
2
�
6
7
8
9
10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
3. On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. appiied for a sign pemut to reinstall the sign
frame and panels which were blown down by the storm. Since at least 1987 - and since
1961, according to the testimony of the building owner - the sign has been used
exclusively to advertise SuperAmerica's (or its predecessor's) products for sale on the
premises immediately next door, almost below the sign itself.
On 5eptember 17, 1998, John Hazdwick of LIEP sent a letter denying the permit
application. The letter was received by the appellant on September 22, 1998. The City
received the appeal of Mr. Hardwick's denial from the appellant on October 19, 1998,
and a more detailed letter explaining the appeal was received on November 16, 1998.
T'he proper method to measure the thiriy (30) day appeal period is either from the date of
the letter denying the application for a sign permit to the date of the letter or document
invoking the appeal or from the date of receipt of the letter or document invoking the
appeal. By either test, in this case the appeal was perfected in a timely fashion.
The Zoning Administrator determined the sign to be an advertising sign. In its appeal,
among other points, the appellant stated the following grounds for its appeal:
�
C.
Re-anchoring the sign does not require a new sign permit.
The sign is a conforming sign under the ambiguous provisions of the
SPLC.
The historic district regulations do not prohibit replacing nonconforming
signs.
D. The sign is not an advertising sign.
E. Mr. Hardwick's denial misapplies the provisions of SPLC §§66301 and
66302.
4. The Zoning Administrator ened in deciding that the sign should be regulated as an
advertising sign. The sign, based on the evidence submitted at the public hearing, is a
business sign because;
A. The sign appeazs visually to be part of the SuperAmerica site.
B. The sign overhangs and partially encroaches into the air space of the
SuperAmerica properry.
C. The sign has been used continuously and exclusively for 37 years to
advertise the business on the SuperAmerica property.
D. The sign is leased directly to the appellant unti12007 and is not owned by
a billboard or display advertising company.
E. The sign is not a standard billboazd size and, therefore, would not be easily
leasable as part of an outdoor advertising campaign.
F. The sign is not required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to
obtain the pernut normally required of a billboard along a highway.
5. Because the sign is a business sign, the provisions on nonconfornung signs found in §
66301 of the SPLC, not those of § 66.302, are applicable to this case as follows:
Page 2 of 4
2
0
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
A. The applicant proposes to reinstall the sign exactly as it was before it blew p
over. The sign will not be enlazged or altered. �� 3 �
B. The damage to the sign did not exceed 51 % of its replacement value. The
sign blew over essentialiy intact onto the rooftop. The damage was to the
parapet wall upon which the sign sat and to the roof. The sign could have
been tipped upright and reinstalled. It was removed to a11ow access for
building and roof repairs necessitated by the storm.
C. Although the sign was removed from the buiiding premises while other
building and roof repairs were made, the owner intends to reconstruct the
sign in exactly the same spot. The "moving" of the sign was temporary;
no perxnanent change in position is proposed.
The remauung provisions of SPLC § 66301 do not apply.
6. Since the sign is a business sign, not an advertising sign, the current moratorium imposed
by the City Council on erection of advertising signs in the downtown and certain other
areas in the city does not apply to the reinstallation of this sign.
WHEREAS, the Planning Comxnission, in approving the appeal of SuperAmerica based
upon the above-stated findings and conclusions, added the following conditions to its approval
as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 99-01:
2.
3.
�
The same sign and same sign frame shucture shall be used to the percentage restriction of
tkae SPLC with oniy the minimuxn repairs necessary to ensure safety and the struchxral
integrity of the sign itself. The sign sha11 not be enlazged, raised, moved or extended.
The sign shall be used only as a business sign for the properiy on which it is located or
for the SuperAmerica properiy and shall not be used as an advertising sign.
The sign shall be removed at any future point when it is not leased to the owner of the
SuperAmerica properiy for use as a business sign or used by the owner of the properiy on
which it located as a business sign, provided, however, that the use of the sign, as
presently configured, shall cease no later than January 1, 2015. After that date the total
amount of business signage for the SuperAnnerica property shail not exceed the amount
currently permitted in 1999, which is 934 squaze feet, or the amount permitted in 2015,
whichever is greater. Also after that date the total amount of business signage for the
Allen Building property shall conform to the regulations in effect in 2015.
If required by the SPLC or any other applicable statute or law, a building permit shall be
secured before reinstalla6on of the sign. In the event that review of the building permit
application is required by any other public agency or body, it is the intent of this
resoluuon that such review be expressly limited by the finding that the sign is a business
sign.
5. The resolution and its conditions are expressly accepted in writing by Speedway
SuperAmerica LLC and Dacotah Properties LLP on behalf of themselves, their
successors, assigns and agents.
WHEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, Inc., pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative
Code § 64.206, did on January 8, 1999 duly file with the City Clerk an appeal from the
determination made by the Planning Commission and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul
City Council for the purposes of considering the actions taken by the said Comxnission; and
Page 3 of 4
1 WHEI2EAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.260- 64.208 and upon
2 notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on Febn.ia.ry q � _ 32�
3 24, 1999, where all interested parties were given an opporhxnity to be heazd; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the
6 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and
7 the Planniug Commission, does hereby;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Pau1 affirms the decision of the
Plamiing Commission in this matter. The Council finds that the Plamziug Commission
committed no error in fact, finding or procedure in this matter. Accordingly, the Council
approves issuance of a permit to reinstall the sign subject to the five conditions unposed by the
Planuing Commission in its resolution 99-01 dated January 8, 1999. Finally, the Council adopts
as its own the fmdings and determinations of the Planning Commission as contained in Planning
Commission Resolution 99-01; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Scenic Minnesota be and is hereby denied;
and be it
FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
Scenic Minnesota, Inc., SuperAmerica; the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission.
ORI�INAL
Requested by Department of:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
BY� � � ._ C s�
Approved by Mayor: Date
By:
Form Appx d]�y City f Attosney
g �G-� �./ ('iVt/hd-�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
By'
Adopted by Council: Date � � y ,`�.%
- � - �T �
qq - 3a�
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/CWNCIL DATEINITWTEO
c�t cou���� March 29, 1999 GREEN SHEET No 64026
CONTACT PERSON 5 M10NE tnnlylDate Inn�aubae
Councilmember Coleman o�,N„�xr,�cr,R a�rca�
MUSi BE ON C�UNCIL AGENDA eY (OAi�
.tiSS�cN
April 7, 1999 ��� mr�nen�Er rnratnrz
rtovrtxc
� nwseuamv¢ssooc wawu��amvi�ccrc
❑OaYOR1aRA39Btnr11) ❑
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
C7IOP1 RE�UESTm
Memoriali2ing the decision of the City Council taken February 24, 1999,denying the appeal
of Brian Bates/Scenic Minnesota to a decision of the Planning Commission allowing
reinstallation of a storm-damaged sign of SuperAmerica at 287 E. Sixth Steeet.
RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) w eject (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRAGTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESiSONS:
t. HasthispersoMfi�meverwoMeEUnderacontrac[forthisdepartment7
PLANNING COMMISSION YES NO
CIB COMMITTEE 2. Has this peisorVfirm ever been a dry employee?
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vES NO
3. Does this persoNfiim possess a sltill rwt rioimaltypossessetl by arry curreM city employeel
YES NO
4 Is ihis personlfirtn a targMetl vendoR
YES NO
E+�la(n alI Y� a�swers on separate sheet an0 attach to O�n sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR7UNITV (Wfio, Wl�at, When, Wliere. W�y)
DVAMAGES IF APPROVED �
DISADVAMAGESIFAPPROVED �
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION t COS7/REVENUE BUDGEfED (CIRCLE ONE� VES NO
FUNDIN6 SOURCE ACTNfTY NUMBE0.
FlNANCIAL INFORMAT10t1(IXPWN)
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
4a
CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL
Narm Coleman, Mayor
January 25, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
CiTy Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Divisron of Plmvtirzg
ZS West Founh Street
Sainr Paut, MNSSIO2
Telephone: 612-26fr6565
Facsimite: 612-228-331¢
�'n'F2�R�" ��;. . �� :°�;
� , . � ;� � r. �-'�
..Zf'i:: :d 3 :�w'v
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
February 24, 1999, for the following zoning case:
Applicant:
File Numbet:
Purpose:
Address:
Legal Description:
PREVIOUS ACTION:
BRIAN BATESlSCE1VIC MINNESOTA
#99-010
Appeal of Planning Commission decision allowing reinstallation of a storm-
damaged sign at 287 E. 5ixth Street for SuperAmerica. (The Zoning
Administrator denied permits to reinstall the sign. SuperAmerica appealed to the
Planning Commission, whicli reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision.)
287 E. Sixth Street (location of sign; SuperAmerica is on E. Seventh)
See file
Zoning Administrator:
Zoning Committee Recommendarion:
Planning Commission Decision:
Denial of building permit, September 17, 1998
Approval of SuperAmerica appeal with conditions; vote: 7-0,
December 29, 1998
Approval of SuperAmerica appeal with conditions; unanimous
voice vote, January 8, 1999
My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the February 24, 1999
City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Please call me at 266-6572 if you have any questions.
SSncerely,
L�arry 3eflerholm
Principal Planner � ' ��T�"'
xm7c� o F pusuc �nxnvc
cc: File #99-010 'fhe St. Paul City Council svi71 conduct a public hearing or� Wednesday. February
P2.U1 Dubritiei 24, 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the Cit3r Council Chambers. Third Fl4or. City Hail{Court
House to- consider the appeal of �Brian Bates/Scenic Minnesota to a decision �of the
�aT01 M1tLirieBU P3anning Commission allowing reins[ali�ati on of a storm-damaged sign of
SuperAmerica at 287 E. Sixth Street. � _ .
Dated: January, 27, 1999 . - - .
NRNCXANDERSON - - - -- __ . - , � . . � - , �
Assisk.aztt City CounciL Secretazy , ' �
� - - - � (Jazivary 29, 1999) - � � ' �
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�
'
Pamela WheeZoc7� Director
9s- 3ao
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coieman, Mayor
25 West Faurth Saeet Telephone: bi2-2b6fi565
Saint Paul, JvL\ 55102 Facsimile: 612-228-3314
February 17, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Councii
Room 310 Ciry Hall
Saint Paul, MN SS 1Q2
RE: Zoning File # 99-010: BRIAN BATES - SCENIC MINNESOTA
CiTy Council Hearing: February 24, 1999 at 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision on I18l99 that determined the fo]lowing: (a) that
a storm-damaged sign at 287 E• Sixth Street, which is four times as big as a standard freeway billboard,
is a business sien, not an advertisinQ sien, because it had been used continuously as a business si�n for
Ule SuperAmerica at 296 E. Seventh Street (b) that, as a business sign, it can be reinstalled even though
the sign was removed after a storm last spring to facilitate repair of the roof on which it stood and even
though there is currently a moratorium on biliboard permits in the downtown; and (c) that--because the
sign is so big and is located in the Lowertown Historic Aistrict, where billboards aze not permitted—
SuperAmerica and the property owner must remove the sign by 2015, a condition which they voluntarily
offered to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission's decision overLurned a decision on 9f 17f98 by the Zoning Administrator 3n
LIEP that the storrn-damaged sign was an advertising sign and could not be put back up. SuperAmerica
appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission.
Now Scenic Minnesota is appealing the Planning Commission's decision on the following grounds: (a)
that the sign is by definition an advertising sign because it is not located on the premises o£ the
SuperAmerica and cannot be reinstalled because of the current moratorium on permits for advertising
signs, (b} that if this sign, which has been treated by city staff in the past as an advertising sign, can
switch to being regulated as s business sign, then other billboards may also be able to switch; (c) that if
the sign is rebuilt it will be protected by the Federal Highway Beautification Act and the City may have
to Qay its economic value if it orders the sign's removal in 2Q15; and (d) the sign adversely affects the
Lowertown Aistoric D3strict.
LOCATION: Before it blew over and was removed for roof repairs, the sign was located on the roof at
287 E. Sixth Street immediately in back of and partially encroaching on the properry of the
SuperAmerica gas station and convenience store at 296 E. Seventh Sneet.
\�PED\SY52\SFIAILED\$ODERHOUZONING\94010CC.LTA
�J 9'.3�
• Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
February 17, 1999
Page 2
•
�
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Granted the appeal of SuperAmerica; reversed the decision of
the Zoning Administrator; and allowed the sign to be put back up with conditions that it can't be
changed, that it can only be used as a business sign, and that it must be removed by 2015 at the latest.
(Passed on a unanimous voice vote.)
ZONIAIG COMMI'�E RFCOMMENDAT'ION: The Zoning Committee heard the case on 11f23/98
and laid it over. On 12l1Ql98 they voted 6-1 to recommend granting SuperAmerica's appeal with a
condition that the sian be removed when the cunent lease expires in 2007. SuperAmerica then sent a
letter to the Planning Commission with legal azguments why the sunset condition would be
unenforceable. On 12/18/98 the Planning Commission sent the matter back to the Zoning Committee.
On 12/29/98 the Zoning Committee received the offer from SuperAmerica and the property owner to
remove the sign voluntarily by 2015 and recommended accepting this offer by a vote of 5-0.
PED STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION: Uphold decision of Zoning
Administrator; deny appeal of SuperAmerica that sign is a busmess s�gn; even if sign is a business sign it
should not be permitted to go back up.
SUPPORT FOR APPFAL BY SUPERAMERICA: Chuck Erickson, owner of the sign, which is on the
roof of the historic Allen Building at 287 E. Sixth Street.
OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY SUPERAMERICA: Brian Bates of Scenic Minnesota.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
BRIAN BATES - SCENIC MIl�NESOTA has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Plannin�
Commission to grant an appeal by Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, allowing them to reinstall a large sign
at 287 E. Sixth Street. The Planning Commission reversed a decision made by the Zoning Administrator
in LIEP to deny SuperAmerica a permit for the sign. The sign is leased to the SuperAmerica gas and
convenience store at 296 E. Seventh Street, which adjoins the property where the sign is located. The
sign blew over in a windstorm at the end of May 1998. The sign itself received limited dama�e, but the
roof and parapet wall to which the sign was anchored received more damage. The sign was removed and
put in storage while the roof was repaired.
The chronology of the case is as follows:
May 1998:
September 1998:
September 1998:
October 1998:
Sign blew over onto roof
SuperAmerica applied to LIEP for a permit to reinstall the sign
LIEP denied permit (either as a billboud or as a business sien)
SuperAmerica appealed LTEP decision to Planning Commission
\V'ED\SYS2�SFIARED\SODERHOUZONiNG�99010CC.LTR
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
February 17, 1999
Page 3
Nov. - Dec. 1998: Public hearing and discussion at three Zoning Committee meetings and
at one Planning Commission meeting
January 1999: Planning Commission adopted resolution granting SuperAmerica appeal
January 1999: Brian Bates - Scenic Minnesota appealed to CiTy Councit
Although there was relatively little public testimony in this case, the Zoning Committee and Planning
Commission engaged in extensive discussion of the matter. On January 8, 1999, the Planning
Commission passed the resolution granting SuperAmerica's appeal with conditions on a unanimous
voice vote.
Last week I received a letter from Tim Keane, attorney for SuperAmerica, challengin� the standing of
Scenic Minnesota to appeal the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment F). He argues that ScenSc
Minnesota is not truly an affected or aggrieved parry. The Ciry Attorney's O�ce is reviewing the letter.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 24, 1999. Please call me (266-
6575) if you have questions and please notify me if any member of the City Council �vishes to have
slides of the site presented at the public heazing. I have slides of how the damaged sign looked after it
was blown over, but I don't have slides of how the sign looked before the storm.
Sincerely,
Larry erholm
Priacipal Planner - Zoning
Attacliments
cc: City Council members
Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
Tim Keane, attomey for Speedway SuperAmerica
Chuck Erickson, property owner of 287 E. Sixth Street
Peter Wamer, Asst, City Attorney
Wendy Lane, LIEP
John Hardwick, LIEP
\1PEA\SYS?VSHARED�SODERHOUZONRiC+�
•
i
�
�s-3ao
•
ATTACHD'�NTS
�
•
�
�
Appeal form and letter of exQlanation
Planning Commission Resolution
Planning Commission minutes for 12/18/98 and 1/8/99
�,
�
'� •
� ��
���
�-l2
D. Zoning Committee minutes for 11/23/98, 12/10/98, and 12/29/98 �, 1 7� ��J
E. Staff Report of I 1/16/98 and attachments D,�" �� I�/
ti
C.
F
G.
Letter of 2/12/99 from Tim Keane, attorney for Speedway SuperAmerica, challenging the
standing of Scenic Minnesota to file an appeal �,���v
Location and zoning maps � , � � �� �
\�PED\SY52VSHARED�SODERHOL�ZONING\99010CGL'17t 4
SAINi
PwL'L
�
AI1AA
APPLICAT[ON FOR APPEAL
Deparlment nf Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
II00 City Half Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
�(tr� C:�R
� �
�— S�-�'�,�� C/Irnnes=:
�1 �1 Zip SSI !1 � Daytime E
,,. � t �*�/L j� L1�a �-�F-
LOCAT O Address/Location �, � � �
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby mad or an appeal to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section Zi �, Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to
/1 '- A ' .
appeal a deci ion made by the !'LA�7�lA �(' tr
on r' � �� � , 19_ File
(d tea of dec i s ion)
_Z
•
�
PROPERTY Zoning Fite
I N
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an ercor in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
/� �-qnr!/���
Attach additional sheet if
AppiicanYs signature � /""—" � '
1
�/
f' � v �
� 2 � - � y s
Gt � zs �
� I City agent�
�- 6'r1�t
offfcers:
John Mannillo
Jeanne Weigum
Mic ytnar
Rub nt
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
Esecuttce Ofmlor
Brian Bates
1985 G2nd Avenue
Saint Paul, MIY 55105
612 690-9671
-3 a.o
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Department of Planning
and Economia IIevelopment
25 West 4th Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
January 8, 1999
RE: Speedway SuperAmerica Billboard at 287 6th Street East in
DoWntown Saint Paul.
Dear Larry:
Scenic Minnesota hereby appeals the Planning Commission
decision of this date allowing the subject billboard to be rebuilt.
We suppor� staff determinations that the wind-damaged sign removed
from the roof o£ the Allen Building is an advertising sign by
definition and cannot be replaced. The reasons for this appeal,
and our concern, are several.
1) By definition the sign removed from, and proposed to be
replaced on, the Allen Building is an advertising sign. It is an
advertising sign because it advertises products and services
navailable at the Allen Building - the premises on which the sign
located. Therefore, the siqn cannot be rebuilt because the
len Building is a historic site, or is located in a historic
district, and because there exits a temporary moratorium on the
construction of advertisinq signs in downtown. W 66r302 and a the
Paul Zoning Code Sections 66.013A, 66.214(j),
Capitol River Council April, 1998 resolution creating a temporary
moratorium on advertisinq signs for district 17.
2) If this advertising sign (billboard) is allowed to change
its legal status to a business sign by advertising a product or
service of a neighborinq business then an billboard in the City
can easily be converted from an advertising sign to a business
sign. This precedent may make it diff��ult to remove anv
billboards in Saint Paul.
3) If the sign is rebuilt the federal Highway Beautifiaation
Act will protect it from removal by the City or the State
regardless of the content of the advertised message or the
expiration of the current lease. Any restrictions, even with the
agreement of the current building owner and Super America on sign
content or future removal cannot be enforced by the City or the
5tate.
4) The sign adversely affects the historic values of the area.
� rian Bates
c: Wendy Lane
� �
�
city of saint paul
pianning commission resolution
file number �9-01. �
�te January 8, 1999
WHEREAS, SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC, file #98-288, has appealed a decision
by the Zoning Administrator, under the provisions of § 66.408 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code (SPLC), that its storm damaged sign cannot be reconstructed on propetty located
at 287 E. Sixth Street, being more particularly legally described as follows: Whitney and
Smiths Addition subject to Sixth Street; vacated streets accruing in document#2278165
and following; part of Kittsons Addition adjacent to and in SD Whitney and Smiths Addition,
Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
said appeal on November 23, 1998, at which all persons present were given an opportunity
fo be heard pursuant to said appea( in accordance with the requiremenfs of §64.300 of the
SPLC; and
C�
WNEREAS, based on the evidence presented to the Zoning Committee at the public
hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes and based upon the recommendation of •
the Zoning Committee, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
1. The sign in this case is owned by Dacotah Properties LLP and has been
leased since 1987 to Speedway Superamerica LLC which owns the business
next door. The sign is almost four times the si� of a standard freeway
biliboard but the message is changed only very infrequently. The sign is
designed to be visible from the nearby freeway which is appropriate as the
sign is intended to attract freeway drivers to the Superamerica store.
2. At the beginning of the summer of 1998, the sign blew over in the second of
two major windstorms to hit the city. The sign peeled back the roof of the
building and had to be removed in order for the roof repairs to proceed.
LIEP staff advised the contractors not to reconstruct the sign without a
building permit.
moved by Field
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
!
3
�9-3 �
• Zoning File #98-2$8
Page Two of Resolution
3. On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. app{ied fot a sign permit to reinsfafl the
sign frame and panels which were bfown down by the storm. Since at least 1987—
and since 1961, according to the testimony ofthe building owner—the sign has been
used exclusively to advertise Superamerica's (or its predecessor's) products for sale
on the premises immediately next door, almost below the sign itself.
On September 17, 1998, John Hardwick of LIEP sent a letter denying the permit
application. The letter was received by the appellant on September 22, 1998. 7he
City received the appeal of Mr. Hardwick's deniai from the appellant on October 19,
1998, and a more detailed letter explaining the appeaf was received on November
16,1998.
The proper method to measure the thirty (30) day appeal period is either from the
date of the letter denying the application for a sign permit to the date of the letter
or document invoking the appeal or from the date of receipt of the letter denying the
application for a sign permit to the date of rece+pt of the letter or document invoking
the appeal. By either test, in this case the appeai was perfected in a timely fashion.
• The Zoning Administrator determined the sign to be an advertising sign. In its
appeal, among other points, the appeliant stated the following grounds for its
appeal:
a. Reanchoring the sign does not require a new sign
permit.
b. The sign is a conforming sign under the ambiguous provisions of the
SPLC.
c. The historic district regulations do not prohibit replac+ng
nonconforming signs.
d. The sign is not an advertising sign.
e. Mr. Hardwick's denial misapplies the provisions of SPLC §§66.301
and 66.302.
4. The Zoning Administrator erred in deciding that the sign should regulated as an
advertising sign. The sign, based on the evidence submitted at the pubfic hearing,
is a business sign because:
a. The sign appears visually to 6e part of the Superamerica site.
b. The sign overhangs and partiaily encroaches into the air space of the
Superamerica property.
�
�.�
Zoning File #98-288
Page Two of Resolution
3. On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. applied for a sign permit to reinstall the
sign frame and panels which were biown down by the storm. Since at least 1987—
and since 1961, according to the testimony of the building owner—fhe sign has been
used exclusively to advertise Superamerica's (or its predecessor's) products for sale
on the premises immediately next door, almost below the sign itself.
On September 17, 1998, John Hardwick ofi LIEP sent a letter denying the permit
applic2tion. Thv fe?'�r �^?as receive� by the aopellant on September 22, 1998. The
City received the appeal of Mr. Nardwick's denial from the appeilant on October 19,
1998, and a more de:ailed letter explaining the appeal was received on November
16, 1998.
The praper method to measure the thirty (30) day appeal period is either from fhe
dafe of the letter denying the application for a sign permit to the date of the letter
or document invoking the appeal or from the date of receipt of the letter denying the
application for a sign permit to the date of receipt of fhe letter or document invoking
the appeal. By either test, in this case the appeai was perfected in a fimely fashion.
•
The Zoning Administrator cletermined the sign to be an advertising sign. In its •
appeal, among other points, the appeliant stafed the following grounds for its
appeal:
a. Reanchoring the s+gn does not require a new sign
permit.
b. The sign is a conforming sign under the ambiguous provisions of the
SPLC.
c. The historic district regulations do not prohibit rep(acing
nonconforming signs.
d. The sign is not an advertising sign.
e. Mr. Hardwick's denial misapplies the provisions of SPLC §§66.301
and 66.302.
4. The Zoning Administrator erred in deciding that the sign shouid regulated as an
advertising sign. The sign, based on the evidence submitted at the pubiic hearing,
is a business sign because:
a. The sign appears visually to be part of the Superamerica site.
b. The sign overhangs and partiaAy encroaches into the air space of the
Superamerica property.
s
�
� y-3�o
•
Zoning File #98-288
Page Three of Resolution
c. The sign has been used continuously and exclusively for 37 years to
advertise fhe business on the Superamerica property.
d. The sign is leased directty to the appeliant until 2007 and is not
owned by a billboard or dispiay advertising company.
e. The sign is not a standard billboard size and, therefore, would not be
easily leasabie as part of an outdoor advertising campaign.
f. The sign is not required by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to obtain the permit normally required of a biliboard
along a highway.
5. Because the sign is a business sign, the provisions on nonconforming signs found
in § 66.301 of the SPLC, not those of § 66.302, are applicabie to this case as
fol{ows:
a. The applicant proposes to reinstall the sign exactly as it was before
it blew over. The sign will not be eniarged or aitered.
• b. The damage to the sign did not exceed 51 % of its replacement value.
The sign blew over essentialiy intact onto the rooftop. The damage
was to the parapet waff upon which the sign sat and to the roof. The
sign could have been tipped upright and reinstalled. lt was removed
to aflow access for building and roof repairs necessitated by the
storm.
c. Aithough the sign was removed from the buiiding premises while
other building and roof repairs were made, the owner intends to
reconstruct the sign in exactly the same spot. The "moving" of the
sign was temporary; no pesmanent change in position is proposed.
The remaining provisions of SPLC §66.3�1 do not apply.
6. Since the sign is a business sign, not an advertising sign, the current moratorium
imposed by the City Council on erect+on of advertis+ng signs in the downtown and
certain other areas in the city does not apply to the reinstal�ation of this sign.
WHEREAS, Speedway Superamerica, after consuitafion with the sign owner, voluntari{y
offered to remove the sign in 2015 as an acknowledgment that the size of the sign does
not conform to the intent of the city's sign regulations;
�J
�
Zoning File #98-288
Page Four of Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission tfiat,
under the authority of the SPLC, the appeal by Speedway Superamerica LLC is hereby
granted and the appellant and Dakotah Properties LLP are allowed to reinstali the sign
subject to the following conditions:
The same sign and same sign frame structure shali 6e used fo the percentage
restriction of the SPLC with only the minimum repairs necessary to ensure safety
and the structural integrity of the sign itself. The sign shall not be enlarged, raised,
moved or extended.
2. The sign shall be used only as a business sign for the property on which it is located
or for the Superamerica property and shall not be used as an advertising sign.
•
The sign shail be removed at any future point when it is not leased to the owner of
the Superamerica property for use as a business sign or used by the owner of the
property on which it locafed as a business sign, provided, however, that the use of
the sign, as presently configured, shall cease no later than January 9, 2015. After
that date the totai amount of business signage for the Superamerica property shall •
not exceed the amount currently permitted in 1999, which is 934 square #eet, or the
amount permitted in 2015, whichever is greater. Also after that date the tota!
amounf of business signage for fhe Ailen Building property sha(I conform to the
regulations in effect in 2095.
4. �f required by the SPLC or any other applicabie statute or Iaw, a building permit shall
be secured before reinstallation of the sign. In the event that review of the building
permit application is required by any other public agency or body, if is fhe intenf of
this resolution that such review be expressly limited by the finding that the sign is
a business sign.
5. The resolution and its cortditions are expressly accepted in writing by Speedway
Superamerica LLC and Dakotah Properties LLP on beha(f of tfiemselves, their
successors, assigns and agents.
•
�
�
C�
{�7 ��
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hal! Conference Center
15 Kelloag Boulevard West
�1'Y�1�f}9'1'�
11`1�h�°��b 99-3ao
A meeting of the Planning Commission of tlie Cih� of Saint Paul Fvas held Friday, December 18, 1998, at
830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hafl.
Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and
Present: Messrs. Field, Gervais, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Mardell, Maraulies, McDonell,
Nowlin and Vaugiit.
Commissioners Messrs. Kong and Sliarpe
Absent:
*Excused
•
Also Present: Ken Ford, Plannin� Administrator; .lean Birkliofz, Beth BaRz, Donna Drummond,
Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Susan Kimberly, Larry Soderho(m and Jim Zdon,
Department of Plannin� and Economic Development staff.
I. Approv�l of blinutes of December 4, ]99$
MOTIOti: Con7nrissio�rer Field n:nved npprov�rl ojtlre nrin�des ofDecenrber 4, 199$;
Cns�anaissinrrer Krrrneer sero�trlert tlre n:otinrt wleicl� carried rutanin:otrsli' nn a voice vote.
�I. Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton announced the annua( IioGeta} part�• to be held in the Ramse} Count} Koom ofthe
Landmnrk Center today at noon.
Chair Morton called attention to 1 letter she recei�ed From Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota, that
�cas copied for each commissioner. She added that she had afso receired a phone call from
John �ianillo, president of Scenic Minnesota, who indicated that f�e had not seen Brian Bates'
letter before it had ?one ouL nor had amone else in the or�anization.
Commissioner Field responded to the allevations made in the letter. At the committee level
and in the past. Conunissioner Field stated, that he has disclosed that his buildine has a
bil(bolyd «hich is o��ned b� Efler Ad�ertising, and he has a 1!6 undi� ided interest in $2,500 -
SZ.600 per } ear. Prior to sen�in_ on the task force. he constdted «'ith �tr. Naraer. City
Attorne�'s Office and ��as ad� ised that diere �cas no conflict of intereit for him to serve on
either ti�e Le��islati�e Ad�'isorc Ta;k Force or the Plan�iina Commission. He noted that he has
abstained from cnrin�= on ad�ertisin�� si�=ns onl�' «hen the� direct{� imol�e an Eller sian, not on
all ad�erti�ing si��ns. He �tient on to sa� that fie finds �fr. Sates� commznts to be inflammator}.
.
Commissioner Kramer said he thouvht thzre ���is a fundamental misundzrstandins in Mr. Bate>
�
letter. tiVe should keep in mind that the recommendations of Yhe LeLislative Advisory �
Committee and tl�e Planning Commission on zoning code chanoes are purely advisory to the
City CounciL Tn the past, Mr. Field has abstained on zoning cases related to billboards where
the Planning Commission made a potentiail}� final decision. There cannot be a con8ict of
interest in a pureiy advisory capaci[y. He feeis Commissioner Fietd has been �vron�ed by the
al(egations in the Mr. Bates' letter. �
Commissioner Faricy staYed that tl�ose of the Planning Commissioners who sit on tlie Zoning
Committee make decisions regardin� properties tl�rou�hout tlie City of Saint Paul e��ery other
�veek. She sYated ihat al! members are liighly conscienteous re�arding any kind of conflict of
interest. If there is a possibility of a conflict of i�terest, it is checked out w�izh Mr. \\�arnec If
there is a conflict, the Zonin� Committee members don't vate, and slie knoc�s the same
conscientiousness prevai(s on the entire Pianninq Commission. She added that she has had it
�� ith letters comin� to individuai commissioners because most of these situations coutd have
been cleared up �vith one phone ca11 to the individual commissioner. She �cent on to say that if
anyone �vrites a Ietter such as this about her performance as a commissioner, she i�ill regard it
as a personal slur and tivil! be headins for Mark Vau�hPs office.
Commissioner Vau�ht commented that �4r, Bates' letter is an outrage. Tlte comments in it are
possibly defamatory and 8iey are hardl�• deser��in� of a response, aithough he did sze the reason
wity i[ needs [o be responded to. He sta[ed [hat durina the [ime he has been on the Commission
���ith Commissioner Field, he has never seen an}rtltinR abotR Ntr. Fietd's behacior under any
circumstances tha[ �could ca(� into question his ethics. This t��pe of letter has vep Iitt1e place in
public discowse, and it ou�_ht to be treated �� ith tl�e disrespect tl�at it dzsen zs.
Commissioner Gordon asked if a response is beiitg prepared. Giair �tona� ans�cered that it is. •
III. Plannin� AdminEstrator's Announcements
�,1r. Ford announced that there has bzen an appealed fiied on Louie's Billiards and that public
helrin�* is scheduted before the Cit� Cotmcit allanuary 6, (999.
h9r. Ford mentioned that there is a second pam' scheduled toda}' Iater in PED. It i; a bit of a
holida� get-together, but tl�is one has a special theme because it is PED�s fare»ell recepEion for
Beth Sartz. She «i!I be leavii�g plam�i��g to «ork �cith a consultine firm nhich is cer}' rtace fer
her bat PED u'il! iiiiss her a,reat deaL �
IV. Zonins Committec
#93-238 Speed��a� Snper.4mcrica LLC - tlppeal oPa decision bc the Zonin�! Adminis�rato*
that a sturii�-damased billboard cannot be reconstructed at?37 Si�th Street East (betwee�si Vr211-
& Broadi�a�': zoned I3-�): Lan'� Soderholm. 36G-6i7�.
Cotnmi;sioner Fi�icl inFonned mmmissiotiers ihat the 1�niu�_ Comti�it[ee �ot�d t-� €�pprave Y�:i>
app�ai �� ith Commi>sianzr Gordon �otin�_ av_ainst [he moti��n.
�IOTIO\: Cr�mvci.�si�nter Field vrui�ed approv�d of tlie reytaestetf nppert! uf n derisinn by- tlic
r _
L—
f�
/
99 - 3ao
. Zonino Arin:inisrrator that a stnrnt-dan:aoed billboard cm:not be reconstr«cted at 287Siztlt
Street E�crt.
Commissioner Field directed attention to a handout from Mc Soderhoim, which is a letter from
SuperAmerica objecting to the "sunset provision" in the Zonin� Committee resolution.
Speed�vay SuperAmerica is citing leaal preeedences that support their objection to the sunset
provision. �
Commissioner Vau�ht asked Mr. Warner to �ive �� l�atever analysis or opinion he wishes to
offer with respect to the points raised in Mc Keane's Ietter. Mr. Warner thinks that the points
made in the ietter are accurate. He informed the Commission that they can move forn�ard with
1an�uage that came out of the Zonin� Committee or t)ley can eViminate it. He felt that a�y
decision the Pia»nina Commission made today �cit4i respect to the langua�e of t(te resolution is
not Qoing to impact 4vhat happens to thlt sien toda}�. If the sign o��ner or SuperAmerica
chooses to do something about it in the future as the 2007 deadline approaches, they are free to
do it.
For ciarificltion, Commissioner Gordon asked if liis understandin� is con�ect that the Planning
Commission 1i1s authority to either approv�e tlie resok�tion without the su�iset or disapprove it
altoaetller but not take the midd(e course of appro� in? it �vitlt the sunset procision. h1r. Warner
repfied that they could move to disapproce it in its entirety, too. Commissioner Gordon asked if
tlie Conunission �could be on finner legal sround if they would disapprove it al[ogether than if
they would lppro��e it widi the sunsei pro�'ision. �3r. �Yarner responded that he did not think so
because there is another sicie to this issue as �cas przsented at tfie public hearins. and they have
• 1e�al arQuments that cotdd be made as o'ell. Mr. ��'arner thinks that tc} in�* to steer a course that
is »ot goin�_* to produce a legal chalfen�e fran either side of the i;sue is eoin�� co be � ery
dif}ic�dc. He thinks the Commission ma�' be on firmer le�al ground iFthe�• took the sunset
clause out of the resolution. The points rai;ed in ihe letter are accurate. Ha� in_ had just a fe�c
minutes to iook at the letter, Mr. �� arner thinl:s. ;i�'en that there is a moratorium in affect and
that the City' Council �� ilf eventuaily look at tlie si_n code, perhaps it might consider ptit[ing
amortization in the code: perhaps it mig4it co�isider lookin� at the cost of remocin� biflboards.
If die Planning Commission ��oidtf decide to put the sunset pro� ision in there roday, it really
cloes tiot become effective untif the ��ear 200Z �lr. �\'arner ��as not sure if he could sive the
Conunission a solid answer on �chether it�s best to move to dem the recommendation from the
Zonin� Commit[ee in its entiret�, mo� e to accept it but remo�'e the smiset pro� ision. or {eave it
as is because it is �'er� difficult to determine �chat either oft4ie t��o interested parties �tiill do
�cith it. �Uith respect to {imitin�� the size of the siga. Commissioner Go�don asked if Vlr.
�1'arner�s position «ould be the slme or differe�it. Does che Pfannine Commi;sion have more
authorit� to limit the size ofthe si;�n tf�an it does �+ith the sunse[ pro�'ision or ��ould those rivo
be the same? Mr. �Vlrner said di�t tlie sisn is too big: a confonning sign �wulci need to be
much smallcr. f lo��e�er. he felt that size more of a policc decision ieft up to the Commission.
He understoad that the maker of the motion offerad �±ood reasons co fea�e the sicu as it is;
;omcone else could crniie �cith good reason; to reduce the size. Eithzr «a�. h� l�4t it could
possibl� lead ro potential legal cha(leii�=zs. and he cannot adci:z as to ��hich �;oufd be better.
�s p��lic� make�'�. tlie Commission has fht[s the� can us< diat nta� be I�_ �u,minable. He
thut6s thi; is a difticult case for the Commi>;ion t�� ��re;de ��iti�
. -
�
Commissioner Vaught stafed that he made the motion at Zoning Committee and he wrote the •
resolution. The sunset provisiai was put in at the sug�estion of Commissioner Gordon.
Commissioner Vauglit said that he didn't like it and would have voted for the original motion
without the sunset provision in it because he thinks it is reasonably clear thaY this is a business
sian and not an advertising siLn. Commissioner Vaught thinks there are probably many ways
that this could be sliced and diced.
MOTTON: Cn�nmissiouer Va«ghf mover! to refer ihe �nai[er of this nppeal back to tbe
Zonins Comn�if[ee anc1, if necessary, to ir�voke mt additional 60 rla}'sfor corrsideration;
Conrnzissioner Cnrrlor: seconded the ntotion wlric% carrietl trnanin:ousl}•.
Mr. Soderl7olm announced t17at lie already sent the applicant notice e�tending this case 30 days,
assumin� tl�at it would take more time.
�98-293 Michacl Nadeau - Rezone property at 377 Maryland Avenue Nest from S-3 (general
business) to R-4 (sin,le-family� residential) to retiect the existin� use of the property (Donna
Drummond, 266-6»6).
MOTION: Cai�mrissiaier Field mnved tn apprni�e tGe request to rezate properry at 377
tllruylantlAveuue frnn: B-3 (�ei:era/ husiuess) to R-4 (sinpfe fitmilJ• residentirt(} to re,fleM tlte
etisting use of the prnpertl', «�IticG carried «nmtimously on n voice vo[e.
#93-290 Cavuan Street, LLC - Rezone proper[q at 199 and 201 Ca} i�ea Street from RT-1
(tu-o-family resideittial) to I-1 (industrial) in order to develop parking (Donna Drummond, 266-
6i56). •
bIOTTO\: Cnnvuissio�rer Fie/d mnved tn ttpprnre tlie request m rezmie properrr at I99 ated
201 Cql'u, a street from RT-1 (nro fieinilr re.rirlentiril) tn I-1 (industria!) in orrler to develop
p«rkian, x�leich cnrrierl ua�ininmusli� nn a rnice core.
n9S-296 Universitv ot'St. Tiromas - Determiiiation of similar use to allon permission to tfse
temporarily the recenth' ��acated, uni� ersit}'-o��ned b�iildin�, at 3097 Gra��d Avenue for offize
space for the Saint Paul Police R'esrern District Bic�cle Patrol and a Saint Paul Policz storzfron:
operation (Jim Zdon. 266-6559).
NIOTTON: Cnnunissioner Fie1d rnnred upprnrnl of the reqaested determinatioa ofsimilar
tese to allox� penrtission to use tempnrmrilr tke recentlr vacatet! rurire�silr-o�r�red hrtilrlino a1
2097 Grrurd R renrte for nffice space jnr 1lre Saitet Patr! Pnlrce 6t%stern Dis7rict Bict•cle Patrot
�rrrr! tt Striirt Prred Pr�lice slnrefroir! r�peralioir, x•Iric/r c�arried eutaitinrnrulP ruz a rnice vatz
Commissioner Pield informed commissioners that the Zonine Committee recommend refa�din_
the a�plfcation fee (in the resolutionl since the Cih is t(ie app(icant.
r93-297 i.a�� renee Si�n - Signa�_e cariance at 16�i East Co[ta<_>z A� ent�e: bas�d on proposed
stthacl., a heieht o( 7S" is allo«ed and a hei��ht of 92 is proposecl. a�ariance oi I�' reque5ted.
= U sq.it. of si��nnc< is alic���ed �� ith :3.� sq.fr. proposed_ rec�urstin�� a�ariance of �.� iq.fr. A J_
ti�uc setbac6 i: proposed Irom both I�ennard and Cotta�le. (\ane} Fric},.'_6G-6��-t�
�
�
'�
� � � � �,,,� �
Saint Paal Planning Comm��ssi;� ��� 9 � 3a D
�
�
City Hail Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boule�•ard West
A meetin� of the Planning Commission of tlie Cit}� of Saint Pau] was held Friday, January 8, 1999, at
8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of Ciry Hail.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissianers
Absent:
Mmes. Duarte, £ngh, Geisser, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs.
Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Mardel{, McDonell, Nowlin and Vau�ht.
Mmes. *Faricy and Messrs. �`Jotinson, *Kong, �`Margulies and Sharpe
*Excused
Also Present: Ken Ford, Pfanning Admin+strator; Jean Birkholz, Tom Harren, Nancy Homans,
Tony Schert(er, Larry Soderhotm and Lucy Thompson, Department of Planning and
Economic Development staff; Tom Beach and Bob Kessler, the DepaRment of
License, Inspection, and Environmenta! Protection; and Mike Klassen, the
Department of Public Works.
I. Approval of Minutes of December 18, 1998
MOTION: Conrnrissiar:c�r Fie1r1 nroverl approva! of t/te ntiiiutes ojDecember I8, I998;
Conrnrissio�rerMnrrie!lseconded the nrotioit wkick carried renanin:ously ort a voice vote.
II. Chnir's Announcements
Chair Morton reco�nized out-goin, Commissionecs Treichel and Vau�ht by reading them
tl�eir special{y prepared resolutions.
IIL Planni��g Actministrator's Aonouncements
On bchalf of staff, Mr. Pord commented on retiring commissioners. This year, because of
the timing of the ordinlnce limiting terms on city commissions, this is a particularly large
turno�er oit the Plannin? Commission. Staff is very ntuch a��•are that �ve are saying
goodbyc to some commissioners that we ha��e worked with a very long time, and to whom
�ve are deeply indeUted. Staff 1'eels that the Saint P�ul Plannin� Commission has been not
only die largest commission in the country, birt undoubtediy, the best. He e�;tended staffs
congratula�ions and tlianks to ihose �� ho �re icaving.
Pictures fiom the holiday aathering are on ihe table in �he alcove for �•ie�ving and orderin�.
,
Mr. Pord announced that the Dcpartment of Pianning and Economic Development �3�iVl
under�o another chamle of leadership.
"f�he bilyor's recommendations for ne�v pl anning commissioners has �one to the City
Council; presinnabl�, they will be acied on i}est u,�eck. Thc appouitees are Shem Shakir,
with Progtown nction Alliance in \Vard l; Harold Potsch.an attorney in Ward 4; Sugene
��
shops have, and many oF them are a Iot more dan�erous and have a lot more affect on
surrounding communities. Perceptia�s are not fact. He added that he thinks Senator
Kelly's letter is not even anecdotal. but dema�oguery. •
Commissioner Gordon stated that afrer hearinp Commissioner Field's reason why he thinks
this ou�ht to go back to the Za�ina Committee, he tivill vote against sending it back because
tl�ere are Commissioners here wlio are prepared to vote. And some Commissioners �vho are
stip here have spenY a!ot of time on this issae and �vi!! be deprived of any opportunity to
vote on ii if it's not dealt with Yoda�. Also, he is generally opposed to moratoriums and
thinks That this one has been in place lona enou�h.
CaamissionerNowlin commented that he 8iinks members are gettin� many thin�s
coizfused in this issue. There is confusion aboi�t anacking a business that has a questionable
ima�e via zoning. The Plannin� Commission should not do that; he a�rees absolutely �vith
Commissioner Vaugltt on that point. Bu[ ihe people �vlto testifiec! in favor of the 1,000-fooT
separation are, ia fact, in the business of �rorkin� on development, redevelopment, etc., in
Saint Paul. CommissionerNowlin fliou�ht their evidence was enormously credible. They
talked about development, ttie image of a neighborhood and perception. This is one good
reason to send it back to the Zonin� Committee. Also, he Yhinks tlzat if the proposal would
n�ove pawn shops to B-3 and make these uses conditional, the Commission is essentially
sayiii� there �vill be no more pawn shops in Saint Paul. Witl� the 1,000-foot separation, we
are not doin� that. Canmissionertio�clin noted that he titi�ould like more discussion on that
rather thaii tryina to make a decision riaht now. He is in favor of the motion.
Commissioner Field added that another reason �vhy he made the motion is because he is
cwiflicted in much the same tivay as Commission Nowlin has sueQested. He needs more �
Lime to sort out the issues. �
Tlae n�olinn nu tlee flnnr m close 11ie public benring nnr! refer the Pnwn Sleop Zof:irtg
Studi' tn tlre Znning Cnmmittee arrrie�! ar « rol! cn(/ vnte of 8- 3(Geisser, Cordof:,
va,�g�,r). .
V. Zoninb Committee
#9S-288 Speedrvav SuerAmerica LLC - Appeal of a decision by the Zonine Administra-
tor that a storm-damaged billboard cannot be reconstructed ai 287 Sisth Street E(between
�Va!! R Broadway; zoned B-5); Larn Soderholm, 266-6575.
D107'ION: Cnnrmissinner Fie/d raoved apprnvn/ qf t/re nppettl of a rlecisiorr h�� rke
.Zorriug Adnaiiiisirotnr tlint n sfnrin-dru�urgerl billGnrird cruuint be recorstrncted ru 287
Sist/r S�reet Eri.+7 3nith corulifious t/�at, iir effect, prescriGe !/rrrY d�e sig�e rncq• rernriiit iaitil
Junu�tr�• 1, 2075.
Commissia�er Pield noted th�t the Zoning Commiitee allo�ved a representati�e to indicate
that i! �vas agrceable to the t�<<c� parties affected.
Commissioncr Nordin asked if the 7_onin� Committec camc u�i �� ith a definition otthis type
of sign. Com�uissioner Vau�ht replied that tl�e resolution f inds that this is to bz considered
a business si;n ratl�er ihan an ad��ertisin� simi. Commissioner T�ordin then asked what the
current ordinance �vas for Ihat site for a business sian? Mr. Soderhohn repliec! that tl�e �
f3
��
F• � �
resolirtion states that the current re�ulations for business signs «ould allow 934 sq.ft. of
• business siena�e at tliat location, and that after 2015 when they take diis si�n down, they
���ill conform to that standard.
Commissioner Nordin asked ho�� much business signage this business has besides this
signaQe. Mr. Soderholm replied that it was his recoliection that it was approximately 430
sq.ft.. Commissioner Nordin stated that she wondered 4vhy this business needs more
signa�e than any odier business. She added that she finds putting up this sign just doesn't
fit and she cannot vote in a�reement �vith the Zoning Committee untess someone could tell
her why-
Commissio�ier Vauaht a�reed that if that sign �t�ere to be placed ihere today, it would be
inappropriate �vith respect to size and it would not be a legal use. The sinn, as it existed
before the storm dama;ed the roof of tl�e buildin� and caused the si�n to come do�vn, was a
le�ai nonconforming use. He said it struck him as being unfair to someone to say that
because a storm comes alono and dama,es the roof on which the si�n is, that destroys the
nonconforming use. Tfie dendiine of 2015 �vas a compromise and gre�v out of Utc Warners
ldvice. Ifthe ori�inalresolution had been passed and enforced,there would be a substantial
likelihood that the city would have been stuck �vith the same sign until 2Q3Q. But, one
never knows what the courts would hare done.
Co��imissio�ier Kramer commented that this is probably the best deal the city can get on this
issue. This is 1 guarantee that the si�n �vilf come do�vn ia 2015.
Tire urntiorr nn UreJloor to r�ppr��ve ilte t�ppeal of « decisiorz of Ilte Zonirta Adnt��trstratot
• tGrrt a.rfnrni-rlm�aaeed Gi(lbnartl crrn�iot be reconsinreted a1287Sist/: Street Enst with
coitditions th�u all�iv 11re si;�r tn ren:ain �uuil Jrututrry 1, 201 S, carried un�uziieux�sly on a
' ' vnice vntt. �
#98- Willarct �Vielke - A special condition use pennit to allow for an auto car �vashing
buildino at 1770 Old 1 Road (Allan Torstensan, 266-6579).
Commissioner Fie1d reported tliat tlic Zoning Committee voted to lay this matter over until
tl�e January 14 meeting.
#98-309 St Anthonv Pnr{c Communiri• CoLmcil - Appeal of an administrative approval of
site plan for an automobiic conrenience store at the north�rest corner of Kasota Avenue and
liiglnvay 2S0 (Donna Drummond. 266-6556).
Con�inissioner Pield reported that the "/_oning Committee �roted to lay Uiis matter o�•er to the
.ianuarp 14 tnce[in�;.
#94-310 Per��oln Im estments, l.LC - AE7plication for nonconformin� usc permit to allow a
picture framin�� shop ai 201 Western nvenue North (Jim Zdon, 266-6559).
Comniissioner Field reported that the 7_onin� Gommittee voted to Iaq this matter over to the
Januan� lA mccting.
�9S-313 7it��uart J. K:�nstul - P.erone propert�� from R-4 (aie-family residcntial) to R1'-1
' (t�+o-f;nnil�' residentia{) to allo�� for suhdivision of propert}' at 976 1 iazel�vood Stmet (at
ia
MINUTES OF THE ZQN(NG COMMIITEE
Thursday, November 23, 1948 - 3:30 p.m.
City Councit Chambers, 3`° Ftoor
City Hail and Courf House
15 West Keliogg Boutevard
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Faricy, Field, Gervais, Kramer, Morton, Vaught and Wencl
Gordon
Geri Boyd, Donna Drurmmond, and Larry Soderhoim of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA, LLC - Zoning File 98-288 - Appeat of a decision by fhe Zoning
Adminisfrafor that a sform damaged biilboard cannot be reconstructed at 287 East Sixth Street.
Larry Soderholm gave a slide presentation and reviewed the staff report. Mr. Soderhotm stated that staff
recommended deniai af the appeai. He further stated fhaf CapitalRiver Counci! decided to make no
recommendation and that he understood that the Heritage Preservation Commission would be considering
the application later in the week.
n
U
In response to Chair �ieid, Mr. Soderholm explained that almosf aA of the district council requests for
bi[(board moratoriums came to the city before the two windstorms that damaged a number of signs and �
he believed the downtawn biilboard moratorium was effective before the storms. The CEty Council upheld
the moratoriums in July.
At the question of Comm+ssioner Vaught, Mr. Soderholm stated that the appeilant's letter to John Hardwick
was written on 10/15l98 but was nof recei�ed by LIEP unfi110/19/98.
ln response to Commissioner Vaught, Wendy Lane stated that a person affected by the decision of the
Zoning Administrator may appeal a decision within 30 calendar days of the decision. LI EP's practice is
to use L1EP's mailing date as the sfarf dafe and the date LIEP receives an appeal as the end date. She
said this application was accepted because the LIEP office was aware that it was forthcoming. She
further sfated thaf if the Planning Commission was to turn down this application because +t was not t+mely,
LIEP wouid not accept any other application in the future under the same circumstances.
Upon the question of Commissioner Faricy, Ms. Lane expiained that fotlowing the May 30"' storm, due to
all of the damage, the city did send out a letter to ali of the outdoor advertising companies informing them
that if there was damage to their signs they would need to submit repair ptans to the city fo see if petmifs
would be required, depending on the extent of the repairs. Dakotah Properties wouid not have received
a letter because they are not a biiiboard company.
Tim Keane, 7900 Xerxes Avenue, with Larkin, Hoffman, Daily, and Lindgren, appeared on behaif o;
Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC. Mr. Keane stated that he had spoken with Peter Wamer and Mr. Hardwick
and stated that the appiication was intended to be timely. He said tfiat he had a temporary secretary on
the day the letter was mailed who apparentiy failed to carry out his instruction to f� the appeai as welf as _
mait it.
��
gy-3�
Zoning Committee Minutes
November 23, 1998
• SuperAmerica, LLC (98-288)
Page 2
Upon the question of Commissioner Vaughf, Mr. Keane expiained that the sign is large and SuperAmerica
depends on thaf fact for their business. Mr. Keane stated that tfie damaged to the sign was minimai, and
had it not been for the damage to fhe parapef and roof, it coufd have been put back up and refastened to
the building.
Mr. Keane stated thaf he was former a city planner and fhat he understands sign reguiations and
believes that section 6&.301 is the applicable secfion of the code in this case.
At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Keane stated thaf the telephone number on the
billboard does nof belong to the store directly beiow the sign.
In response to Commissioner Vaught, Mr. Keane stated that the application and fee was in the
office of the city on 10/20/98. Mr. Soderholm stated that the envelope for Mr. Keane's prior letter
of 10J15198 was postmarked that day, but was misaddressed and stamped by the post o�ce "no
such number", which wouid expiain why it wasn't received until 10/19/98.
Upon the question of Commissioner Gervais, Mr. Keane drew a diagram and explained that when
the wind hit the sign, the sign frame itself did not collapse; rather, the whole parapet wall below
the sign peeled back. The "A" frame support members held up except for a few that hit fhe roof-
•top air conditioning unit.
Roman Mueller, 1240 W. 98' Street, Bloomington, appeared. Mr. Mueller stated that this
particular sign used no wood stringers; it had metal stringers and the sign paneis had an interlock
system that held the entire structure together. He further stated that the repair cost would be
$40,000, and Lawrence Sign Company gave them a replacement estimate of $203,150.
In response to Commissioner Morton, Mr. Muelier stated thai a solution could probably have
been engineered to repair the roof without removing the sign, but not in a cost effective way.
Chuck Erickson, 287 East Sixth Street, appeared. Mr. Erickson stated that he is fhe owner of fhe
Allen building, and that he represents the partnership of Dakotah Properties. He said the sign
was erected by his fiamily in the early 1960's and the only use of the sign has been for
SuperAmerica. He further stated that there has been no other outside advertising on that sign.
Brian Bates, 1985 Grand Avenue, representing Scenic Minnesota, appeared. Mr. Bates spoke
in support of the stafF recommendation to deny the appeal because the definition in the code for
"advertising sign" is based on "on-premises" vs. "off-premises". This SuperAmerica billboard is
not on the premises of the SuperAmerica store. This sign is on fhe premises of the AI(en Buiiding
and owned by Dakotah Properties. Therefore, the stricter standards of 66.3D2 apply.
• Mr. Keane reappeared in rebutta4, and stated that out of alf of the public hearing notices that went
out, only Scenic Minnesota, which is not a property owner in the vicinity, appeared in opposition
to SuperAmerica's appeal.
��
Zoning Committee Minutes
November 23, 7998
Speedway SuperAmerica (98-288)
Page 3
At the question of Commissoner Kramer, Mr. Keane stated that a 10-year lease for the sign was
executed in 1996 or 1987, and as long as the store is there SuperAmerica wiil want the sign.
!n response to Commissioner Vaught, Mr. Ericks�n agreed to the use of the sign only for the
business located af fl�at property.
The public hearing was ciosed.
Commissioner Vaught moved to recommend approval of the appeal with the condition that the
sign be used as a business sign only for the proprietor of the SuperAmerica location. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Faricy.
Peter Wamer suggested that Commissioner Vaughf's solution wou(d be very workable, however
it would be better if there were a friendly motion to lay over to the December 10�' meeting to aliow
the city attorney's office to talk to staff about the implications for the city and alsa to the applicant
and the building owner about the proposed conditions.
C�
Commissioner Kramer said that he didn't know how they wouid condition somefhing if fhe 6uitding owner .
is not the applicant in this case. !n response to Commissioner Krame�'s questiort, Wendy Lane stated that
LIEP has handied this as an advertising sign because it was not on the same premises as the business
being advertised. Sometimes, third parties have been formal parficipants involved in zoning decisions.
Commissioner Vaught withdrew his origina! motion and made another motion to lay the item over to the
December 10'" meeting as Mr. Warner suggested. Commissioner Faricy accepted fhe new motion.
Commissioner Vaught also moved to extend the deadline the for an additional 60 days if necessary. Both
motions passed unanimously.
Concluding Business ltems
Mr. Soderholm informed the Commission about a copy of an application he received regarding a Sf.
Anthony Park speciat sign district. In response to Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm stated that
this area is covered under the biilboard moratorium. He further stated that the application wiil
probab)y be referred by the Planning Commission to City Council.
Commissoner Kramer moved to adjoum and to put the remaining item on the agenda for the next meeting.
it was seconded and approved.
Adopted
Drafted by:
Geri Boyd
Recording 5ecretary
Yeas - 7 Nays - d
Submitted by:
L�lYy
Larry derholm
Zoning Section
Approved by:
Litton Field
Chair
r7
L�
��
9 y-3a.�
•
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
QTHERS
PRESENT:
MlNUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Tfiursday, December 10, 1998 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3` Floor
City Ha(1 and Court House
15 West Keilogg Boulevard
Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, Morfon, Vaught and Wenci
Gervais
Geri Boyd, Donna Drurmmond, Nancy Frick, Larry Soderholm, and Jim Zdon of
PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SPE@DWAY SUPERAMERICA - Zoning File 98-288 - Appeai of a decision by the Zoning Administrator that a
storm-damaged biilboard cannot be reconstructed at 287 East Sixth Street. Commissioner Vaught stated that
he distributed a resolution before the meeting and moved this resolution to grant the appeal of the appiicant and
a!!ow the re- installation of the sign at that location. Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion.
Commissioner Vaught explained that essentiafiy the resoiution overtums Mr. Hardwick's decision thaf this is an
advertising sign, and finds that this is actuatly a business sign. It contains five conditions which are basically
�ngruent with the ones that were in Mr. Soderho{m's draft of the resolution.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Vaught stated that the resolution contemplated
only the identical sign, exactly the same size and location as the one that blew down.
Gommissioner Gordon opposed the motion and resolution as drafted. He said that ifi there was a
modification of the resolution as to the size of the biliboard, he wouid consider supporting the motion.
ln response to Commissioner Kramer, Wendy Lane stated that for a fot with this street fronfage in a B-5
district, the totai business signage permitted is 934 sq. feet. SuperAmerica has 346 square feet of
smailer business signs plus the biliboard in question, which is 3,200 square feet.
Commissioner Vaught stated that under the conditions of the resoluction the sign is to be used as a
business sign, and a business sign only. He said that he would consider accept+ng friendly amendmenfs
to the resolution, however, the size of the sign was not one of them.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Vaught stated that the term of the lease runs
to the year 2007. Commissioner Gordon moved fo amend the resolution to incllide a sunset provision
cons+stent with the length of the current lease. Commissioner Vaught accepted ihe amendment, an�
Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion.
�ommissioner Gordon expressed the fact ihat he stiii had a problem with the size of the biilboard.
In response to Commissioner Wenc1, Commissioner Vaught sfated that the sign was a{ega{ norr
conforming use. Mr. Soderhoim stated that the sign was buift fegally in fhe ear{y 1960's.
��
Zaning Committee Minutes
Dacember 10, 1998
Speedway SuperAmerica (98-288)
Page 2
�
Mr. Soderf�o(m explained thatthe sunsef amendmentwouid address his concern fhatthe Comprehensive
Plan calis for residenfial redevelopment of the North Quadrant of lowertown and that housing may be
buift kitty-comer from the site.
Commissioner Kramer cailed the question.
On a voice vote of 6 to 1(Commissioner Gordon), the motion to recommend approva! was passed.
Commissioner ICramer thanked Commissioner Vaught for work done on the resolution.
Adopted Yeas - 6
Drafted by:
.1.2G �
Geri L. Boyd
Recording Secretary
Nays -1 (Gordon)
Submitted by:
larry 5�rholi
Zoning Section
Chair
r�
L
�
'�
���..
� ��`s`� J '.
'"� ES'�fi�l
����,�:
_�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, December 29,1998 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3f° Floor
Cify Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boutevard
PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Kramer, Morton, and Vaught
EXCUSED: Gordon ABSENT: Gervais and Wencl
gy-3a.a
OTHERS
PRESENT: Donna Drummond, Martha Fausc, Patricia James, Laurie Kapian, and Larry Soderholm of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC - Zoning File 98-288 - Appeal of a decision by the Zoning Administratar that a storm-
damaged bifiboard cannot be reconstructed at 287 East Sixth Street.
Chair Fie{d explained that this item has come back to the Zoning Committee from the Pianning Commission after a
representative of SuperAmerica raised a legai fssue the evening before the Planning Commission to act on the resolution,
which did not allow the City Attorney enough time to give an opinion on the matter.
Mr. Warner explained that the letter receive from SuperAmerica expressed concerns about the attempt by the city to sunset
the length Qf time the sig� couid be up. He further stated that he could not find any existi�g language that wouid work.
At the question of Commissioner Vaught, Mr. Warner stated that the committee could not unilaterally impose the sunset
� vision.
missioner Vaught moved to ailow the appiicant to respond to these issues pertaining to a workable solution on the sunset
provision. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Faricy and approved,
Tim Keane, 7900 Xerxes Avenue, representative of SuperAmerica appeared. Mr. Keane stated that he did have the
opportunity to discuss the matter with the buiiding owner. He further stated that the buiiding owner, when asked about a
requested that it he were voluntary sunset provision, suggested the period o4 time that the tax code provides for amoRizing
a sign of this nature, that being 30 years. Mr. tCeane said that he suggested to the building owner that they should propose
a reasonable compromise and agree to a term that reflects some give an take with the city.
Mr. Keane further stated that they are prepared to agree to 6ri�g the sign into conformance with the existing code in 2015.
Mr. Kea�e stated that they are offering to enter a voluntary agreement to remove the existing sign, at that time.
In response to Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Keane stated that as part of this agreement a new iease wili be written to extend
SuperAmerica's lease to 2015.
Commissioner Vaught moved that the existing resolution be modified to indicate the date and require some written expression
of the agreement before the decision goes into effect. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Faricy.
Commissioner Kramer suggested that the documentation should incfude afl parties invoWed.
adopted Yeas - 5 Nays - 0
) Sy:
aurie Kap(a �
ecording Seaetary
Submitted By:
Larry S d rholm
Zoning ection
� .. . -. :.�
. '��/
. -.
��
ZONIlVG COMNIITTEE STAFF REPORT
FILE # 98-288
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
APPLICANT: SPEEDWAY SUPETLAMERICA DATE OF HEARING: I I/23/98
CLASSIFICATION: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Decision
LOCATION: 287 SIXTIi STREET (billboard seen over 3uperAmerica on E. Seventh
St.)
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See file
PRESENT ZO1vING: B-5
ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 66.408
STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT BY: Lany Soderholm DATE: 11/16l98
8. DATE RECEIVED: 10/20/98 DEADLINE FORACTION: 12/18/98
A.
B.
C.
D.
PURPOSE: Appeal of a decision by the Zoning Adminisuator that a storm-damaged
billboard cannot be reconsiructed.
PARCEL SIZE: 287 E. SiYth St. is 31, 896 sq. ft.
EXISTiNG LAND USE: Office-wazehouse, a significant lusforic building in the
Lowertown Heritage Preservation District
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
North: SuperAmerica on E. Seventh; freeway ramp, freeway right-of-way and pazkiug
across E. Seventh
East: Across Broadway St., freeway right-of-way and E. Seventh bridge
South: Office-wazehouse space in the J.H. Atlen Building, which has a 7-story section on
E. Sixth St, and a 3-story addition (address 417 Broadway) on top of which the
sign was Iocated. The 7-story section has "freeway-size" roo$op biIlboard that
faces east.
West: 2-story office of Buckbee-Meazs, Ina and the parking ramp for the Lowertown
Business Center
1
•
�J
_
��
99
• E. ZONIiVG CODE CITATIONS:
Sec. 66.408(a) on Appeals. "Any person affected by the decision of the zoning
administrator dealing with the provisions of this chapter may appeal this decision to the
planning commission within ttrirty (30) catendar days of the decision...."
Sec. 66.103 and 66.104 on definitians. "Adverfising sign. A sign which directs attention
to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment which is conducted,
offered, sold or manufactured elsewhere than on the premises upon which the sign is
placed. It shall be considered as a nonaccessory sign." "Business sign. A sign which
directs attention to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment which is
conducted, offered, sold, or manufactured on the premises upon which the sign is placed.
It shall be considered as an accessory sign."
Sec. 66.214(j) on Advertising Signs. "Heritage preservation districts. Advertising signs
shall be prohibited from all historic preservation sites or districts designated by the city
council."
Sec. 66.301. Intent of regulations on nonconforming signs. "...It is the intent of this
chapter that nonconforming signs shall not be enlazged upon, expanded or extended, nor
be used as grounds for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same
district. It is further the intent of this chapter to permit legal nonconfomung signs existing
• on the effective date of this chapter, or amendments thereto, to continue as legai
nonconforming signs provided such signs aze safe, maintained so as not to be unsightly,
nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following provisions: (1) No sign shall be
enlazged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity; (2) Should such sign or
sign structure be destroyed by any means to any extent of more than fifry-one (51 }
percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the
provisions of this chapter; (3) Should such sign or sign structure be moved for any reason
for any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located after it is moved..."
Sec. 66.302. Nonconforming signs; exceptions. "Any advertising sign existing as of the
date of this section [February 2, 1988] which is located in a zoning district which does
not permit advertising signs or which does not conform to the size, height andfor spacing
requirements of this chapter may be replaced, relocated or renovated in the manner
provided in this section; provided, however, that snch activity shall bring the sign into
greater compliance with the provisions of this chapter and satisfy the following standards:
(a) Advertising signs to be replaced, relocated or renavated on the same zoning lot:
(1) The zoning lot must be within a zoning district in which advertising signs are a
permitted use, as specified in section 66.214(a) or (i), or as permitted in a speciai
, 2
0
sign district approved by the city council;
(2) The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height
requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b);
(3) The gross surface display area of the advertising sign shall not be made larger nor
shall the height of the advertising sign be made higher than was the previously
existing nonconforming sign;
(4) The advertising sign may be relocated or replaced within the original wning lot
and tke spacing requirements of section 66.214(b) and (k) sha11 not apply thereto;
provided, however, that the sign may not be placed within one hundred frfty (150)
feet from the I-35E Parkway right-of-way;
(5) An advertising sign which is less than four hundred (400} square feet in azea may
be located on a roof top, and all advertising signs may overhang a roof..."
F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION
•
The sign in this case is a very lazge rooftop billboazd owned by Dacotah Properties LLP
and leased since I987 to Speedway SuperAmerica, the business next door. Because the
sign is almost four times the size of a standard &eeway billboazd, it must be custom
painted and therefore the message is changed infrequeatly. The billboazd is visible from .
the nearby freeway and is intended to attract freeway drivers to the SuperAmerica.
At the beginning of the simuner the sign blew over in the sewnd of two major
windstorms that hit the city. The sign peeled back the roof of the building and had to be
removed in order for the building repairs to proceed. LIEP staff advised contractors not
to replace the sign and that a building permit would be needed to do so.
On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. applied for a sign pemut to reinstall the sign
frame and panels that were biown down by the storm. On September 17, 1998, 7ohn
Hardwick of LIEP denied the permit applicarion. The Ciry received an appeal of the
decision from Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, on October 19, 1998. A more detailed
letter explaining fhe appeal was received on November 26, 1998. (Atthough the appeai
was received a couple of days late, the appellant had been in communication with LIEP
staff eazlier and the appeal was e�ected. Staff recommends that the Plaiming
Commission decide the appeal on the merits of the case.)
The sign pernut application is aIso being considered by the Heritage Preserva6on
Commission since the property is in the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District Their
review is expected on November 19, 1998,
�
t�'1
99-3ao
• The Pianning Commission had a case about two storm-damaged billboazds during the
surtuner. The Commission decided that billboazd companies could, without sign permits,
replace sign face panels that had blown down if no damage had occurred to the sign
structure. The decision was appealed to the Ciry Council, wluch upheld the Planning
Commission. Scenic Minnesota is now appealing the City Council decision to district
court.
The present sign appeal is the first one to come to the Planning Commission regazding a
sign where the sign structure was damaged by the two windstorms in May and June. It is
likely that addifionai, similaz appeais will come to the Planning Commission.
G DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMIVVII�NDATION: The CapitolRiver Council decided to
make no recommendation on this case because of the unusual circumstance that the
Speedway SuperAmerica sign was so similaz to an on-premise business sign inasmuch as
the sign advertised the SuperAmerica right below it. Generaliy, the CapitolRiver Council
wants to reduce the number of billboazds downtown. They requested a biilboard
moratorium, which was approved by the City Council, for District 17 during the current
billboazd zoning study.
H FINDINGS:
1. The sign that blew down in the storm had some chazacterastics of both an advertising and
� a business sign. It was big like a billboard and looked like a billboard. But since 1987 it
was used exclusively to advertise SuperAmerica products for sale on the premises
immediately next door, almost right below the sign. Under a straight reading of the
definitions in the Zoning Code, the Zoning Administrator determined the sign to be an
advertising sign because it was not on the premises of the SuperAmerica. It was on the
premises next door. Accordingly, John Hazdwick of LIEP wrote to the applicant and
denied the sign permit application pursuant to the Zoning Admuustrator's interpretation
that the sign was a billboard; then he went on to explain why the permit would likewise
be denied if the sign were considered a business sign--either a nonconforming business
sign to be reconstructed or a new business sign.
2. On their appeal to the Planning Commission, Speedway SuperAmerica states the
following grounds for their appeal:
a. Re-anchoring sign does not require a new sign permit.
b. Sign is a conforming sign under the Code's ambiguous sign regulations.
c. The historic district does not prohibit replacing Zegal nonconforming signs.
d. The sign is not an advertising sign.
e. The denial misapplies fhe provisions of the St. Paul Code of Ordinances Section
66.301 and Section 66.342.
• 4
�'�
Their appeal is explained in more detail in a letter submitted on November 16, 1998. �
3. Accepting the Zoning Administrator's determination that the sign was a nonconfomung
advertising sign, it cannot be replaced for three reasons:
a. The City Council has imposed a moratoriwn on pemuts For advertisiug signs in
the downtown and several neighborhoods until the current billboazd zoning study
is completed and amendments aze enacted or until December 3I, 1999, whichever
comes first.
b. Section 66.302(a)(1} providas that in order for an advertising sign to be replaced
or renovated on the same zoning lot, it mast be in a zoning district where
advertising signs are a pernutted use. The property at 287 E. Si�cth St. is located
in a part of the B-5 zone where an advertising sign would be permitted except that
the property is within the Lowertown Heritage Preseroation District, and no
advertising signs aze permitted in historic districts.
c. Sectioa 66302(a) goes on to provide in paragraph (5) that billboazds over 400
squaze feet in size cannoY be replaced or renovated on the same zoning lot. The
SuperAmerica sign was 20 high and 160 feet long, totaling 3,200 square feet; it
was a giant among billboazds. Standazd "neighborhood billboazds" aze under 400
squaze feet and standard "freeway bilIboards" aze under S00 square feet. The
sign in question was eight times lazger than the code pernzits. �
3. Assuming that the sign was a nonconforming business sigre as the appiicant contends, it
cannot be reconstructed for two reasons:
a. It cannot be removed. nor can it be moved. Section 66301 states that "...it is
fiirther tl�e intent of this chapter to pemut legal nonconfornung signs ... to
continue as legal nonconforming signs provided such signs are safe, maintained
so as not to be unsightly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following
provisions..." These provisions go on to say Yhat nonconforn�ing signs cannot be
moved. Section 66.301(3) staies that "(3) Shonld such sign or sign structure be
moved for an�reason for any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to
the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located after it is moved."
(Underlining added.) The applicant's letter of 11/16/98 concedes that the sign
was indeed removed to facilitate repair of the roof and pazapet waIl that supported
the sign. The damage to the building, staff believes, woutd not have occurred if
the sign had not been acting as a sail in the wind.
b. The sign cannot be reconstructed unless the damage was less than 51% of the
replacement cost of the sign or sign structtue, The sign permit application
submitted by Lawrence Sign Co, estimates that the reconstruction project would
�
��
y Q-3ao
• cost $ l OQ,000. Staff normally asks the applicant to provide an estimate of the
replacement cost in order to derive the percentage of the damage. The applicant's
letter of November 16, 1998, contends that "this provision does not apply, since
this sign was not destroyed at all by the storm; it remained essentially intact while
the building roof failed." The estimated cost of $100,000 for reinstailation of the
sign and the claim that the sign and sign structure remained "essentially intact"
areinconsistent.
STAFF RECONIlVIENDATION:
Based on findings 1 and 3, PED staff recommend denial of the appeal. The Zoning
Admuustrator conectly deternuned that sign was an advertising sign under the terms of
the Zoning Code. Even though the billboard advertised the SuperAmerica next door, it
was not on SuperAmerica's premises. Moreover, even if the Zomng Administrator erred
in determining that the sign was a billboard, and the sign should have been considered a
business sign, the denial of the sign permit application was correct as explained in
finding 4.
�
.
G7
2�
OCT 17 1770 14�-S-M1 rROM CI71' Of' .r,l' f'RUL LIQ' TO
�pucanoN
Department of Plmrr�ru
Zontxg Sectiox
11�0 Crtyfl'a1lAnnex
25 ii'est Paurth �heei
Saiat Paul, IK1V 551J/2
Z6G-6589
APP�A!
and EconomicDevelapmmr
APP�LLAN7'
1240 l�Test
T,ip 55431 Daytime phone887-6100
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Name �
:atien 287 Sixth Street East, St. PauZ, Minnesot�
C_%.
'�YPE aF APT+EAL: Appiic<
p Board of Zonin
uncler the provisions of Ch<
appeal a decision made by
an Septe�tt�er 17
fdate of decision)
is hereby made for an appeal to the: •
peals ❑ City Councit x Pl�u�ing Co�nission
64, Seetion _ , Paragraph af the Zaning Code, to
i 9 98 . File number.,
GR4UHDS FOR APF�AL:�xpiain why you feet there has 6ean sn ercar in any requirement,
permiY, decisian ar refusai m de by an administrafive official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finc�ing made by the Board Zoning Appeats or the Pfanning Commission.
1. Re-anchoring sign does not require a new sign permit
2. The sign is a conforming sign under the Code's ambiguous siga reguIations.
3. The historic district does not prohibit replacing legat non-conforming signs,
4, The sign is not an advertising sign.
5. The denia[ misapplies the provisions of St. Pau( Code of Ordinances Sec�ion ���fl�����n �
66302. �„����
Attach addi6onaf sheet i�
ApplicanYs
City
'G. a O
��
�
.�' .
•
�
�
�
1 18���
� r.�
S��M1
�� I
�
CITY OF SANT PAUL
IPITERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 29, 1998
TO: Wendy Lane, Frank Berg
FROM: 7ohn Hardwick�
RE: More storm damaged billboards
99 -3�a
Today our office issued a permit to remove a storm damaged billboard form the roof of the Allen
Building at 287 E Th Street. The bIllboazd blew over and peeled back the roof of the building. It was
necessary to zemove the billboard structure in order to repair the roof of the building. Since this
is in the Lower Town Preservation area the billboard can not be rebuilt .The contractor doing the roof
repair was told not to replace the sign. While I was out looking at this sign I noticed thai a Universal
billboard at 421 E Th Street had also blown over onto the buildin� at that address damagin� the roof.
There was a Universal repair crew at the site (they did not have a permit). I spoke with the foreman
and told him that he could remove the si�n but could not rebuild or replace the sign without first
� obtainin� a pernut. The foundation had puled out of the ground and the only thing holdin; the si�n up
was ihe roof of the buildin;. This si the first sign I have seen where the foundation failed and pulled
out of the ground. Maybe �ve need to require a soils test before we issue any more freestandin�
billboard permits? Would it be a good idea to have our building inspectors inspect for these signs
since they are familiar with footings and soils?
cc: Bob Kessler
Peter Wamer
Virginia Palmer
�
�
September 4, 1998
b.;. Ed Locke
City of S*.. Paul
L�v�lding InspecYi�n and Design
=5Q St. Peter Street, Suite �QQ
SY.Pau�,Atl� SSiQ2-1510
IZE: Si�r. Permi?, SuFer.America
De� Ed
cugerAmerica weuid like tQ restQre their storm dama�ed si�n tha± �vas at 4I7 Sroadwzy
Street. Thanks for revie�vin' the enclosed pernut application, site plan and dra�vin�.
When agproved, please have someone notify us and �x�e wiil fon��ard a check.
Thanks a�ain, please call u�ith any quesYions.
Cordiaily,
� � a€t
Encts.
�, 945 PtERCE BUTLER ROUTE � ST. PAUt, M[NNESOTA 55104 � 612.485.6711 � FAX 612.488.6713
La.wrence �
.
ig�,
��
�
2'j
AUG-21-98 FRI 8 LRWRENCE SIG�
BUILOING INSPEC7tON AN� OESIGN
OFFICE OF LlCENSE, INSPECTfONS AND ENV(RONMENTAI
350 ST. PETEft S7REET. SIJITE 3C0
57. PAUI, MINNESOTA 55102-1510
(See back of farnt for
FAX N0. 651488671�
�. o:
99-3 ��
SIG�
PERMIT APPLICATlQN
�n nnd
Number SUeet Name St,61vd„Ave,etc. N S E W Cross Street Da!e
PROJECT �, 1 V('Ua�WA JV G. � f�' C L. b` �Q'. � r 1
ADDRESS
stgn Contractar Address Gf �{.g f�� e,.�� (.� (e.t (�o��� Phone
��A�^+�Q.ncC�c ✓� City c5�-. �w�.l� I^tN. SSIo�{ ��df'i-�s� 11
In�!uda Contatt Person ¢ a�� ���L1 E State,Zip
�Business/Owne L L/� Address a�� � (D'� -�. f, Phone G
�. pA<o�a� �rope�}.:e$, /' City a-�{f.�, a (d�
Inciude Contact Person �� w c�i C r; �icS o-� State,Zip �-� ,�y � � t'U_ SS / CS �
I New Ssgn Aiter Ezisting Sign / � Estlmated Start Oste Estimatad Comple4ian Dete ES7IMATED VAIUE OF PROJEC7
� feSS�S-r-1 } �Cl��� �s�� S �d0 C9U0 ^
Completc Stctian I(os Section II foc PoRable Signs) and Section AI
t30TICE: A Site Plan and a Dnwing of each sign must accompany this permit applicatioA.
SEC170N T - GENE.ItAL StGNS
�
i
Ptace X or check marK m square neut lo sign type. Enle� number ai gigns oF aeiected type, width and iength In faet antl Lot Dimensions S.rxet Fron;a�a (
In�has, and tola! square leet of sign. Use addltional columna (or s(gns of difteren! sizes or lis; in Descripfion o( Arof ect. Widlh teng;h (N�-�her o` fee jf
W9t1 Waii Wal1 Wall Wdtt EsfeHng Si¢napa (�3 X s �(�U I
on tho haperty
Frna Standing Free Standing Free Sfanding Free Standing Free Standing aforo �h�e project
Projecting Proje
R Roof
ity � Quan
Widch � Widtl
Le�cU � � ,,.� Lcng�
Rooi Root
Quanuty nuenti'
Wdth Width
Le�B�h Langch
Sque�e Spuare
Nning inciuded YES projechon away Stru�ture
� ❑ Gom 0uiiding {fUln) S¢e:
in Permit.
Manyt +Square 6eet
�ilt nxt WU secaoa iorLtcuniv a �xt
Tlfaninn;c� `-'� i_.�I
� _%'�'
:opy to Reatl �
S u P e� �or�5
y S �j - cAF�
Roof
Qusntity
Witlth
Length
Squ&�d
Height Length
- P(�RTA&LE S[GNS
n Height
wqmc(Sq. Feet�
� O— 75 the Sign Loca'ed
on a Comer LoYI YES ❑ PA �!
�
Slgnega to be
Removad (�n
SQ�ara Feet}
�U—
���
Totaf Squ�ia
�Bat af SiBns f
thie Permit
� �oo
cnption af Profect 4
�e.�S���l �<�r`1
r
�
Qlow� p �
Appifcant certifies that alf information is cofrect and thaf all
pertinent state regufations and city ordinances will Be complied
with in performtng the work for which fh+s pemtit'ss issued.
� �� .� -- �� �'-6 71.�
ppficanYs'Signature 7elephone Number
ming Remarks
{s Sign in 2 Shepp�ng YES �!:O �
CenledStnp Mall�
Does the S:gn p�cjact over yE5 NO �
a PubllC Rr ofVlay7 rl �
iJ
Enler amounl o( Projzction cvx�'
Aub'i:Right l.�—�.
is the S�gn Locatetl YES � NO �'
cn a Comer �ct�
t6e S�fi�t u il7u�unated nriti�an r�xtrics:
tw�c'� ._ --
u �.br
►^aw. e. � �c.n e 1 S
�
S�,Q �
Sign Perm{t Fee
Ptan Check fee
Sta;e Surcharge
Total Permit Fee
I PIN
o�
s
S�
$
s�
�
mmg �ietnct I (
1 �Q,
ovra^;e Signage Reeiewed 6y �Ja!e YFJ Recl�xved
�
�
-�-
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
g
.�';�
�
� �
� �
���
� �
� S
�
� �
�
N
x
�
�
� �.,
0
�
�f
OFFICE OF LICEDISE, NSPECTtO�iS A?ID
EWIRO�i.�fEYiAI PROTEC770V
Robert Kessler, Di�ettor
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, 6layor
September 17, 1998
Geoff Michael
Lawrence Signs
945 Pierce Butler Route
St Paul, Minnesota 55104
LOWRYPROFESSIOhAL BUILD/.\G
Sui+e 300
3i0St PererSrreer
Sairti Paul, Afinnesota 55102-I5f0
RE: Sign permit application for Super America at 287 East Sixth Sueet.
Dear Mr. Michael:
99-3aa
Telephans: 6l2-266-9090
Facsimik: 6(2d 66-9099
61I-266-912f
Your permit application for the referenced sign has been denied for the following reasons:
1. The proposed sign is located on and attached to the building at 287 6 th St East. Since thz si�n
is advertising goods or services offered off the premises, it is an advertising sign. (b6.103 a).
The building at 287 6 th St, East is located within a Herita�e Preservation District and
advertising signs are not permitted within heritage preservation districts. (6b.214 j)
2. Since the sign was removed in order to repair the damaged roof of the buildin; we must treat
any permit application to replace the sign as a new sign permit. In addition to the fact that the
proposed sign is located in a heritage preservation district, the proposed sign does not meet ihe
spacing requirements of Section 66.214 which requires a minimum of 1,000 feet of spacinQ
between advertising signs on the same side of the street. As a new advertising sign, section
66.214 (h), which prohibits an advertising sign to be located on a roof, would also apply. If this
application were considered to be a request to replace a nonconformin� advertising sign on the
same zoning lot, the regulations in 66.302 would apply. Based on sections 66302 (1), which
states that the sign to be replaced must be located within a district w�hich allows advertisine
signs, and 66302 (5) �vhich states that a sign greater than 400 squaze feet may not be located e=
a roof, the sign may not be "replaced, relocated or renovated".
� Since I have the unpression from my conversations with representatives of the principals
involved �vith this proposed si;n that our interpretations and determinations in this matter «�ill be
appealed, I am including the following information in order to expedite the process.
N.�J
permit application page 2
�
If the referenced sign were to be considered a business sign rather than an advertising si�n it
would still be a nonconformina sign due to the size of the sign. As such it would be subject to the
provisions of Section 66.301 (2) tivhich states that a sign destroyed by any means to an e�ctent of
more than 51 % of its replacement cost, may not be reconstructed except in conformance with the
code. The si�n would also be subject to 66301 (3) which states that if a nonconforming sign is
moved any distance for any reason it inust thereafter conform to the code.
I£ the proposed sign were considered a new business sign, it esceeds the maximum allowable
signa�e for this location and a variance �vould be required. It also «•ould require review and
approval of the Herita?e Presee Commission. Since appeals and variance requests
conceming signs are both heazd by the Pianning Commission, it would expedite matters to
include the appropriate variance requests in any appeai application.
Finally, you should be aware that any sign greater than 50 squaze feet requires struciurat
drawings signed by a structural en�ineer registered in the State of Minnesota of both the sign
structure and the buiiding that the sign is attached to or on.
Any decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator re�azding signs may t;e
appealed to the Plannin� Commission by submitting an application stating the reason you be.i:cc
the decision is in error alon� with the appropriate fee to this office «ithin 30 days of the dat� of�
this leTter.
If you have any questions regardin� this matter you may contact me at 266-9082.
Si e ely, o
%��.t� ���
John Hazd�vick
Zoning Specialist
cc: Larry Solderholm, Principal Planner
Wendy Lane, Zoning Manager
Aazon Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Staff
�
3�
r
.W.ESP.URYp1
ROBfFTL HOFFMIN
4ERHD M iitlEDE'LL
FWIMDJ.CPoSLQI
<a+[ x. FuiFrc
,aou o. nni�a
fx++aci_wxvEr
aWtlFSSW�aEtt
deasronfxxuErgx
• uwnwnssn
n+oussa. sraiuw
wcw.�-i,c+r�aux
A141E pFH
JCN 3 SYAfF2EV/Sq
TqMesJ. RttN
x�sv,awrv
TCCOI.fREp/hV
cx�,un� scac
awa wodasc
o+na xow� •
�aww coners•
P/YL0.0.lM.�R
AW�L pILCW
1 tFTfID!l4�A£1'/AUi
WRNFLB.I�rWQY
CitEWRYEKCNSts➢
G+RYA VPNREYE'
6VrE L B^JAtES
I1MOTrvJ.%Eqlg
PtM1M. MAf,R�J�N
Wlh4L RCQAGK
M�QNEL W.57LEY
FONi & %RFPS
iERRENCEE&SHOP
usaa cwnr
G1iYA RFiWE1(E
aa�srco�cxx+van�sn✓a
KEVOFII o�v.¢ocGE
&0.lKEJ D'JIN3A5
wuweC. c.¢imM ae.
.
October 15, 1998
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY ceL I,INDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORVYEST FINANCIAL CEMER
790a XERXES AVENUE SOU7H
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-7794
TELEPHONE(672)835�epp
FAX (612) 846-3333
John Hazdwick
City of St. Paul
Lowry Professional Building, Suite 300
37Q Sauth St. Peter Street
St. Paul, MN 55102-1510
Re: Sign Permit Appeal - 287 East 6'" Street
Dear Mr. Hardwick:
9 �1-3ao
JYNRIHI
PE:FRA COnE
VaWYANWIW
.K`EE B�EMER
�a«isre�eeric.+�
�eon&.,t sun�
H{REW i. G�M91
saecaawcw.weaFe
NBY.W G MYMPV
ue�u�
api��.uo¢a�
OW'"!p°IERKµFA
WWCYRFAOSi
QA' i3.I311 Nl6flY
srrrefxi Kr�a
TA'%4l5 F. NEXNtFR
m�aatwu<
suaw,tiw�e++
.rowvr. rt�
c Raw�s
GBapRpc0BV5
.pin E TON�R
r••'�°�t 315n0
A�LREW0.M.W ^
[WAalPA{SMN£
Usni RM91NSIXJ
WL�SGlA55�iC
50nY.�A INtup56+.SFJG'�
J]SfR{l i1R0.VSF� R
A4V1(0, PWSfOFtER�R �ON
K CG]5El
NG(FOWY
0.16lfiEll�tDIX:REN
ILUNE MtAtJG/rV
.KISEPf{qii5
' asoonMmEDwvnswsu
` pLYAOWRmW
uat,vpu�rts
••• aarenfurrtOwiaw
The purpose of this letter is to serve, pursuant to St. Paui Code of Ordinances Section 66.408, as the
appeal for your written determination dated September 17, 1448, of the application of SuperAmerica for a
sign permit at 287 East 6'� Street. SuperAmerica wiil suhmit a memorandum in support of this appeal
eazly next week. Please advise our office of the schedule for hearing this appeal. Additionally, we
respectfully request you copy our office on any correspondence the city receives relating to this appeal.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 896-3203.
3incerety,
.
Timothy J Keane, for
LARKIN, QFFMAN, DALY
& LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Sam Van Tassel, Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC
Chuck Erickson, Aacotah Building
Peter Warren, Assistant City Attorney
.
oaseszo.oi
3y
aa�sv.un�w
qLgFATL IICfiAW1
GQWDtlR(ll�HL
mvurm�. cavui
GEiEN FU1Ht
JOIN0. FlLLWEP
FPNKLIYR/EY
LTIeHIF9SlY..C6L
PWST�fEft1 NEfE�i'
uesnn �isgrt
t1KkAA4P.5i0.TA4W
MIC}U84.NCqNN
ClNE d@/
!]IiBANERltlKM
ThqMPSJ.RYlN
JN.E$P.CUMI
mro�x�auav
c�r¢n� s�c
.NMf16 UMMUST
WTIEfpIN('
JOWALDTI$t�
PNAB.FWN(EiT
P1ANLplWN
NAT1i�TIM. NLOTIENEl1MIJl
NKlYF18.LF8W0l1
b�EGMYE KCQSfOD
GMYA VON ¢EVE'
bVABL 9THE5
TINOMYA KFME'
011�HKPfCER3Q1
6'�lfNL0.C81CK
AUC3S4F1 W. SOlEY
0.GN61PEP5
IHiPENCEEBINqP
(14A0. GRAY
G>AY0.�F181p¢
CHUSTCRERJ. HORRLSTW.
NpBrLC 1C1i120IX£
em��.muc�ns
wivawc. c�eimni. w.
�ctober 20, 1998
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY ceG LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS A7LAW
Y560 NORWESTFINANCfALCEN7ER
7900XERXESAVENUESOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431•1194
TEtEPHONE (612) 635�3800
FAX (612) 8963333
John FTardwick, Zoning SpecialisY
City of Saint Paul
350 St. Pefer Sireet
Suite 300
Saint Paui, MN 55102-1510
Re: Sign Permit Appeal
Dear Mt. Hazdwick:
AlNRNLL
PETFRA CDY3E
VARYD.WRPN
.Mt1EEBN@ER
J}N1S(fHHl4Vfl1
lIKl49EI.A SWRI
NtftEW F, �diN
mEneu�cx;wmua
11fi3M1IG
MNAl�E19!
�s�.i+neor+
ClPISTCPI£RKtPRtB
1lWGYRFi06f
OWGlA4LLP/J.0.ER
s�»e+awnrtma
IFKMNSL.NF.YNNEQ
uaaar.wars
&wa+nwvw�mv�
.K{NF plM
C HtlNi4u�E5
C9iB�IRCfiPJtA
JpNEttIHER
JN.ESAl9fi0L
MLREWARYMI "
dJY6J.B411M1lE
116f�SRGPASIX�
mcas.u�
Sq4YAR gNLN.�C1fABG"'
J�EAIJ.FlRANIE.R
WHK40ARIOREASON
Cf 'tl�lN�F. 1
J�CiCF.OLLY
0.1�tiEMUW(iia
N1.WE W!lGAV
.RI5641(YfIS
' aSOwumIDxN6WMSIN
� cn.v.�u�rtmw
rus+�rts
-^ owxin�unmwwwn
VTA MESSENGER
Please find enclosed in support of the Speedway SuperAmerica appeal letter of October 15, 1998, and in
response to your letter of October I9, 1998, a check in the amount of $380.00 and an executed appiication
for appeal stating the grounds for the appeai.
Shou2d you have any questions, please contact me at 896-3203.
Sincerely,
..._-----
Timo . �eaue, for
LARKIN, FFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
hmb
Enclosure
0437879.01
•
.
�
�
OFF[CE OF LIC�iiSE, (NSPECT[O\S AtiD
E�IViRO`�SE�lTAL PROTECTIO\
Rabert Kessler, Director
SATNI
PAUL
�
Al1AA
GITY OF SANT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Ala}•or
October 19, 1998
Timothy Keane
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
1500 Nonvest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
(AfVRY PROFFSSIONdL BUlLOL�'G
Suite 300
3JOSt. PelerSaeet
Sairtt Paul, Afirtsesota 35[01-I510
RE: Sign permit appeal - 287 6th Street East.
Dear Mr. Keane:
y9-3ao
Tefephone: 612-266-9090
Facsimile: 611-266-9099
6lL266-91?J
Sent via fax and regular mail 10/19198
� received yottr letter da:ed 10/15/93 today stating your intent to appeal our decision denying a
� permit application for the referenced sign. Our determination was issued on 9/17/98 and by
ordinance, 66.300 (j), you have 30 days from that date to file an appeal. Appealing a decision of
the Zoning Administrator requires a submission of an application for appeal form along with the
required application fee, ($380), and an explanation of the grounds for appeal. Your letter ���as
received after the 30 day appeal period was expired. Furthermore, the letter itself does not
constitute filin� an appeal. However, since you have stated your intent to appeal our decision
regarding thz referenced sign several times previousiy, I will accept an application for appeal if
the proper form is submitted alona with the appropriate fee and a letter stating your grounds for
appeal, if it is received in this office by October 21, 1998. Although I am w to accept your
late application, I don't know if the Planning Commission, because of the untimely submission,
wi1( be willin� to hear the matter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter you may contact me at 266-9082.
Sinc,erely, " ,
i ,.,.,
� John Hardwick
Zoning Specialist
ec: Wendy Lane
, Larry Solderholm
Peter Warner
�
rnu.� . n v.. �i✓.s�.n r���n
�
LAItKJN, H01'FMnN, DALY & LiNDORLN, Lru.
AT70RNEYB AT LAW
November
I.any Soderh
City �i' Si. Pa
Depa��inicnt c
1) UU City He
25 West Pow
St. Paul, MN
Re: Specd
28? S
Desr Mr. Soi
Tliis lettcr is
Application 1
SuperAmeric
admissian th
be necassary
rac:��s
In Ja��uary l'
source o� mc
llacotah is a
7'hiw Supc:rA
Lowcrtown.
on the si�i !
fncc � rusidc
1987, perfoi
1998
Principal Planner
Planning and Lc:onomic Development
Annex
i Streel
i5IO2
SuperAmeriea LLC Zoning Appeal
Sixth Street Esst
VIA FACSIMILE 228-3220
& U. S. MAtL
�bmitted in s«ppoi�t of Specdway SuperAmerica LLC's (SupezAmerica ot AppellanQ
• Appea} dated actaber 20, 1998, appealing the determination of the Zon[ng Section of
s request w zeinstell its sig+� located at 297 Sixth Straet Hast. Tl�is appliCation is not an
a sign permit or ai3y action by the zoning administrator of other City officiais is ar mi�t
� allow Appellani io lawfully repair SuperAmerica's sign at 287 Esst SixU� Street.
87, SuperAmerica and Charles rsickson, owner of the DaCotah, signed e lease for
� to use the then-existing sign mounted on 4�e Dacotah. The lease income is a significeat
�me i'or the Dacatah and helps make it commereiaUy viable despite the building's age. 'Tha
lvee and five story building immediateJy adjacent to a single-story SuperAmerica statian.
nerica was specialiy designcd pnd constructed of red and buff bxiek to blend in with
Ti�e si�n face sits directly ahove the station canopy and stote. The Dacotah building surCece
de is modern metai corrugatet} siding. Tha sign face az1d station both face T-9Q. They dsr not
itial or commercial area. SuperAmerica has ]awfuliy used and maintained the sign si�tce
ninR maintenance tasks and repairs as necessary. On May 31,1996, by latter to
�
....u..vdd 1��W�
1600 NORWEST cINaNC10.LCENTER
7p0pXER%ESAYENUESOUTN
B1001AIN0TON.MINNE80TA 66�91•H94
TEIEPNONE (812) 836.tB00
FAX (8t2) BYB��.17�
�
�
-
a oa�ne�
Ydtr. orir
a. ka+wraiwme+
+�a.rm. wtuaw
mwxorcw
' /1lOMMItmN4AlOON�W
•• y1�+�4R1NN
"' CW.Y�M�O�M
LARKIN, HOl>FMAN, I7ALY & LINDOREN, L'3'D.
Larry Soderho
November 1 G,
• 3'E�gc 2
n, Principal Plsnncr
998
q 9-3a o
SuperAmerica s sign-maintenance contractor, I.awrenca Signs, the City of SY. Peu3 advised thal when
"existing sign anels are removed and ncw pancls are reinstalled" "(t]he Csty views the current work an
the �•eference s��;n as rouiine maintenunce snd as such did not require s parmit: '
ln the May sto m oi' ] 998, the roof of the building at 287 Bast 5ixth Stree;t sustained struciural damage,
induding the of poriion on which the sign was mounted. 1'he sign at�d supporting stnicture remeined
essentially 'ss�t ct. However, thc huilt-up roof suffered extensiva dantage, SuperAmeriea quickly detached
the si�n struci �re to faci(itate the roof repairs. Both the building ovmor and SuperAmerica intended ihe
sign to be re-a�tached as soon as the roof'repairs were completed.
'1'l�c roof is no repaired, and SuperAmerica has hired a contractor ta re-attsch the sign. The contractor,
I,eiwrence Sig s, Soliows a business practice of a)ways applying for sign permits whenever they do any
signircant sig i work. They do nat analyze wheiher a permit is required or i�ot under different zoning
codes. 1'0llo ing this standard business practice, Lawrence Signs suhmitted a"Sign Permit Application"
to the C;ity of �;i. I'aul for re-anchorin� the SuperAmerica sign, on Septamber I, 1998. By ]otter to
LE�wrence Sig s dated September 17, 1998, snd received September 21,1998, the City 6f St. Paul denied
thc pennit, co struing the appJic�tion es one for a new sign, advertisi»g �oods offered off the premises,
anJ a sign to e constructed in a Neritabc Preservation District. Mr, Hatdwlek did not expres� a position
mi whether or »ot u permit was required in the first place.
� Gi20UNAS �'OR AP1'TAL
,
Rc-nnchorin��thc sign to the repaircd roof after it was removed only to make it easier to repair that roof is
nul placin�; or erecting a sign. The City CounciS did not intond to imposc Q pem�it requirement to
re-anchor the •eme sig�a in the snme place, especially here, wliere the sign was detached only in responsa
to w;nd dama e to the building. Itequiring a perrnit here provides the City sn unexpected method of
re6ulating sig is. If ¢ permit is required and denied, the City will be andorsing an offrcial policy of usin�
nadural disast�r und the resulting good acts of propesty ovmers to puntsh those property owners. This is
ncither the le er nor the s�irit of the zoning code.
7"he St. Paul 'ity Adn�inistrstive Code (Code) § 66.2Q1 governs signs in genarel. It states thet sign
pern�its are r quired to place, ereci, or maintain a sign. Since the Gode in other sections uses ihe word
« ��
"rcplace" wh n a sign is to be pui buck wherc it already existed, "place" as usad in this sectson means
i»it.ia,i placc� ent where a si�n has not bcen placed bafore. (See § b6,302 "replaco, raiocate, or renovate").
SuperAmcric does not seek to piace the sign, since the sign will be re-a�tichored in exactly the same
positiosti it w s before, SuperAmcrica likewise does not seek to "arect" the sign, since ihe sign was
esscntittl]y in act afier the roof Sxiled. SuparA�nerica removed anchor bolts and detached the sign
siructure to f ciliwte thc roof repair. '3"he Code's use of "maintain" most logicelly meazis "keep in glace
without A re �niC' rather than "perform mainienance on", 5inca the City does not contend that sigu owners
nce�f a sign p to perform day-to-day maintenance sueh as paint, raplaee bolts, changa light buibs, and
sc� futtit. Su�berAmerica is not "maintainin�" a sign within this Code meaning. No section of the Code
�
!��■
LARKIT�f, I�Or�MAN DA[.v & LtNDGREN, LT�,
Larry Sodezho n, Principal Planner
November 16,�i99$
mandates a sig i pcnnit !'or re-anchoring of a sign wliieh has merely been moved to aliow repairs on the
building belavl.
lu ff�ct, in the � 9961etter referenced Above, the City expressed exaetty ihis common-sense position to
SuperAmeriea repairs which tempocarily remove the siga or parls of the sign ara repeirs which do not
reyuire a pem� t. To reyuire a permit at this time contradicts the City's earlier position end teads to thc
a�nciusion tha the City is ncting azbitrarily. Under the cieaz languaga o�the Code, and consistent with
the City's prio position, re-anchoring the sign is a repair which doas not require a permit.
1f a permit is r�;q��ired and thc sign is deemed a noncomforming sign, Cdde § 663d1 app}ies.
Scc. G6.30I. Intcnt
' Jt is recogn9zed that signs exist within the zoning districts which
� were lawful before this chapter was enacied, which would be prohiUited,
� regulated, or restricted under the terms of diia chepter or future
� amendmonts. It is Aic intca�t of ihis chapter that non-canfbrming signs shall
� not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for
i adcliug other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the saq'te distr+ct. It is
. further the intent oP this clfapter to permit legal nonconforming signs
� existing an thc effective date af this chapter, or an�endments thereto, to
cuntinue as Icga1 nonconforming signs provided such signs are safe,
maintained so as noi to be unsightly, nor removed and no'z abandoned
subject to the fo)lowuig provisions.
7he ciearly e�ressed intent of iho Code is to allow nonconfortning slgns to stay where they sre, provided
thcy meet Co e requirernents. SuperAmeriea's sign satisfies the provisions of the nonconformity end
should bc allqwed to bc re-a�schored on ihc same place.
Tl,c first
loc:ation is
Thc second
m�ans to an;
apply, sinr.e
building roa
The third p
exactly the
The i'ourth
•r.oninb dis
sion is "No sign sl�all be cnlarged or altered in a way whiph increases its nonconformity."
proposes only to re-anchor thc sign to the new roof; the sign's dimensions and
aro exactly ihe same �as before the roof damage, the structure remains the same, end the
sume. I�o enlargement or aiteration witl occur.
ision is thAt no sign shall be replaced or reconstructed sfter beiag "destroyed by any
ent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of 9ts repiacemant cost." This ptrovision does not
sign wus not destroyed at all by the storm; it remained essentielly intact while the
'on applies to signs that ere �noved. As stated above, tItis sign witl be r�-anchored in
, place. Since it will not be moved, this provision does not apply.
sion baa�s enlarg(nb, extcnding, or moving signs devoted to a use not permitted in tI�e
No enlnrging, extending, or moving will occur, sa Yhis provision does not apply.
�
•
_
�'�
LARKIN, IiOPFMAN, DALY & LINQC'iREN, LTD.
Lrvey Soderho
T}ovember 16,
i Page 4
n, Arincipal Planner
998
Ti�e fiflh provi��ion applies onfy wl�en a structurc loses its nonconfortning status. Neither the
SuperAmerica�st�ation the sign advertises nor the building at 2$7 East Sixth Street have lost
nonc�nformin status, so this provision does not apply.
�I9'3ao
The sixth prov sion sllows repainting, rcp�sting, or replacing when there is a chenge of nonconforming
use. Again, n change of use is proposed, so this provlsion does not apply. Since the sign conforms to a11
the provisions f§ G6.301, and the clear intent of t1�et section is to allow the sign to continue as it existed
bcfore, the re- nchoring is permitted.
qncstions,
Si erely,
umrt
�moty, �.
I.ARKiN
� lanb
C: Jto�
Steve
�444G72.G1
,
respcctfully rec�uests approval of its Application for Appeal. Should you have any
se contact mc at 896-3203.
/ �9�
UA Y & LINDGREN, Ltd.
Mueller, Specdway SuperAmcr;ca LLC (via Pacsimile)
Zeckinger, Speedway 5uperAmerica I,LC (via facsimilo)
��
•, ••• • • • .. rwkEND�r• • • ,•
1VAE50.{PRptl
h�°9tTLKMFMAV
GH(O1DHfPIFLHl
Evxum�.uuscou
fF.NENMIH2
.KfN0.flM11fAER
FANJ(I.IIOAVEY
cwn�s s rnoo¢�
cvmsronatiaFrtrn
woan v�r+
T:(MVSP. ST0.lWJ�
MFW+II.G.NQPVN
plNEO18i
avua� ewn.Es
nurnwri�
w.nwa�me.esow
CIXPNL RCC/SK
MIG'Ofl.W.bGIEY
FIXdiA uYG@S
]E¢R6�KEE &SHCP
fNtYA�
CIFISTCPFEkA HPAftibTVl
NQ0liJ.Ci¢RV�^6E
BRtKFJ Oq%iA5
vauuun a c�o-xmt a+.
JqNR MLL
FEtEftJ.CAYIE
UPFYO. WQfIN
Febntary 12, 1999
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Mr. Peter Warner
� usocn�mtmwwsca+six
^ diYOA(REDW
Ws&np36E1'IS
^ qiY0fY1TE9Ell0/w
Department of Planning and Economic Development Office of the City Attorney
Zoning Section City of St. Pau1
1100 City Hail Annex 15 W Kellogg Boulevard
25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: SuperAmerica Sign at 287 East Sixth Street, St. Paul, MN
Dear Messrs. Soderholm and Warner:
Our office has been notified that Scenic Minnesota opposes the Planning Commission's decision
regarding the SuperAmerica sign at 287 East Sixth Street in downtown St. Paul. Scenic Miunesota seeks
to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Councii. It is our opinion that Scenic
Minnesota lacks standing to seek such an appeal. This letter sets forth our reasoning for challenging the
Seenic Minnesota appeal.
St. Paul Code of Ordinances § 64.206 provides in relevant part:
An appeal may be taken to the city council by any person, firm or
corporation or any officer, deparcment board or bureau affected by a
decision of the boazd or planning commission. (Emphasis added.)
This "affected by" standard repeats identieal language from Minn. Stat § 462357, subd. 6. The precise
meaning of "affected by" is not defined in Yhe Code of Ordinances, state statute, or in Minnesota case Iaa.
Authoritative treatises on municipal law and case law in many other jurisdictions have interpreted that a
person must be "aggrieved by" a decision to have a right to appeal it, and assign the same meaning to
"aggrieved by" and "affected by". It is manifest the intent of "affected by" in the St. Paut City Code is to
incorporate this "aggrieved by" standard. It would be bad public policy for the Minnesota Legislatuse, or
St. Paul City Council, to grant appeal rights on all decisions to any gerson, including non-residents and
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8L LINDGREN, LTD.
A7TORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORWEST FlNANCIAL CENTER
7900XERXESAVENUESOUTN
BIOOMINGTON, MINNESO7A 55431-1194
TELEPHONE (612) 835-366a
FAX (67� 8963333
�
C�
-
�� �
OFCq118
NLKF.blY
D.I�INEM�
p1I1NE WLLKrW
.KC6MCiIi6
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. " 7_ ��
Mr. Larry Soderholm
• Mr. Peter Warner
February 12, 1999
Page 2
non-resident corporations. Consequenily, the "aggrieved by" standazd and decisions are a sound place for
St. Paul to draw the line.
Scenic Minnesota's Interest Does Not Dif£er from Anv Other Citizens'
Generally, to be "aggrieved" or "affected," a party must have a stronger interest than unaffected citizens; a
legal properry interest in either the subject properiy or adjacent properiy impacted by the decision.
Commonly any person aggrieved or affected may take an appeal from an
administrative decision to the zoning board. ... Although a party in order
to be aggrieved need not show a legal injury, the party must ailege and show
injury or damage other than as a member of the general public.
McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, § 25.258. Here, Scenic Minnesota has neither alleged nor shown
that they are any different from ordinary taxpayers. In fact, their aesthetic/historic concerns aze exactly
the same as those that could be raised by any visitor or resident, taxpayer or not, in the City of St. Paul.
Scenic Minnesota Has No Propertv R_ght in the Neiehborhood
• To be affected, and consequently to have a right to appeal, a party must have a properry right in the azea or
neighborhood:
The appropriate parties in appeal ... or other proceedings for relief against,
or reversal of decisions of boards of adjustment or other zoning authorities,
generally must be those aggrieved by the decision, by reason of its adverse
affect upon properry rights. ... the words "any person or persons
aggrieved" include any land owner or resident within the city whose
situation is such that the decision of a zoning boazd may adversely affect the
owner in the use of property owned or occupied by that owner. ...[A]n
owner of property not directly affected by the action of a zoning board
cannot assert merely a general civic interest so as to come within the
meaning of "person aggrieved." However, there can be no aggrievement
when the zoning regulations of a municipality aze amended in such a way
that no particulaz area or property is affected. ...[A]ggrieved is not broad
enough to include anyone other than a person directly affected by the action
of an administrative official or board chazged with the enforcement of the
ordinance.
McOuillin on Municipal Comorations, § 25.318. T'his language is broad enough to inciude a wide variery
of property interests, including adjoining property owners, nearby property owners whose property value
• is affected, tenants, neighborhood or overiay district residents subject to the same zoning reshictions, and
seliers or buyers of land. See Mc uillin § 25318.10. But "[a] property owners or taYpayers assaciation,
whether or not incorporated, which itself pays no taxes or owns no properry affected by a zoning boazd's
decision, is not qualified as an aggrieved party to appeal from a zoning decision. Mc uill' § 25.318.10.
r �
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, I3ALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Larry Soderkokn
Mr. Peter Warner
Februaiy 12, I999
Page 3
Scenic Minnesota Has No Propertv Ri h�t Impacted bv the Decision
We are not aware that Scenic Minuesota owns any land in the City of St. Paul, nor are we aware that any
property they might own is diminished in any way by the Plaiuung Commission's decision. To our
knowledge they have never claimed or alleged such ownership or injury. Obviously, if Scenic Minnesota
owns no property, tken there is no property for the decision to impact. Even if Scenic Minnesota were to
own properry somewhere in the city, that properry is not impacted by the decision. The Allen Building
and the contiguous SuperAmerica store are fhe only property impacted. Finaily, diminishment of propem•
rights is affected, and the decision enhances both the Allen Building and the adjacent SuperAaierica
Store. The decision diminishes no properry right. Without injury in fact, a party cannot have standing.
Virginia Beach Beautification Commission v. Bd. Of Zonine Appeals of Vir�inia Beach, 344 S.E.2d 899,
902-903 (1986}
Associations Such as Scenic Minnesota Never Have Standine
C�
An association which neither owns adjacent properiy, nor has members owning adjacent property, has
never been granted standing to contest a zoning decision in the United States. 8 A.L.R. 4th 1087
(surveying United States cases on standing of civic or property owner associations to challenge zoning
board decisions as aggrieved parties). Without propeny neazby that has been hanned by the Planning
Commission's decision, Scenic Minnesota and its individual members do not have standing to bring this -•
appeal. We suggest that the St. Pau1 Ciry Council follow the lead of coutis in many other jurisdicYions, in
setting sensible limits on who may appeal City decisions.
Scenic Minnesota Does Not Renresent the Nei¢hborhood Interests
Even if Scenic Minnesota members awn impacted property, Scenic Minnesota is not tke proper
organization to pursue this appeal. Most jurisdictions that have considered the question, follow the
reasoning in Douglaston Civil Ass'n v. Galvin, 324 N.E.2d 317 (NY 1974), to detemiine wfien an
association properly represents the interests it claims to protect. Douglaston and the many courts
following it have held that the association must have four prerequisites to pursue an appeal on behalf of its
members:
The organization has the capacity to pursue an adversary position;
2. The size and the composition of the arganization fairly represents the communiry of
interests it seeks to protect;
3. Full membership in the organization is available to all residents and property owners in the
affected neighborhoods; and
4. The adverse effect of the decision sought to be reviewed on the group represented by the
associarion is within the zone of interests sought to be protected. �
AWAItE v. Town of North Hempstead, 367 N.Y.S2d 374, 376 (1975) (quoting Dou lg aston).
�
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINAGREN, L�. �j q 3ao
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Mr. Peter Warner
S February 12, 1999
Pa�e 4
5cenic Minnesota does not fulfill these prerequisites. Scenic Minnesota appears to have made no effort to
involve Lowertown neighborhood residents or owners of lustoric buildings in their membership. See
United Civic Associations v. Planniug Bd. Of Clifton Pazk, 583 N.Y.5.2d 901, 903 (1992) (holding that
the interests of a group with fifty-one members living all over town "are not necessarily the same as those
persons residing in the vicinity of the project ") This, despite the fact that they claim to protect
neighborhood aesthetic and historic interests. In this matter, in fact, they directly oppose Charles
Erickson, owner of the Allen Building, in his effort to preserve the building as a viable commercial
enterprise. In pursuing their agenda for the aesthetics of Lowertown, they ignore mazket realities. The
agenda of Scenic Minnesota threatens to "preserve" Lowertown and the greater City of St. Paul, by
discouraging investments, precluding modemization, and conscripting owners, like Mr. Erickson, into
service of Scenic Minnesota's aesthetic. Scenic Minnesota does not fairly represent the community it
purports to represent, nor does it include key members of the communiry in the affected neighborhoods.
While not dispositive of the issues argued herein, it is interesting to note that none of the truly "affected"
parties who received tegal notification of the original appeal in this matter objected at any point in this
process.
COI3CLUSION
• We urge the City of St. Paul to interpret "affected by" to sensibly limit appeals to the City Council in
accord with authority in every other jurisdiction that has considered the question. Specifically, a party
seeking appeal must own a property interest, and that property interest must be hanned by the decision.
Without these prerequisites, a pariy lacks standing to appeal. For the reasons contained here, Scenic
Minnesota is not a pariy "affected by" the decisaon, and the City Council should not hear their appeai.
Verf truly yours,
�
Timothy J. K ane, for
LAIZKIN, H FMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Qaentin H. Wood, Esq., Mazathon Ashland Petroleum LLC
Roman Mueller, Speedway SuperAmerica LLC
Charles Erickson, Dacotah Properties
0460496.OI
�
Y�II
i
•
1. SLJNRAY-BATIT.ECREEK-HIGHWOOD
2. HAZEL PARK HAUEN-PROSPERTT'Y HILLCREST
3. WEST SIDE
4. DAYTON'S BLIT�F
5. PAYNE-PHALEN
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ii.
12.
13.
14.
15.
17.
NORTH END
THOMAS-DALE
SUMMTT-TJNIVERSTTY
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE-MIDWAY
ST. ANTT-iONY PARK
MERRTAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLIIv'E-S?rTELLING HAhiLI'��
MACALESTER GROVETAND
HIGHLANb
SUIviMIT HILL
DOWNTOWN
Z�NING F�LE4 -2
�
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICrS
99-3�0
� _.. - - - ----
r
�� ,� .«,
ZON�NG �iLE -��
,•
;E<: - �
K _'r's� '} i `
S J. _
if.. . _ . _ : `-. _ . .
-�'."-::�.__�. � - � �T�- 3 � - _ � � s �� , g �a
td 1 y
Y � ���• s��� 3 i3 ���3��8�� 2��y3.�4� I
1 9 �. s a gx as .c .i• ine� � g zdi Is
� a . . . � �-. i�� gy � II�z€ '15a i ' � y �;�� •x ��
�� x � 3 �s �x�ii ��t3� �`3' 4�•r �a�@'F•s sr 3aS3&
i a� �t.�a ��s $ s¢ . sQwB � i°i�
� � � � � �� . $ � 1 �$ ��� ��..� 3� . � � y � g 3�s �
J� w .� � di[ ^sie� ��g'Y � i 4 s��
LY Q�� r'� ����� ~ S� 6 �;i����#��� fi s}�.j�
�` � �. - . .�- o'" , a � - -�$ �: �3' gg a � � ° • ` a � �s
� _ R �' : ga � _3r s3 3§��6�$ s: � '
.?.. . ..�3 ss ..��' � la aE Eg'� s" °` ss
s '�`�� � •. .� q w 9��°. •fi �y��e3 ¢�oe3����idi � ��3��� 9A �f�3 ie
�� i. : a { �, §��
-_ stlb4� 9�Sd�R:r.:$aG:Y3 3zxJ� Jari�<°ais� 3s i��'J��s
�'`_ � s
-3ua ' a
r" � Ri
�-;.; . �
� � `°-
� ��<>
;^; � ���� .
rr �.. . � - ' , � ------- G�� n co c y�Q
°:�,; f�.�:°.:� ;' , `��, a��� ��
� .
� y, � � ` �
- � � �� :' �q� , ,f°`;`/ C �` • � ,.
'{"T� . "l 9 $ { t //
'
eY ?.�W^ �.�� . ia'� �.� 8� "
�^': _ _`,? '-�T � � ``1 ` � '.• : � ' r��s�6�'
�, s �`-�"'_ ' � � � ' .
� �-� � � -_:�� ¢ ��;
� � � �
�
� �a ��r � � � � _.� -��.
� � _� : -
, � � r a
�
�� x �� ,_ J _ j i�� g�
_ - , �
�. _ # � . �` '� ` �
�� ` .� � : � 5 � �� � �.
" � < � ,� r '.
���� ^ r � � - ` w ��" �.
w"� ,� r � ' �' .,
�
� � � -�� . � a ,/ �, ! u � '
� � �Yr` p-` �.` v. , �--^ � � __ -
�� �. � - .
`� � �' � �.- s �
� - � �^- �� �+, -
���
'� ->,.. aY � y,
'ko . r' I' ' �' ��� yyy y, !�5 ' � ,
T . . �S �'YI � � � � � J . • � � � J_ � !f�
� f =i.'�'�y"�-�`_ : <� � \ �•. �\ ` �r
1_f�'"�y�"P_A"A' �,�,�'�~ ��� � � . ' 4 � - �. \ f .•.
�Y„�, 'bY' `� . _ � #RS 2' , �- a 1 < ' �, .'.
� � C 4� � ' :
� �� � "� ` r
� -���" .`� � §�� _ " - `� =
r
��, , � �-�¢� \ � �; �`: �'�
�G;;r: u . : - _ 'h � \'', ' .��-�
� 3.� L \ �
� `� ° �' f '� ",-^:�' •� ��..: �, /F, /
,�n. %';,�. , __ .� r���j
'C�.:' _ ' / .:,
� u'r;a`: � . - .. : �- \ � 'j`
.,:;' -- � / W ---
�,-,. . /� ,= ' �.
`�` -� ' , S � � � a � �
�z� . : Sr ' �� _ +��' � ',
�� u < �`; � _, " 3
" � '..,- ^C%�✓':.: • S� ` -- S� � ��°' }e • X(
' � ' � t '' • �3: ' _ _ F
:.���' `'. -_ ' `�6����' �i,
-v .,..� � c;�x � ,
�°�. �:�. .. ''" . ,.�����.
1�v..£.: ^�pr�yL.: `�\ �
p.Y� •.i[. :�^i�.c. .- _ _ .
� ya� Y 1�.. . . . �
st �'� . ; a �i:.,���"y.��'.$•.�� -' ':.5.
? - } a � y .,• .
r�o !. ,t s t �...� .- ,
...�.e,._...s_...s,.R.,..�_'.�_....�. ,. ._._ .._ ._ . - •
i � .
�� )
:� � e d �� � �� " -
� g�3���. . .,� a g.
��
�a��8� 3 � � � �
i-,���-�:'� � �F=s i s u�
�''.�'3 �§�t�3���� : .
£ is3�� .+�a�%s=: i � � b �.
}, �=�3^'�e;;��� 9 Fp� �� �m �.
�-��� ���g�3���$�� � . ``.'
��aSSS �}"�:r•��8t@a 8 ' a3 r d- ^ sq .:
�y.�g�} � �1� ,t�} F � a �,a �
� a �a a
�9�ss$ ��$�s�5��� �� r �� a � �
8"'��'� aa ���'• a �'� � � �'- ;
s � 3
� •9g4 �''��'_� ��� s=
a�`$a33 �-3.:.� xia� : a � FO- � ��
��� a'� s
� ��� �����
---�-- j, � �e�� `�ga ��
/ °'
, �` °'°` � �
1 � / �' ,�� 2.
' �} �� �'� ��°; �� :
e 3
€� _ ��
�'��� � r§g��� 5s'y � g :_
�-� ����-��- � ; ��� � � `.
/ � �\''\� �� � ,
�, �. � � � 4 Z 3S'� �'2 �,
, �. \� ��' �
, \
����._� � _��� �� :;�
:� �
�, � -;��: � ,�
F �� :� � ��e , t- �
' ,��_ '�, � , � `
� � S
�' .;
� � _ � _ � -� n = -
g �,, / ,,�'''�f � s �o '
r. �/��k' a
^ +� / 9 � Y „
�� �� � , ' �! •`• , xl
�� � �4 � � _` a �
. g5�� �\ : j• w : $ : -: �
`�- e I��� p� y ' `` �, u:� ..�
�f$ S � �' "' "
���� yg-•{ � � �
� ///3 � •
___'_' ' _ f� -_�
a� °S��
-��� f ' � �
m��.
�
:_ �
� I
�
�
z
;a �
�
. �
i
,
�:_.
e ^ com,urc:-::
..o,..� indus;rc::
V V�IC.'.�i
.�T,"�� .K�.� li;
! �' � ' '�� V / 2\
%' '" In � � • �� �✓��
1
� �'"\ � :'�� �, � , , i ��
��/'��O
BY-I,AWS OF SCENIC MINNESOTA
f:�d:�:i:�:i>i�l
ARTICLE I.
Name of Corporation_ The name of the Corporation is Scenic
Minnesota, Inc.
ARTICLE II.
Location of Princinle Office. The Corporation's principle office is
1985 Grand Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105, or such other
addresses as the Corporation may from time to time use and register
with the Secretary of State of Minnesota. The principle office of
the Corporation is also the mailing address.
ARTICLE III.
Purposes o£ the Corporation. The Corporation's purposes shall be
operated for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes as
defined by � 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Specifically,
and limited by the foregoing general purposes, the Corporation's
purposes shall be:
1. To promote and carry out programs that protect natural
beauty in the environment, preserve and enhance landscapes and
streetscapes, protect historical and cultural resources, promote
the enhancement of scenic approaches to, and settings of, cities
and towns, improve community appearance, and foster establishment
and preservation of scenic road systems.
2. To promote education of the public about the economic,
social, and cultural benefits of protecting and enhancing scenic
resources and community appearance.
3. To coordinate local, regional, and state efforts to
preserve and enhance visual resources.
4. To provide information to appearance commissions, garden
clubs, historic preservation groups, environmental organizations,
civic groups, government agencies, and other individuals and
organizations interested in preserving and enhancing visual
resources.
5. To research, study, and analyze federal, state, and local
policies affecting visual resources.
6. To encourage and Poster any other such activity that has
the purpose of promoting appreciation and preservation of visual
resources.
7. To do anything, perform any act, and exercise any right in
any power now hereafter conferred by the laws of the State of
Minnesota upon a general not-for-profit corporation organized under
1
qq -3�
the laws of the State oP Minnesota, and in general to carry on any
of the activities herein set forth to the same extent and as fully
as a natural person might or could do. However, nothing set forth
in these Articles shall be construed as authorizing the Corporation
to possess for any gurpose, any object, or any power to do anything
forbidden by law to a not-for-profit corporation organized under
the laws of the 5tate of Minnesota or to engage in activity not
approved by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,
inciuding any substitute or successor section. The Corporation
shall not gossess or exercise any power or authority, either
expressly, by interpretation or by operation of law which will
prevent it from, at any time, qualifying and continuing to quali£y
as a corporation described in section 501(c){3) of the Internal
Revenue Code, including any substitute or successor section.
B. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ARTICI,E V.
Board of Directors. The Board of Directors (Board) shall govern the
Corporation and control its property and business and shall have
all the usual powers of a corporation Board in setting the policies
and managing the business and affairs of the Corporation. They
shall make all rules and regulations they deem necessary and proper
for the government of Scenic Minnesota, Inc. and the orderly
conduct of its business and affairs consistent with the
Corporation's charter and by-laws. The Board shall have the power
to appoint such subordinate officers, employees, or agents as they
deem may be necessary to conduct Scenic Minnesota, Inc.'s business
and to design their titles and compensation, if any. To this end,
the Board may engage an Executive Director, who shall help carry
out policies approved by the Board and, subject to Board approval,
enter into all contracts required for the conduct of the business
of Scenic Minnesota, Inc. The Board shall use their best efforts
and act in good faith to fulfill Scenic Minnesota, Inc.'s purpose
and exercise the Board's powers as expressed in the Corporation's
charter and by-laws. The Board may, by a two-thirds vote of its
entire membership, suspend or expel any member upon evidence of a
material violation of these by-1aws, public laws or regulations or
practices of Scenic Minnesota, Inc.
rs������r��
CQm_position. The initial Board shall be comprised of three members
and the Board shall thereafter be comprised of not less than three
nor more than fifteen members. The Board shall appoint the
directors at the annual meeting from a slate presented to them by
2
99 -3ao
��
-� �
�
� ���- �
;, �
.
.
� ��
�
�,. i + ` �, �_
i +- �-�� �' � � ��
�
� � ��
. � �;., ;� •
� / � .,�.
�:
i ,.
1 � _ r � i. � �:
� 1V-ci
z g-3
2ti�
2
£ebruary 22, 1999
., � i r1v� � r�ii �� �� ���n u �v�� •
BRIAN 6&'�ES
ATfORt�E'( A7 UVW
t986 drmd Avenue
Selnr PoW, MMR�ssota 551D5
�6,2j ssags�,
BY FAX ONLY
Mr. Larry Soderzclm
Department of Planning and
Economic Development
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
99 3ao
R E�E►UE�
F � g � 21999
ZoN��
Mr_ Peter Warner
O£fice of City Attorney
City Hali
15 Wes� Kellogg B1d.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Speedway SuperAmerica Billboard Appeal.
Dear Messrs. Soderholm and Warr.er:
Z have just reviewed Mr. Keane's letter of February 12,
1999, in which he challenges Scenic Minnesota's standing to bring
the referenced appeal. This letter responds to the issue of
standing and raises the issue of the jurisdict,ion of the Planning
Comr,�ission to overtuzn the zoning AdministYators decision which
disallowed the rebuildinq of the subject billboard.
�. •f • -�!_f• •1 _�� • •'.- :��-.
As the record indicates SuperAmerica missed the orzginal.
appeal deadline of the Zoning Administrator's decision not to
allow the subject billboard to be zebuilt, The appeal deadline
was thirty days after September 17, 1998. In his letter
rejecting Mr. Michael's application for a permit to rebuild the
billboard, Mr. Hardwick was specific about the appeal process.
"Any decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator
regarding siqns may be appealed to the Planning Commission by
submitting an application stating the zeason you believe the
decision is in error al _��l,c� w� h h �gp* fee �o th� s
of��e w�thj�n�0 dav� oP t e d te ef th+c letter " Record p. 31.
Mr. Keane responded with a brief letter on October 15,
R-32. The letter did not state reasons for the appeal and,
significantly, did not contain the required fee. Eailure to
timely submit a notice of appeal and appeal fee is fatal to
appeal. County of Ramsey v. Minneso�a Pub. Utilities Comm'n,
1S.W,2d 740, 744-45 (Minn. 1989)(notice of appeal timely but
day late was fatal).
1998.
more
any
345
fee a
rCD 1G•Gl J� �n�� r�ni}i}anu a c�,�ir o�.cc�...�.-+ �•c.... v.�
9 9 -3ao
Soderholm, Ptarner
February 22, 1999
Page 2.
.�. ..
Soenic i�Rinnesota has members who hava p�operty interests
within twa blocks of the propased billboard site. These memhers
will submit affidavits supporting their interests at the heazing
on riednesday, Febxuary 24, 1999. Scenic Minnesota obtains
ozganizational standing through these members. Organiaational
standing is a common and well-accepted legal concept.
Regards,
_•_� � � r .
Brian Bates
cc: 3ohn Mannillo
, TOTAL P.02
�v
District 17
CapitolRiver
Council
332 Minnesota Street Suite N150, Saint Paul, T.Pi I SS101
9y-3aa
6512210488 FAX 651221 0581
- Webrite: www.capitolrivaorg E-mail: capriveiCpionee[planet.in5.net
Larry Soderholm, PED Zoning
25 West Fourth Street
1100 City Hall Annex
Saint Paul, Mn 55102
Re: Zoning File Number 99-010
Dear Mr. SoderhoLn,
R ECEIVED
FE8 2 31999
������
The information sent to the District Council office regazding the appeal ot the decision of the
Planning Commission #99-010 also included the information sheet on Speedway SuperAmerica
LLC's appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administration #98-288.
The packet of information included several correspondence's between Zoning Specialist, John
Hardwick and Mr. Timothy Keane, representative of Speedway SuperAmerica. In a letter dated
October 19, 1998 (attached) from Nlr. Hazdwick to Mr. Keane he indicated that Mr. Keane had
not properly filed an appeal of the zoning administrations decision to uphold the special sign
district that a storm damaged billboazd can not be reconstructed. In ttils letter it states that not
only did the 30 day time period for apQeals expire he also did not complete the proper appeal
forms or submit the appropriate fee. Mr. Keane was granted an extension to submit the necessary
documents. Mr Keane's anneal was acce�ted and the Plannina Commission heard and suanor[ed
his anneal. T
I would like to bruig to your attention a separate zoning matter File # 97-87 mt�ilul December 22,
1997. The CaipitolRiver Council, Distriet 17 (CRC) opposed the decision of the Zoning
Commiltee of the P(unning Commission to allow a slgn vuriunce for AUiance Bunk. 'Cl�e
information slteet on d�is matter indicated that all appeals must be filed witlun 15 days. As you
maybe aware this was during the Holiday season and end of the year business. As a result of the
timing of this zonir.g matter the CRC filed it's appeal on January 21, 1998. Our anoeal was not
accented hv staff and subseauentiv was not heard bv Citv CouncH.
Our concem is with the inconsistent handling of important zoning matters such as these. The
CapitolItiver Council requests that fair and consistent pracuces be assured in zoning matters for
the downtown community.
Please inciude this information in your staff report for the February 24th public hearing.
Sincerely, \
�� �J��U r lJ
elson, Community Organizer
� PUBLIC HEARING NOTiCE
• � z SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL
{ ?a: satKr '�akt c�ty cou���l
f� - t3a�tto.� co�^�a�Y
We ow.� Ptoper�'y �r 6rh_a.,d 57vtef ,� sf.Oau! a.�d � G � u p e SuP�
�tl.A �S 5 r�yut �ta Re��stut� - rl�e:v s�'qh . �3a.%/� Cr � Gitj'
stg�1 D�'�a� I GGa.r.�rati•
� TO Property Owners within 350 feet;
Representatives of Pianning DistricF 17
�� �
= � � APPL{CANT
PURPOS�
�oca�r�a�
OF PROPEF�TY
TlME OF HEARiNG
PLACE OF HEARII�G
HOW TO PARTICIPATE
ANY QUESTIONS
Brian Bates - Scenic Minnesota
Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission that would permit
reinstaila;ion of a large storm-damagad sign until 2015.
287 Sixfh Streei between Wall and Broadway
Wednesday, February 24, 1939
5:30 P.M.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall - Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard - Sainf Paul, Minnesota 55102
1. You may attend hearing and testify.
2. You may send a letter before the hearing to
25 W Fourth Street, 1100 City Hail Annex, St Paui Minnesota 55102
3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of public hearing.
Call Larry Soderholm of the Zoning Office at (651) 266-6575 or your District
Council Representative at (651)221-0488 with the following information:
Zonsng File Number: 99-01�
Zoning File Name: Brian Bates - Scenic Minnesota
Mailing Date: February 10, 1999
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY �/�
C[ayton M Rabinson, Jr., City Attomey
Civil Division
400CiryHa11 Tetephorre: b512bb-8710
ISWestKelloggBlvd Facsimile:657298-i6I9
Saint Paul, Minnesofa 55102
I�AND DELIVERED
Nancy Anderson
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Ciry Hail
RE: Appeal of Scenic Minnesota, Inc.
Zoning File 98-288
Council Action Date: February 24, 1999
Dear Nancy:
Attached please find the signed original of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint
Paul City Council in the matter of the appeal by Scenic Minnesota, Inc. which concerned the
SupexAmerica sign located at 287 East Sixth Street.
In addition, af you could, would you please caption this and other similu matters invoiving the
approval of zoning related appeals appeazing on the consent agenda as a resolution
"memorializing the deczsion "of the city council. The council made its decision on Febnxary 24,
1999. This resolution merely reduces the decision to a writing. Ca11 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
���I "' �V�'�'
Peter W. Warner
Council File # q9 - 3a
OR�G�NA�.
RESOLUTION
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Green Sheet # �o �� e�
�
Presented By
Referred To
Committee: Date
2 WHEREAS, in Zoning File No. 98-288 and pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul
3 Legislative Code § 66.408, Speedway SuperAmerica LLC (SuperAmerica), made applicafion to
4 appeal the decision of the Saint Paul Zoning Administrator concerning a storm damaged sign
5 located on property commonly known as 287 East Sixth Street and legally described as: Whitney
6 and Smiths Addition subject to Sixth Street; vacated streets accruing in document #2278165 and
7 following; part of Kittson's Addition adjacent to and in SD Whitney and Smiths Adctition, Lots
$ 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5; and
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
VVI�REAS, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission (Zoning
Committee) conducted public hearings on the said appeal on November 23, 1998, and on
December 10, 1998 where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard. At the
close of the Decembex 10, 1998 hearing, the Zoning Committee moved to recommend to the full
Saint Paul Planning Commission that SuperAmerica's appeal be granted subject to the condition
that the sign be removed in 2007; and
WHEREAS, On December 18, 1998, the Saint Paul Planning Commission (Planning
Commission), after discussing the matter, moved to return the matter to the Zoning Committee
for additional review. On December 29, 1998, the Zoning Committee again considered the
matter in light of SuperAmerica's offer to remove the subject sign by 2015. The Zoning
Committee again recommended granfing the appeal; and
WHEREAS, The Plamiing Commission, on January 8, 1999 granted SuperAmerica's
appeal based upon the following findings and conclusions as set forth in Planning Commission
Resolution 99-01:
The sign in this case is owned by Dacotah Properties LLP and has been leased since 1987
to Speedway SuperAmerica LLC which owns the business next door. The sign is almost
four times the size of a standard freeway billboard but the message is changed only very
infrequently. The sign is designed to be visible from the nearby freeway which is
appropriate as the sign is intended to attract freeway drivers to the SuperAmerica store.
2. At the beginning of the summer of 1998, the sign blew over in the second of two major
windstorms to hit the city. The sign peeled back the roof of the build'mg and had to be
removed in order for the roof repairs to proceed. LIEP staff advised the contractors not to
reconstruct the sign without a building permit.
aq-3�o
2
�
6
7
8
9
10
il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
3. On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. appiied for a sign pemut to reinstall the sign
frame and panels which were blown down by the storm. Since at least 1987 - and since
1961, according to the testimony of the building owner - the sign has been used
exclusively to advertise SuperAmerica's (or its predecessor's) products for sale on the
premises immediately next door, almost below the sign itself.
On 5eptember 17, 1998, John Hazdwick of LIEP sent a letter denying the permit
application. The letter was received by the appellant on September 22, 1998. The City
received the appeal of Mr. Hardwick's denial from the appellant on October 19, 1998,
and a more detailed letter explaining the appeal was received on November 16, 1998.
T'he proper method to measure the thiriy (30) day appeal period is either from the date of
the letter denying the application for a sign permit to the date of the letter or document
invoking the appeal or from the date of receipt of the letter or document invoking the
appeal. By either test, in this case the appeal was perfected in a timely fashion.
The Zoning Administrator determined the sign to be an advertising sign. In its appeal,
among other points, the appellant stated the following grounds for its appeal:
�
C.
Re-anchoring the sign does not require a new sign permit.
The sign is a conforming sign under the ambiguous provisions of the
SPLC.
The historic district regulations do not prohibit replacing nonconforming
signs.
D. The sign is not an advertising sign.
E. Mr. Hardwick's denial misapplies the provisions of SPLC §§66301 and
66302.
4. The Zoning Administrator ened in deciding that the sign should be regulated as an
advertising sign. The sign, based on the evidence submitted at the public hearing, is a
business sign because;
A. The sign appeazs visually to be part of the SuperAmerica site.
B. The sign overhangs and partially encroaches into the air space of the
SuperAmerica properry.
C. The sign has been used continuously and exclusively for 37 years to
advertise the business on the SuperAmerica property.
D. The sign is leased directly to the appellant unti12007 and is not owned by
a billboard or display advertising company.
E. The sign is not a standard billboazd size and, therefore, would not be easily
leasable as part of an outdoor advertising campaign.
F. The sign is not required by the Minnesota Department of Transportation to
obtain the pernut normally required of a billboard along a highway.
5. Because the sign is a business sign, the provisions on nonconfornung signs found in §
66301 of the SPLC, not those of § 66.302, are applicable to this case as follows:
Page 2 of 4
2
0
0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
A. The applicant proposes to reinstall the sign exactly as it was before it blew p
over. The sign will not be enlazged or altered. �� 3 �
B. The damage to the sign did not exceed 51 % of its replacement value. The
sign blew over essentialiy intact onto the rooftop. The damage was to the
parapet wall upon which the sign sat and to the roof. The sign could have
been tipped upright and reinstalled. It was removed to a11ow access for
building and roof repairs necessitated by the storm.
C. Although the sign was removed from the buiiding premises while other
building and roof repairs were made, the owner intends to reconstruct the
sign in exactly the same spot. The "moving" of the sign was temporary;
no perxnanent change in position is proposed.
The remauung provisions of SPLC § 66301 do not apply.
6. Since the sign is a business sign, not an advertising sign, the current moratorium imposed
by the City Council on erection of advertising signs in the downtown and certain other
areas in the city does not apply to the reinstallation of this sign.
WHEREAS, the Planning Comxnission, in approving the appeal of SuperAmerica based
upon the above-stated findings and conclusions, added the following conditions to its approval
as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution 99-01:
2.
3.
�
The same sign and same sign frame shucture shall be used to the percentage restriction of
tkae SPLC with oniy the minimuxn repairs necessary to ensure safety and the struchxral
integrity of the sign itself. The sign sha11 not be enlazged, raised, moved or extended.
The sign shall be used only as a business sign for the properiy on which it is located or
for the SuperAmerica properiy and shall not be used as an advertising sign.
The sign shall be removed at any future point when it is not leased to the owner of the
SuperAmerica properiy for use as a business sign or used by the owner of the properiy on
which it located as a business sign, provided, however, that the use of the sign, as
presently configured, shall cease no later than January 1, 2015. After that date the total
amount of business signage for the SuperAnnerica property shail not exceed the amount
currently permitted in 1999, which is 934 squaze feet, or the amount permitted in 2015,
whichever is greater. Also after that date the total amount of business signage for the
Allen Building property shall conform to the regulations in effect in 2015.
If required by the SPLC or any other applicable statute or law, a building permit shall be
secured before reinstalla6on of the sign. In the event that review of the building permit
application is required by any other public agency or body, it is the intent of this
resoluuon that such review be expressly limited by the finding that the sign is a business
sign.
5. The resolution and its conditions are expressly accepted in writing by Speedway
SuperAmerica LLC and Dacotah Properties LLP on behalf of themselves, their
successors, assigns and agents.
WHEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, Inc., pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative
Code § 64.206, did on January 8, 1999 duly file with the City Clerk an appeal from the
determination made by the Planning Commission and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul
City Council for the purposes of considering the actions taken by the said Comxnission; and
Page 3 of 4
1 WHEI2EAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.260- 64.208 and upon
2 notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on Febn.ia.ry q � _ 32�
3 24, 1999, where all interested parties were given an opporhxnity to be heazd; and
4
5 WHEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the
6 application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and
7 the Planniug Commission, does hereby;
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Pau1 affirms the decision of the
Plamiing Commission in this matter. The Council finds that the Plamziug Commission
committed no error in fact, finding or procedure in this matter. Accordingly, the Council
approves issuance of a permit to reinstall the sign subject to the five conditions unposed by the
Planuing Commission in its resolution 99-01 dated January 8, 1999. Finally, the Council adopts
as its own the fmdings and determinations of the Planning Commission as contained in Planning
Commission Resolution 99-01; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Scenic Minnesota be and is hereby denied;
and be it
FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to
Scenic Minnesota, Inc., SuperAmerica; the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission.
ORI�INAL
Requested by Department of:
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
BY� � � ._ C s�
Approved by Mayor: Date
By:
Form Appx d]�y City f Attosney
g �G-� �./ ('iVt/hd-�
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
By'
Adopted by Council: Date � � y ,`�.%
- � - �T �
qq - 3a�
DEPARTMENT/OFFICE/CWNCIL DATEINITWTEO
c�t cou���� March 29, 1999 GREEN SHEET No 64026
CONTACT PERSON 5 M10NE tnnlylDate Inn�aubae
Councilmember Coleman o�,N„�xr,�cr,R a�rca�
MUSi BE ON C�UNCIL AGENDA eY (OAi�
.tiSS�cN
April 7, 1999 ��� mr�nen�Er rnratnrz
rtovrtxc
� nwseuamv¢ssooc wawu��amvi�ccrc
❑OaYOR1aRA39Btnr11) ❑
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
C7IOP1 RE�UESTm
Memoriali2ing the decision of the City Council taken February 24, 1999,denying the appeal
of Brian Bates/Scenic Minnesota to a decision of the Planning Commission allowing
reinstallation of a storm-damaged sign of SuperAmerica at 287 E. Sixth Steeet.
RECOMMENDATION Approve (A) w eject (R) PERSONAL SERVICE CONTRAGTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESiSONS:
t. HasthispersoMfi�meverwoMeEUnderacontrac[forthisdepartment7
PLANNING COMMISSION YES NO
CIB COMMITTEE 2. Has this peisorVfirm ever been a dry employee?
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION vES NO
3. Does this persoNfiim possess a sltill rwt rioimaltypossessetl by arry curreM city employeel
YES NO
4 Is ihis personlfirtn a targMetl vendoR
YES NO
E+�la(n alI Y� a�swers on separate sheet an0 attach to O�n sheet
INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPOR7UNITV (Wfio, Wl�at, When, Wliere. W�y)
DVAMAGES IF APPROVED �
DISADVAMAGESIFAPPROVED �
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION t COS7/REVENUE BUDGEfED (CIRCLE ONE� VES NO
FUNDIN6 SOURCE ACTNfTY NUMBE0.
FlNANCIAL INFORMAT10t1(IXPWN)
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
4a
CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL
Narm Coleman, Mayor
January 25, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
CiTy Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
Divisron of Plmvtirzg
ZS West Founh Street
Sainr Paut, MNSSIO2
Telephone: 612-26fr6565
Facsimite: 612-228-331¢
�'n'F2�R�" ��;. . �� :°�;
� , . � ;� � r. �-'�
..Zf'i:: :d 3 :�w'v
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
February 24, 1999, for the following zoning case:
Applicant:
File Numbet:
Purpose:
Address:
Legal Description:
PREVIOUS ACTION:
BRIAN BATESlSCE1VIC MINNESOTA
#99-010
Appeal of Planning Commission decision allowing reinstallation of a storm-
damaged sign at 287 E. 5ixth Street for SuperAmerica. (The Zoning
Administrator denied permits to reinstall the sign. SuperAmerica appealed to the
Planning Commission, whicli reversed the Zoning Administrator's decision.)
287 E. Sixth Street (location of sign; SuperAmerica is on E. Seventh)
See file
Zoning Administrator:
Zoning Committee Recommendarion:
Planning Commission Decision:
Denial of building permit, September 17, 1998
Approval of SuperAmerica appeal with conditions; vote: 7-0,
December 29, 1998
Approval of SuperAmerica appeal with conditions; unanimous
voice vote, January 8, 1999
My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the February 24, 1999
City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Please call me at 266-6572 if you have any questions.
SSncerely,
L�arry 3eflerholm
Principal Planner � ' ��T�"'
xm7c� o F pusuc �nxnvc
cc: File #99-010 'fhe St. Paul City Council svi71 conduct a public hearing or� Wednesday. February
P2.U1 Dubritiei 24, 1999, at 5:30 p.m. in the Cit3r Council Chambers. Third Fl4or. City Hail{Court
House to- consider the appeal of �Brian Bates/Scenic Minnesota to a decision �of the
�aT01 M1tLirieBU P3anning Commission allowing reins[ali�ati on of a storm-damaged sign of
SuperAmerica at 287 E. Sixth Street. � _ .
Dated: January, 27, 1999 . - - .
NRNCXANDERSON - - - -- __ . - , � . . � - , �
Assisk.aztt City CounciL Secretazy , ' �
� - - - � (Jazivary 29, 1999) - � � ' �
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�
'
Pamela WheeZoc7� Director
9s- 3ao
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coieman, Mayor
25 West Faurth Saeet Telephone: bi2-2b6fi565
Saint Paul, JvL\ 55102 Facsimile: 612-228-3314
February 17, 1999
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Councii
Room 310 Ciry Hall
Saint Paul, MN SS 1Q2
RE: Zoning File # 99-010: BRIAN BATES - SCENIC MINNESOTA
CiTy Council Hearing: February 24, 1999 at 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision on I18l99 that determined the fo]lowing: (a) that
a storm-damaged sign at 287 E• Sixth Street, which is four times as big as a standard freeway billboard,
is a business sien, not an advertisinQ sien, because it had been used continuously as a business si�n for
Ule SuperAmerica at 296 E. Seventh Street (b) that, as a business sign, it can be reinstalled even though
the sign was removed after a storm last spring to facilitate repair of the roof on which it stood and even
though there is currently a moratorium on biliboard permits in the downtown; and (c) that--because the
sign is so big and is located in the Lowertown Historic Aistrict, where billboards aze not permitted—
SuperAmerica and the property owner must remove the sign by 2015, a condition which they voluntarily
offered to the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission's decision overLurned a decision on 9f 17f98 by the Zoning Administrator 3n
LIEP that the storrn-damaged sign was an advertising sign and could not be put back up. SuperAmerica
appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission.
Now Scenic Minnesota is appealing the Planning Commission's decision on the following grounds: (a)
that the sign is by definition an advertising sign because it is not located on the premises o£ the
SuperAmerica and cannot be reinstalled because of the current moratorium on permits for advertising
signs, (b} that if this sign, which has been treated by city staff in the past as an advertising sign, can
switch to being regulated as s business sign, then other billboards may also be able to switch; (c) that if
the sign is rebuilt it will be protected by the Federal Highway Beautification Act and the City may have
to Qay its economic value if it orders the sign's removal in 2Q15; and (d) the sign adversely affects the
Lowertown Aistoric D3strict.
LOCATION: Before it blew over and was removed for roof repairs, the sign was located on the roof at
287 E. Sixth Street immediately in back of and partially encroaching on the properry of the
SuperAmerica gas station and convenience store at 296 E. Seventh Sneet.
\�PED\SY52\SFIAILED\$ODERHOUZONING\94010CC.LTA
�J 9'.3�
• Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
February 17, 1999
Page 2
•
�
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Granted the appeal of SuperAmerica; reversed the decision of
the Zoning Administrator; and allowed the sign to be put back up with conditions that it can't be
changed, that it can only be used as a business sign, and that it must be removed by 2015 at the latest.
(Passed on a unanimous voice vote.)
ZONIAIG COMMI'�E RFCOMMENDAT'ION: The Zoning Committee heard the case on 11f23/98
and laid it over. On 12l1Ql98 they voted 6-1 to recommend granting SuperAmerica's appeal with a
condition that the sian be removed when the cunent lease expires in 2007. SuperAmerica then sent a
letter to the Planning Commission with legal azguments why the sunset condition would be
unenforceable. On 12/18/98 the Planning Commission sent the matter back to the Zoning Committee.
On 12/29/98 the Zoning Committee received the offer from SuperAmerica and the property owner to
remove the sign voluntarily by 2015 and recommended accepting this offer by a vote of 5-0.
PED STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION: Uphold decision of Zoning
Administrator; deny appeal of SuperAmerica that sign is a busmess s�gn; even if sign is a business sign it
should not be permitted to go back up.
SUPPORT FOR APPFAL BY SUPERAMERICA: Chuck Erickson, owner of the sign, which is on the
roof of the historic Allen Building at 287 E. Sixth Street.
OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY SUPERAMERICA: Brian Bates of Scenic Minnesota.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
BRIAN BATES - SCENIC MIl�NESOTA has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Plannin�
Commission to grant an appeal by Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, allowing them to reinstall a large sign
at 287 E. Sixth Street. The Planning Commission reversed a decision made by the Zoning Administrator
in LIEP to deny SuperAmerica a permit for the sign. The sign is leased to the SuperAmerica gas and
convenience store at 296 E. Seventh Street, which adjoins the property where the sign is located. The
sign blew over in a windstorm at the end of May 1998. The sign itself received limited dama�e, but the
roof and parapet wall to which the sign was anchored received more damage. The sign was removed and
put in storage while the roof was repaired.
The chronology of the case is as follows:
May 1998:
September 1998:
September 1998:
October 1998:
Sign blew over onto roof
SuperAmerica applied to LIEP for a permit to reinstall the sign
LIEP denied permit (either as a billboud or as a business sien)
SuperAmerica appealed LTEP decision to Planning Commission
\V'ED\SYS2�SFIARED\SODERHOUZONiNG�99010CC.LTR
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
February 17, 1999
Page 3
Nov. - Dec. 1998: Public hearing and discussion at three Zoning Committee meetings and
at one Planning Commission meeting
January 1999: Planning Commission adopted resolution granting SuperAmerica appeal
January 1999: Brian Bates - Scenic Minnesota appealed to CiTy Councit
Although there was relatively little public testimony in this case, the Zoning Committee and Planning
Commission engaged in extensive discussion of the matter. On January 8, 1999, the Planning
Commission passed the resolution granting SuperAmerica's appeal with conditions on a unanimous
voice vote.
Last week I received a letter from Tim Keane, attorney for SuperAmerica, challengin� the standing of
Scenic Minnesota to appeal the Planning Commission's decision (Attachment F). He argues that ScenSc
Minnesota is not truly an affected or aggrieved parry. The Ciry Attorney's O�ce is reviewing the letter.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on February 24, 1999. Please call me (266-
6575) if you have questions and please notify me if any member of the City Council �vishes to have
slides of the site presented at the public heazing. I have slides of how the damaged sign looked after it
was blown over, but I don't have slides of how the sign looked before the storm.
Sincerely,
Larry erholm
Priacipal Planner - Zoning
Attacliments
cc: City Council members
Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
Tim Keane, attomey for Speedway SuperAmerica
Chuck Erickson, property owner of 287 E. Sixth Street
Peter Wamer, Asst, City Attorney
Wendy Lane, LIEP
John Hardwick, LIEP
\1PEA\SYS?VSHARED�SODERHOUZONRiC+�
•
i
�
�s-3ao
•
ATTACHD'�NTS
�
•
�
�
Appeal form and letter of exQlanation
Planning Commission Resolution
Planning Commission minutes for 12/18/98 and 1/8/99
�,
�
'� •
� ��
���
�-l2
D. Zoning Committee minutes for 11/23/98, 12/10/98, and 12/29/98 �, 1 7� ��J
E. Staff Report of I 1/16/98 and attachments D,�" �� I�/
ti
C.
F
G.
Letter of 2/12/99 from Tim Keane, attorney for Speedway SuperAmerica, challenging the
standing of Scenic Minnesota to file an appeal �,���v
Location and zoning maps � , � � �� �
\�PED\SY52VSHARED�SODERHOL�ZONING\99010CGL'17t 4
SAINi
PwL'L
�
AI1AA
APPLICAT[ON FOR APPEAL
Deparlment nf Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
II00 City Half Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
APPELLANT
�(tr� C:�R
� �
�— S�-�'�,�� C/Irnnes=:
�1 �1 Zip SSI !1 � Daytime E
,,. � t �*�/L j� L1�a �-�F-
LOCAT O Address/Location �, � � �
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby mad or an appeal to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section Zi �, Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to
/1 '- A ' .
appeal a deci ion made by the !'LA�7�lA �(' tr
on r' � �� � , 19_ File
(d tea of dec i s ion)
_Z
•
�
PROPERTY Zoning Fite
I N
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an ercor in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
/� �-qnr!/���
Attach additional sheet if
AppiicanYs signature � /""—" � '
1
�/
f' � v �
� 2 � - � y s
Gt � zs �
� I City agent�
�- 6'r1�t
offfcers:
John Mannillo
Jeanne Weigum
Mic ytnar
Rub nt
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
Esecuttce Ofmlor
Brian Bates
1985 G2nd Avenue
Saint Paul, MIY 55105
612 690-9671
-3 a.o
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Department of Planning
and Economia IIevelopment
25 West 4th Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
January 8, 1999
RE: Speedway SuperAmerica Billboard at 287 6th Street East in
DoWntown Saint Paul.
Dear Larry:
Scenic Minnesota hereby appeals the Planning Commission
decision of this date allowing the subject billboard to be rebuilt.
We suppor� staff determinations that the wind-damaged sign removed
from the roof o£ the Allen Building is an advertising sign by
definition and cannot be replaced. The reasons for this appeal,
and our concern, are several.
1) By definition the sign removed from, and proposed to be
replaced on, the Allen Building is an advertising sign. It is an
advertising sign because it advertises products and services
navailable at the Allen Building - the premises on which the sign
located. Therefore, the siqn cannot be rebuilt because the
len Building is a historic site, or is located in a historic
district, and because there exits a temporary moratorium on the
construction of advertisinq signs in downtown. W 66r302 and a the
Paul Zoning Code Sections 66.013A, 66.214(j),
Capitol River Council April, 1998 resolution creating a temporary
moratorium on advertisinq signs for district 17.
2) If this advertising sign (billboard) is allowed to change
its legal status to a business sign by advertising a product or
service of a neighborinq business then an billboard in the City
can easily be converted from an advertising sign to a business
sign. This precedent may make it diff��ult to remove anv
billboards in Saint Paul.
3) If the sign is rebuilt the federal Highway Beautifiaation
Act will protect it from removal by the City or the State
regardless of the content of the advertised message or the
expiration of the current lease. Any restrictions, even with the
agreement of the current building owner and Super America on sign
content or future removal cannot be enforced by the City or the
5tate.
4) The sign adversely affects the historic values of the area.
� rian Bates
c: Wendy Lane
� �
�
city of saint paul
pianning commission resolution
file number �9-01. �
�te January 8, 1999
WHEREAS, SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC, file #98-288, has appealed a decision
by the Zoning Administrator, under the provisions of § 66.408 of the Saint Paul Legislative
Code (SPLC), that its storm damaged sign cannot be reconstructed on propetty located
at 287 E. Sixth Street, being more particularly legally described as follows: Whitney and
Smiths Addition subject to Sixth Street; vacated streets accruing in document#2278165
and following; part of Kittsons Addition adjacent to and in SD Whitney and Smiths Addition,
Lots 3, 4, 5 and 6, Block 5; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
said appeal on November 23, 1998, at which all persons present were given an opportunity
fo be heard pursuant to said appea( in accordance with the requiremenfs of §64.300 of the
SPLC; and
C�
WNEREAS, based on the evidence presented to the Zoning Committee at the public
hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes and based upon the recommendation of •
the Zoning Committee, the Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact:
1. The sign in this case is owned by Dacotah Properties LLP and has been
leased since 1987 to Speedway Superamerica LLC which owns the business
next door. The sign is almost four times the si� of a standard freeway
biliboard but the message is changed only very infrequently. The sign is
designed to be visible from the nearby freeway which is appropriate as the
sign is intended to attract freeway drivers to the Superamerica store.
2. At the beginning of the summer of 1998, the sign blew over in the second of
two major windstorms to hit the city. The sign peeled back the roof of the
building and had to be removed in order for the roof repairs to proceed.
LIEP staff advised the contractors not to reconstruct the sign without a
building permit.
moved by Field
seconded by
in favor Unanimous
against
!
3
�9-3 �
• Zoning File #98-2$8
Page Two of Resolution
3. On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. app{ied fot a sign permit to reinsfafl the
sign frame and panels which were bfown down by the storm. Since at least 1987—
and since 1961, according to the testimony ofthe building owner—the sign has been
used exclusively to advertise Superamerica's (or its predecessor's) products for sale
on the premises immediately next door, almost below the sign itself.
On September 17, 1998, John Hardwick of LIEP sent a letter denying the permit
application. The letter was received by the appellant on September 22, 1998. 7he
City received the appeal of Mr. Hardwick's deniai from the appellant on October 19,
1998, and a more detailed letter explaining the appeaf was received on November
16,1998.
The proper method to measure the thirty (30) day appeal period is either from the
date of the letter denying the application for a sign permit to the date of the letter
or document invoking the appeal or from the date of receipt of the letter denying the
application for a sign permit to the date of rece+pt of the letter or document invoking
the appeal. By either test, in this case the appeai was perfected in a timely fashion.
• The Zoning Administrator determined the sign to be an advertising sign. In its
appeal, among other points, the appeliant stated the following grounds for its
appeal:
a. Reanchoring the sign does not require a new sign
permit.
b. The sign is a conforming sign under the ambiguous provisions of the
SPLC.
c. The historic district regulations do not prohibit replac+ng
nonconforming signs.
d. The sign is not an advertising sign.
e. Mr. Hardwick's denial misapplies the provisions of SPLC §§66.301
and 66.302.
4. The Zoning Administrator erred in deciding that the sign should regulated as an
advertising sign. The sign, based on the evidence submitted at the pubfic hearing,
is a business sign because:
a. The sign appears visually to 6e part of the Superamerica site.
b. The sign overhangs and partiaily encroaches into the air space of the
Superamerica property.
�
�.�
Zoning File #98-288
Page Two of Resolution
3. On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. applied for a sign permit to reinstall the
sign frame and panels which were biown down by the storm. Since at least 1987—
and since 1961, according to the testimony of the building owner—fhe sign has been
used exclusively to advertise Superamerica's (or its predecessor's) products for sale
on the premises immediately next door, almost below the sign itself.
On September 17, 1998, John Hardwick ofi LIEP sent a letter denying the permit
applic2tion. Thv fe?'�r �^?as receive� by the aopellant on September 22, 1998. The
City received the appeal of Mr. Nardwick's denial from the appeilant on October 19,
1998, and a more de:ailed letter explaining the appeal was received on November
16, 1998.
The praper method to measure the thirty (30) day appeal period is either from fhe
dafe of the letter denying the application for a sign permit to the date of the letter
or document invoking the appeal or from the date of receipt of the letter denying the
application for a sign permit to the date of receipt of fhe letter or document invoking
the appeal. By either test, in this case the appeai was perfected in a fimely fashion.
•
The Zoning Administrator cletermined the sign to be an advertising sign. In its •
appeal, among other points, the appeliant stafed the following grounds for its
appeal:
a. Reanchoring the s+gn does not require a new sign
permit.
b. The sign is a conforming sign under the ambiguous provisions of the
SPLC.
c. The historic district regulations do not prohibit rep(acing
nonconforming signs.
d. The sign is not an advertising sign.
e. Mr. Hardwick's denial misapplies the provisions of SPLC §§66.301
and 66.302.
4. The Zoning Administrator erred in deciding that the sign shouid regulated as an
advertising sign. The sign, based on the evidence submitted at the pubiic hearing,
is a business sign because:
a. The sign appears visually to be part of the Superamerica site.
b. The sign overhangs and partiaAy encroaches into the air space of the
Superamerica property.
s
�
� y-3�o
•
Zoning File #98-288
Page Three of Resolution
c. The sign has been used continuously and exclusively for 37 years to
advertise fhe business on the Superamerica property.
d. The sign is leased directty to the appeliant until 2007 and is not
owned by a billboard or dispiay advertising company.
e. The sign is not a standard billboard size and, therefore, would not be
easily leasabie as part of an outdoor advertising campaign.
f. The sign is not required by the Minnesota Department of
Transportation to obtain the permit normally required of a biliboard
along a highway.
5. Because the sign is a business sign, the provisions on nonconforming signs found
in § 66.301 of the SPLC, not those of § 66.302, are applicabie to this case as
fol{ows:
a. The applicant proposes to reinstall the sign exactly as it was before
it blew over. The sign will not be eniarged or aitered.
• b. The damage to the sign did not exceed 51 % of its replacement value.
The sign blew over essentialiy intact onto the rooftop. The damage
was to the parapet waff upon which the sign sat and to the roof. The
sign could have been tipped upright and reinstalled. lt was removed
to aflow access for building and roof repairs necessitated by the
storm.
c. Aithough the sign was removed from the buiiding premises while
other building and roof repairs were made, the owner intends to
reconstruct the sign in exactly the same spot. The "moving" of the
sign was temporary; no pesmanent change in position is proposed.
The remaining provisions of SPLC §66.3�1 do not apply.
6. Since the sign is a business sign, not an advertising sign, the current moratorium
imposed by the City Council on erect+on of advertis+ng signs in the downtown and
certain other areas in the city does not apply to the reinstal�ation of this sign.
WHEREAS, Speedway Superamerica, after consuitafion with the sign owner, voluntari{y
offered to remove the sign in 2015 as an acknowledgment that the size of the sign does
not conform to the intent of the city's sign regulations;
�J
�
Zoning File #98-288
Page Four of Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission tfiat,
under the authority of the SPLC, the appeal by Speedway Superamerica LLC is hereby
granted and the appellant and Dakotah Properties LLP are allowed to reinstali the sign
subject to the following conditions:
The same sign and same sign frame structure shali 6e used fo the percentage
restriction of the SPLC with only the minimum repairs necessary to ensure safety
and the structural integrity of the sign itself. The sign shall not be enlarged, raised,
moved or extended.
2. The sign shall be used only as a business sign for the property on which it is located
or for the Superamerica property and shall not be used as an advertising sign.
•
The sign shail be removed at any future point when it is not leased to the owner of
the Superamerica property for use as a business sign or used by the owner of the
property on which it locafed as a business sign, provided, however, that the use of
the sign, as presently configured, shall cease no later than January 9, 2015. After
that date the totai amount of business signage for the Superamerica property shall •
not exceed the amount currently permitted in 1999, which is 934 square #eet, or the
amount permitted in 2015, whichever is greater. Also after that date the tota!
amounf of business signage for fhe Ailen Building property sha(I conform to the
regulations in effect in 2095.
4. �f required by the SPLC or any other applicabie statute or Iaw, a building permit shall
be secured before reinstallation of the sign. In the event that review of the building
permit application is required by any other public agency or body, if is fhe intenf of
this resolution that such review be expressly limited by the finding that the sign is
a business sign.
5. The resolution and its cortditions are expressly accepted in writing by Speedway
Superamerica LLC and Dakotah Properties LLP on beha(f of tfiemselves, their
successors, assigns and agents.
•
�
�
C�
{�7 ��
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hal! Conference Center
15 Kelloag Boulevard West
�1'Y�1�f}9'1'�
11`1�h�°��b 99-3ao
A meeting of the Planning Commission of tlie Cih� of Saint Paul Fvas held Friday, December 18, 1998, at
830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hafl.
Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and
Present: Messrs. Field, Gervais, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Mardell, Maraulies, McDonell,
Nowlin and Vaugiit.
Commissioners Messrs. Kong and Sliarpe
Absent:
*Excused
•
Also Present: Ken Ford, Plannin� Administrator; .lean Birkliofz, Beth BaRz, Donna Drummond,
Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Susan Kimberly, Larry Soderho(m and Jim Zdon,
Department of Plannin� and Economic Development staff.
I. Approv�l of blinutes of December 4, ]99$
MOTIOti: Con7nrissio�rer Field n:nved npprov�rl ojtlre nrin�des ofDecenrber 4, 199$;
Cns�anaissinrrer Krrrneer sero�trlert tlre n:otinrt wleicl� carried rutanin:otrsli' nn a voice vote.
�I. Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton announced the annua( IioGeta} part�• to be held in the Ramse} Count} Koom ofthe
Landmnrk Center today at noon.
Chair Morton called attention to 1 letter she recei�ed From Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota, that
�cas copied for each commissioner. She added that she had afso receired a phone call from
John �ianillo, president of Scenic Minnesota, who indicated that f�e had not seen Brian Bates'
letter before it had ?one ouL nor had amone else in the or�anization.
Commissioner Field responded to the allevations made in the letter. At the committee level
and in the past. Conunissioner Field stated, that he has disclosed that his buildine has a
bil(bolyd «hich is o��ned b� Efler Ad�ertising, and he has a 1!6 undi� ided interest in $2,500 -
SZ.600 per } ear. Prior to sen�in_ on the task force. he constdted «'ith �tr. Naraer. City
Attorne�'s Office and ��as ad� ised that diere �cas no conflict of intereit for him to serve on
either ti�e Le��islati�e Ad�'isorc Ta;k Force or the Plan�iina Commission. He noted that he has
abstained from cnrin�= on ad�ertisin�� si�=ns onl�' «hen the� direct{� imol�e an Eller sian, not on
all ad�erti�ing si��ns. He �tient on to sa� that fie finds �fr. Sates� commznts to be inflammator}.
.
Commissioner Kramer said he thouvht thzre ���is a fundamental misundzrstandins in Mr. Bate>
�
letter. tiVe should keep in mind that the recommendations of Yhe LeLislative Advisory �
Committee and tl�e Planning Commission on zoning code chanoes are purely advisory to the
City CounciL Tn the past, Mr. Field has abstained on zoning cases related to billboards where
the Planning Commission made a potentiail}� final decision. There cannot be a con8ict of
interest in a pureiy advisory capaci[y. He feeis Commissioner Fietd has been �vron�ed by the
al(egations in the Mr. Bates' letter. �
Commissioner Faricy staYed that tl�ose of the Planning Commissioners who sit on tlie Zoning
Committee make decisions regardin� properties tl�rou�hout tlie City of Saint Paul e��ery other
�veek. She sYated ihat al! members are liighly conscienteous re�arding any kind of conflict of
interest. If there is a possibility of a conflict of i�terest, it is checked out w�izh Mr. \\�arnec If
there is a conflict, the Zonin� Committee members don't vate, and slie knoc�s the same
conscientiousness prevai(s on the entire Pianninq Commission. She added that she has had it
�� ith letters comin� to individuai commissioners because most of these situations coutd have
been cleared up �vith one phone ca11 to the individual commissioner. She �cent on to say that if
anyone �vrites a Ietter such as this about her performance as a commissioner, she i�ill regard it
as a personal slur and tivil! be headins for Mark Vau�hPs office.
Commissioner Vau�ht commented that �4r, Bates' letter is an outrage. Tlte comments in it are
possibly defamatory and 8iey are hardl�• deser��in� of a response, aithough he did sze the reason
wity i[ needs [o be responded to. He sta[ed [hat durina the [ime he has been on the Commission
���ith Commissioner Field, he has never seen an}rtltinR abotR Ntr. Fietd's behacior under any
circumstances tha[ �could ca(� into question his ethics. This t��pe of letter has vep Iitt1e place in
public discowse, and it ou�_ht to be treated �� ith tl�e disrespect tl�at it dzsen zs.
Commissioner Gordon asked if a response is beiitg prepared. Giair �tona� ans�cered that it is. •
III. Plannin� AdminEstrator's Announcements
�,1r. Ford announced that there has bzen an appealed fiied on Louie's Billiards and that public
helrin�* is scheduted before the Cit� Cotmcit allanuary 6, (999.
h9r. Ford mentioned that there is a second pam' scheduled toda}' Iater in PED. It i; a bit of a
holida� get-together, but tl�is one has a special theme because it is PED�s fare»ell recepEion for
Beth Sartz. She «i!I be leavii�g plam�i��g to «ork �cith a consultine firm nhich is cer}' rtace fer
her bat PED u'il! iiiiss her a,reat deaL �
IV. Zonins Committec
#93-238 Speed��a� Snper.4mcrica LLC - tlppeal oPa decision bc the Zonin�! Adminis�rato*
that a sturii�-damased billboard cannot be reconstructed at?37 Si�th Street East (betwee�si Vr211-
& Broadi�a�': zoned I3-�): Lan'� Soderholm. 36G-6i7�.
Cotnmi;sioner Fi�icl inFonned mmmissiotiers ihat the 1�niu�_ Comti�it[ee �ot�d t-� €�pprave Y�:i>
app�ai �� ith Commi>sianzr Gordon �otin�_ av_ainst [he moti��n.
�IOTIO\: Cr�mvci.�si�nter Field vrui�ed approv�d of tlie reytaestetf nppert! uf n derisinn by- tlic
r _
L—
f�
/
99 - 3ao
. Zonino Arin:inisrrator that a stnrnt-dan:aoed billboard cm:not be reconstr«cted at 287Siztlt
Street E�crt.
Commissioner Field directed attention to a handout from Mc Soderhoim, which is a letter from
SuperAmerica objecting to the "sunset provision" in the Zonin� Committee resolution.
Speed�vay SuperAmerica is citing leaal preeedences that support their objection to the sunset
provision. �
Commissioner Vau�ht asked Mr. Warner to �ive �� l�atever analysis or opinion he wishes to
offer with respect to the points raised in Mc Keane's Ietter. Mr. Warner thinks that the points
made in the ietter are accurate. He informed the Commission that they can move forn�ard with
1an�uage that came out of the Zonin� Committee or t)ley can eViminate it. He felt that a�y
decision the Pia»nina Commission made today �cit4i respect to the langua�e of t(te resolution is
not Qoing to impact 4vhat happens to thlt sien toda}�. If the sign o��ner or SuperAmerica
chooses to do something about it in the future as the 2007 deadline approaches, they are free to
do it.
For ciarificltion, Commissioner Gordon asked if liis understandin� is con�ect that the Planning
Commission 1i1s authority to either approv�e tlie resok�tion without the su�iset or disapprove it
altoaetller but not take the midd(e course of appro� in? it �vitlt the sunset procision. h1r. Warner
repfied that they could move to disapproce it in its entirety, too. Commissioner Gordon asked if
tlie Conunission �could be on finner legal sround if they would disapprove it al[ogether than if
they would lppro��e it widi the sunsei pro�'ision. �3r. �Yarner responded that he did not think so
because there is another sicie to this issue as �cas przsented at tfie public hearins. and they have
• 1e�al arQuments that cotdd be made as o'ell. Mr. ��'arner thinks that tc} in�* to steer a course that
is »ot goin�_* to produce a legal chalfen�e fran either side of the i;sue is eoin�� co be � ery
dif}ic�dc. He thinks the Commission ma�' be on firmer le�al ground iFthe�• took the sunset
clause out of the resolution. The points rai;ed in ihe letter are accurate. Ha� in_ had just a fe�c
minutes to iook at the letter, Mr. �� arner thinl:s. ;i�'en that there is a moratorium in affect and
that the City' Council �� ilf eventuaily look at tlie si_n code, perhaps it might consider ptit[ing
amortization in the code: perhaps it mig4it co�isider lookin� at the cost of remocin� biflboards.
If die Planning Commission ��oidtf decide to put the sunset pro� ision in there roday, it really
cloes tiot become effective untif the ��ear 200Z �lr. �\'arner ��as not sure if he could sive the
Conunission a solid answer on �chether it�s best to move to dem the recommendation from the
Zonin� Commit[ee in its entiret�, mo� e to accept it but remo�'e the smiset pro� ision. or {eave it
as is because it is �'er� difficult to determine �chat either oft4ie t��o interested parties �tiill do
�cith it. �Uith respect to {imitin�� the size of the siga. Commissioner Go�don asked if Vlr.
�1'arner�s position «ould be the slme or differe�it. Does che Pfannine Commi;sion have more
authorit� to limit the size ofthe si;�n tf�an it does �+ith the sunse[ pro�'ision or ��ould those rivo
be the same? Mr. �Vlrner said di�t tlie sisn is too big: a confonning sign �wulci need to be
much smallcr. f lo��e�er. he felt that size more of a policc decision ieft up to the Commission.
He understoad that the maker of the motion offerad �±ood reasons co fea�e the sicu as it is;
;omcone else could crniie �cith good reason; to reduce the size. Eithzr «a�. h� l�4t it could
possibl� lead ro potential legal cha(leii�=zs. and he cannot adci:z as to ��hich �;oufd be better.
�s p��lic� make�'�. tlie Commission has fht[s the� can us< diat nta� be I�_ �u,minable. He
thut6s thi; is a difticult case for the Commi>;ion t�� ��re;de ��iti�
. -
�
Commissioner Vaught stafed that he made the motion at Zoning Committee and he wrote the •
resolution. The sunset provisiai was put in at the sug�estion of Commissioner Gordon.
Commissioner Vauglit said that he didn't like it and would have voted for the original motion
without the sunset provision in it because he thinks it is reasonably clear thaY this is a business
sian and not an advertising siLn. Commissioner Vaught thinks there are probably many ways
that this could be sliced and diced.
MOTTON: Cn�nmissiouer Va«ghf mover! to refer ihe �nai[er of this nppeal back to tbe
Zonins Comn�if[ee anc1, if necessary, to ir�voke mt additional 60 rla}'sfor corrsideration;
Conrnzissioner Cnrrlor: seconded the ntotion wlric% carrietl trnanin:ousl}•.
Mr. Soderl7olm announced t17at lie already sent the applicant notice e�tending this case 30 days,
assumin� tl�at it would take more time.
�98-293 Michacl Nadeau - Rezone property at 377 Maryland Avenue Nest from S-3 (general
business) to R-4 (sin,le-family� residential) to retiect the existin� use of the property (Donna
Drummond, 266-6»6).
MOTION: Cai�mrissiaier Field mnved tn apprni�e tGe request to rezate properry at 377
tllruylantlAveuue frnn: B-3 (�ei:era/ husiuess) to R-4 (sinpfe fitmilJ• residentirt(} to re,fleM tlte
etisting use of the prnpertl', «�IticG carried «nmtimously on n voice vo[e.
#93-290 Cavuan Street, LLC - Rezone proper[q at 199 and 201 Ca} i�ea Street from RT-1
(tu-o-family resideittial) to I-1 (industrial) in order to develop parking (Donna Drummond, 266-
6i56). •
bIOTTO\: Cnnvuissio�rer Fie/d mnved tn ttpprnre tlie request m rezmie properrr at I99 ated
201 Cql'u, a street from RT-1 (nro fieinilr re.rirlentiril) tn I-1 (industria!) in orrler to develop
p«rkian, x�leich cnrrierl ua�ininmusli� nn a rnice core.
n9S-296 Universitv ot'St. Tiromas - Determiiiation of similar use to allon permission to tfse
temporarily the recenth' ��acated, uni� ersit}'-o��ned b�iildin�, at 3097 Gra��d Avenue for offize
space for the Saint Paul Police R'esrern District Bic�cle Patrol and a Saint Paul Policz storzfron:
operation (Jim Zdon. 266-6559).
NIOTTON: Cnnunissioner Fie1d rnnred upprnrnl of the reqaested determinatioa ofsimilar
tese to allox� penrtission to use tempnrmrilr tke recentlr vacatet! rurire�silr-o�r�red hrtilrlino a1
2097 Grrurd R renrte for nffice space jnr 1lre Saitet Patr! Pnlrce 6t%stern Dis7rict Bict•cle Patrot
�rrrr! tt Striirt Prred Pr�lice slnrefroir! r�peralioir, x•Iric/r c�arried eutaitinrnrulP ruz a rnice vatz
Commissioner Pield informed commissioners that the Zonine Committee recommend refa�din_
the a�plfcation fee (in the resolutionl since the Cih is t(ie app(icant.
r93-297 i.a�� renee Si�n - Signa�_e cariance at 16�i East Co[ta<_>z A� ent�e: bas�d on proposed
stthacl., a heieht o( 7S" is allo«ed and a hei��ht of 92 is proposecl. a�ariance oi I�' reque5ted.
= U sq.it. of si��nnc< is alic���ed �� ith :3.� sq.fr. proposed_ rec�urstin�� a�ariance of �.� iq.fr. A J_
ti�uc setbac6 i: proposed Irom both I�ennard and Cotta�le. (\ane} Fric},.'_6G-6��-t�
�
�
'�
� � � � �,,,� �
Saint Paal Planning Comm��ssi;� ��� 9 � 3a D
�
�
City Hail Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boule�•ard West
A meetin� of the Planning Commission of tlie Cit}� of Saint Pau] was held Friday, January 8, 1999, at
8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of Ciry Hail.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissianers
Absent:
Mmes. Duarte, £ngh, Geisser, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs.
Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, Mardel{, McDonell, Nowlin and Vau�ht.
Mmes. *Faricy and Messrs. �`Jotinson, *Kong, �`Margulies and Sharpe
*Excused
Also Present: Ken Ford, Pfanning Admin+strator; Jean Birkholz, Tom Harren, Nancy Homans,
Tony Schert(er, Larry Soderhotm and Lucy Thompson, Department of Planning and
Economic Development staff; Tom Beach and Bob Kessler, the DepaRment of
License, Inspection, and Environmenta! Protection; and Mike Klassen, the
Department of Public Works.
I. Approval of Minutes of December 18, 1998
MOTION: Conrnrissiar:c�r Fie1r1 nroverl approva! of t/te ntiiiutes ojDecember I8, I998;
Conrnrissio�rerMnrrie!lseconded the nrotioit wkick carried renanin:ously ort a voice vote.
II. Chnir's Announcements
Chair Morton reco�nized out-goin, Commissionecs Treichel and Vau�ht by reading them
tl�eir special{y prepared resolutions.
IIL Planni��g Actministrator's Aonouncements
On bchalf of staff, Mr. Pord commented on retiring commissioners. This year, because of
the timing of the ordinlnce limiting terms on city commissions, this is a particularly large
turno�er oit the Plannin? Commission. Staff is very ntuch a��•are that �ve are saying
goodbyc to some commissioners that we ha��e worked with a very long time, and to whom
�ve are deeply indeUted. Staff 1'eels that the Saint P�ul Plannin� Commission has been not
only die largest commission in the country, birt undoubtediy, the best. He e�;tended staffs
congratula�ions and tlianks to ihose �� ho �re icaving.
Pictures fiom the holiday aathering are on ihe table in �he alcove for �•ie�ving and orderin�.
,
Mr. Pord announced that the Dcpartment of Pianning and Economic Development �3�iVl
under�o another chamle of leadership.
"f�he bilyor's recommendations for ne�v pl anning commissioners has �one to the City
Council; presinnabl�, they will be acied on i}est u,�eck. Thc appouitees are Shem Shakir,
with Progtown nction Alliance in \Vard l; Harold Potsch.an attorney in Ward 4; Sugene
��
shops have, and many oF them are a Iot more dan�erous and have a lot more affect on
surrounding communities. Perceptia�s are not fact. He added that he thinks Senator
Kelly's letter is not even anecdotal. but dema�oguery. •
Commissioner Gordon stated that afrer hearinp Commissioner Field's reason why he thinks
this ou�ht to go back to the Za�ina Committee, he tivill vote against sending it back because
tl�ere are Commissioners here wlio are prepared to vote. And some Commissioners �vho are
stip here have spenY a!ot of time on this issae and �vi!! be deprived of any opportunity to
vote on ii if it's not dealt with Yoda�. Also, he is generally opposed to moratoriums and
thinks That this one has been in place lona enou�h.
CaamissionerNowlin commented that he 8iinks members are gettin� many thin�s
coizfused in this issue. There is confusion aboi�t anacking a business that has a questionable
ima�e via zoning. The Plannin� Commission should not do that; he a�rees absolutely �vith
Commissioner Vaugltt on that point. Bu[ ihe people �vlto testifiec! in favor of the 1,000-fooT
separation are, ia fact, in the business of �rorkin� on development, redevelopment, etc., in
Saint Paul. CommissionerNowlin fliou�ht their evidence was enormously credible. They
talked about development, ttie image of a neighborhood and perception. This is one good
reason to send it back to the Zonin� Committee. Also, he Yhinks tlzat if the proposal would
n�ove pawn shops to B-3 and make these uses conditional, the Commission is essentially
sayiii� there �vill be no more pawn shops in Saint Paul. Witl� the 1,000-foot separation, we
are not doin� that. Canmissionertio�clin noted that he titi�ould like more discussion on that
rather thaii tryina to make a decision riaht now. He is in favor of the motion.
Commissioner Field added that another reason �vhy he made the motion is because he is
cwiflicted in much the same tivay as Commission Nowlin has sueQested. He needs more �
Lime to sort out the issues. �
Tlae n�olinn nu tlee flnnr m close 11ie public benring nnr! refer the Pnwn Sleop Zof:irtg
Studi' tn tlre Znning Cnmmittee arrrie�! ar « rol! cn(/ vnte of 8- 3(Geisser, Cordof:,
va,�g�,r). .
V. Zoninb Committee
#9S-288 Speedrvav SuerAmerica LLC - Appeal of a decision by the Zonine Administra-
tor that a storm-damaged billboard cannot be reconstructed ai 287 Sisth Street E(between
�Va!! R Broadway; zoned B-5); Larn Soderholm, 266-6575.
D107'ION: Cnnrmissinner Fie/d raoved apprnvn/ qf t/re nppettl of a rlecisiorr h�� rke
.Zorriug Adnaiiiisirotnr tlint n sfnrin-dru�urgerl billGnrird cruuint be recorstrncted ru 287
Sist/r S�reet Eri.+7 3nith corulifious t/�at, iir effect, prescriGe !/rrrY d�e sig�e rncq• rernriiit iaitil
Junu�tr�• 1, 2075.
Commissia�er Pield noted th�t the Zoning Commiitee allo�ved a representati�e to indicate
that i! �vas agrceable to the t�<<c� parties affected.
Commissioncr Nordin asked if the 7_onin� Committec camc u�i �� ith a definition otthis type
of sign. Com�uissioner Vau�ht replied that tl�e resolution f inds that this is to bz considered
a business si;n ratl�er ihan an ad��ertisin� simi. Commissioner T�ordin then asked what the
current ordinance �vas for Ihat site for a business sian? Mr. Soderhohn repliec! that tl�e �
f3
��
F• � �
resolirtion states that the current re�ulations for business signs «ould allow 934 sq.ft. of
• business siena�e at tliat location, and that after 2015 when they take diis si�n down, they
���ill conform to that standard.
Commissioner Nordin asked ho�� much business signage this business has besides this
signaQe. Mr. Soderholm replied that it was his recoliection that it was approximately 430
sq.ft.. Commissioner Nordin stated that she wondered 4vhy this business needs more
signa�e than any odier business. She added that she finds putting up this sign just doesn't
fit and she cannot vote in a�reement �vith the Zoning Committee untess someone could tell
her why-
Commissio�ier Vauaht a�reed that if that sign �t�ere to be placed ihere today, it would be
inappropriate �vith respect to size and it would not be a legal use. The sinn, as it existed
before the storm dama;ed the roof of tl�e buildin� and caused the si�n to come do�vn, was a
le�ai nonconforming use. He said it struck him as being unfair to someone to say that
because a storm comes alono and dama,es the roof on which the si�n is, that destroys the
nonconforming use. Tfie dendiine of 2015 �vas a compromise and gre�v out of Utc Warners
ldvice. Ifthe ori�inalresolution had been passed and enforced,there would be a substantial
likelihood that the city would have been stuck �vith the same sign until 2Q3Q. But, one
never knows what the courts would hare done.
Co��imissio�ier Kramer commented that this is probably the best deal the city can get on this
issue. This is 1 guarantee that the si�n �vilf come do�vn ia 2015.
Tire urntiorr nn UreJloor to r�ppr��ve ilte t�ppeal of « decisiorz of Ilte Zonirta Adnt��trstratot
• tGrrt a.rfnrni-rlm�aaeed Gi(lbnartl crrn�iot be reconsinreted a1287Sist/: Street Enst with
coitditions th�u all�iv 11re si;�r tn ren:ain �uuil Jrututrry 1, 201 S, carried un�uziieux�sly on a
' ' vnice vntt. �
#98- Willarct �Vielke - A special condition use pennit to allow for an auto car �vashing
buildino at 1770 Old 1 Road (Allan Torstensan, 266-6579).
Commissioner Fie1d reported tliat tlic Zoning Committee voted to lay this matter over until
tl�e January 14 meeting.
#98-309 St Anthonv Pnr{c Communiri• CoLmcil - Appeal of an administrative approval of
site plan for an automobiic conrenience store at the north�rest corner of Kasota Avenue and
liiglnvay 2S0 (Donna Drummond. 266-6556).
Con�inissioner Pield reported that the "/_oning Committee �roted to lay Uiis matter o�•er to the
.ianuarp 14 tnce[in�;.
#94-310 Per��oln Im estments, l.LC - AE7plication for nonconformin� usc permit to allow a
picture framin�� shop ai 201 Western nvenue North (Jim Zdon, 266-6559).
Comniissioner Field reported that the 7_onin� Gommittee voted to Iaq this matter over to the
Januan� lA mccting.
�9S-313 7it��uart J. K:�nstul - P.erone propert�� from R-4 (aie-family residcntial) to R1'-1
' (t�+o-f;nnil�' residentia{) to allo�� for suhdivision of propert}' at 976 1 iazel�vood Stmet (at
ia
MINUTES OF THE ZQN(NG COMMIITEE
Thursday, November 23, 1948 - 3:30 p.m.
City Councit Chambers, 3`° Ftoor
City Hail and Courf House
15 West Keliogg Boutevard
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
OTHERS
PRESENT:
Faricy, Field, Gervais, Kramer, Morton, Vaught and Wencl
Gordon
Geri Boyd, Donna Drurmmond, and Larry Soderhoim of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA, LLC - Zoning File 98-288 - Appeat of a decision by fhe Zoning
Adminisfrafor that a sform damaged biilboard cannot be reconstructed at 287 East Sixth Street.
Larry Soderholm gave a slide presentation and reviewed the staff report. Mr. Soderhotm stated that staff
recommended deniai af the appeai. He further stated fhaf CapitalRiver Counci! decided to make no
recommendation and that he understood that the Heritage Preservation Commission would be considering
the application later in the week.
n
U
In response to Chair �ieid, Mr. Soderholm explained that almosf aA of the district council requests for
bi[(board moratoriums came to the city before the two windstorms that damaged a number of signs and �
he believed the downtawn biilboard moratorium was effective before the storms. The CEty Council upheld
the moratoriums in July.
At the question of Comm+ssioner Vaught, Mr. Soderholm stated that the appeilant's letter to John Hardwick
was written on 10/15l98 but was nof recei�ed by LIEP unfi110/19/98.
ln response to Commissioner Vaught, Wendy Lane stated that a person affected by the decision of the
Zoning Administrator may appeal a decision within 30 calendar days of the decision. LI EP's practice is
to use L1EP's mailing date as the sfarf dafe and the date LIEP receives an appeal as the end date. She
said this application was accepted because the LIEP office was aware that it was forthcoming. She
further sfated thaf if the Planning Commission was to turn down this application because +t was not t+mely,
LIEP wouid not accept any other application in the future under the same circumstances.
Upon the question of Commissioner Faricy, Ms. Lane expiained that fotlowing the May 30"' storm, due to
all of the damage, the city did send out a letter to ali of the outdoor advertising companies informing them
that if there was damage to their signs they would need to submit repair ptans to the city fo see if petmifs
would be required, depending on the extent of the repairs. Dakotah Properties wouid not have received
a letter because they are not a biiiboard company.
Tim Keane, 7900 Xerxes Avenue, with Larkin, Hoffman, Daily, and Lindgren, appeared on behaif o;
Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC. Mr. Keane stated that he had spoken with Peter Wamer and Mr. Hardwick
and stated that the appiication was intended to be timely. He said tfiat he had a temporary secretary on
the day the letter was mailed who apparentiy failed to carry out his instruction to f� the appeai as welf as _
mait it.
��
gy-3�
Zoning Committee Minutes
November 23, 1998
• SuperAmerica, LLC (98-288)
Page 2
Upon the question of Commissioner Vaughf, Mr. Keane expiained that the sign is large and SuperAmerica
depends on thaf fact for their business. Mr. Keane stated that tfie damaged to the sign was minimai, and
had it not been for the damage to fhe parapef and roof, it coufd have been put back up and refastened to
the building.
Mr. Keane stated thaf he was former a city planner and fhat he understands sign reguiations and
believes that section 6&.301 is the applicable secfion of the code in this case.
At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Keane stated thaf the telephone number on the
billboard does nof belong to the store directly beiow the sign.
In response to Commissioner Vaught, Mr. Keane stated that the application and fee was in the
office of the city on 10/20/98. Mr. Soderholm stated that the envelope for Mr. Keane's prior letter
of 10J15198 was postmarked that day, but was misaddressed and stamped by the post o�ce "no
such number", which wouid expiain why it wasn't received until 10/19/98.
Upon the question of Commissioner Gervais, Mr. Keane drew a diagram and explained that when
the wind hit the sign, the sign frame itself did not collapse; rather, the whole parapet wall below
the sign peeled back. The "A" frame support members held up except for a few that hit fhe roof-
•top air conditioning unit.
Roman Mueller, 1240 W. 98' Street, Bloomington, appeared. Mr. Mueller stated that this
particular sign used no wood stringers; it had metal stringers and the sign paneis had an interlock
system that held the entire structure together. He further stated that the repair cost would be
$40,000, and Lawrence Sign Company gave them a replacement estimate of $203,150.
In response to Commissioner Morton, Mr. Muelier stated thai a solution could probably have
been engineered to repair the roof without removing the sign, but not in a cost effective way.
Chuck Erickson, 287 East Sixth Street, appeared. Mr. Erickson stated that he is fhe owner of fhe
Allen building, and that he represents the partnership of Dakotah Properties. He said the sign
was erected by his fiamily in the early 1960's and the only use of the sign has been for
SuperAmerica. He further stated that there has been no other outside advertising on that sign.
Brian Bates, 1985 Grand Avenue, representing Scenic Minnesota, appeared. Mr. Bates spoke
in support of the stafF recommendation to deny the appeal because the definition in the code for
"advertising sign" is based on "on-premises" vs. "off-premises". This SuperAmerica billboard is
not on the premises of the SuperAmerica store. This sign is on fhe premises of the AI(en Buiiding
and owned by Dakotah Properties. Therefore, the stricter standards of 66.3D2 apply.
• Mr. Keane reappeared in rebutta4, and stated that out of alf of the public hearing notices that went
out, only Scenic Minnesota, which is not a property owner in the vicinity, appeared in opposition
to SuperAmerica's appeal.
��
Zoning Committee Minutes
November 23, 7998
Speedway SuperAmerica (98-288)
Page 3
At the question of Commissoner Kramer, Mr. Keane stated that a 10-year lease for the sign was
executed in 1996 or 1987, and as long as the store is there SuperAmerica wiil want the sign.
!n response to Commissioner Vaught, Mr. Ericks�n agreed to the use of the sign only for the
business located af fl�at property.
The public hearing was ciosed.
Commissioner Vaught moved to recommend approval of the appeal with the condition that the
sign be used as a business sign only for the proprietor of the SuperAmerica location. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Faricy.
Peter Wamer suggested that Commissioner Vaughf's solution wou(d be very workable, however
it would be better if there were a friendly motion to lay over to the December 10�' meeting to aliow
the city attorney's office to talk to staff about the implications for the city and alsa to the applicant
and the building owner about the proposed conditions.
C�
Commissioner Kramer said that he didn't know how they wouid condition somefhing if fhe 6uitding owner .
is not the applicant in this case. !n response to Commissioner Krame�'s questiort, Wendy Lane stated that
LIEP has handied this as an advertising sign because it was not on the same premises as the business
being advertised. Sometimes, third parties have been formal parficipants involved in zoning decisions.
Commissioner Vaught withdrew his origina! motion and made another motion to lay the item over to the
December 10'" meeting as Mr. Warner suggested. Commissioner Faricy accepted fhe new motion.
Commissioner Vaught also moved to extend the deadline the for an additional 60 days if necessary. Both
motions passed unanimously.
Concluding Business ltems
Mr. Soderholm informed the Commission about a copy of an application he received regarding a Sf.
Anthony Park speciat sign district. In response to Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm stated that
this area is covered under the biilboard moratorium. He further stated that the application wiil
probab)y be referred by the Planning Commission to City Council.
Commissoner Kramer moved to adjoum and to put the remaining item on the agenda for the next meeting.
it was seconded and approved.
Adopted
Drafted by:
Geri Boyd
Recording 5ecretary
Yeas - 7 Nays - d
Submitted by:
L�lYy
Larry derholm
Zoning Section
Approved by:
Litton Field
Chair
r7
L�
��
9 y-3a.�
•
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
QTHERS
PRESENT:
MlNUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Tfiursday, December 10, 1998 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3` Floor
City Ha(1 and Court House
15 West Keilogg Boulevard
Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, Morfon, Vaught and Wenci
Gervais
Geri Boyd, Donna Drurmmond, Nancy Frick, Larry Soderholm, and Jim Zdon of
PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SPE@DWAY SUPERAMERICA - Zoning File 98-288 - Appeai of a decision by the Zoning Administrator that a
storm-damaged biilboard cannot be reconstructed at 287 East Sixth Street. Commissioner Vaught stated that
he distributed a resolution before the meeting and moved this resolution to grant the appeal of the appiicant and
a!!ow the re- installation of the sign at that location. Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion.
Commissioner Vaught explained that essentiafiy the resoiution overtums Mr. Hardwick's decision thaf this is an
advertising sign, and finds that this is actuatly a business sign. It contains five conditions which are basically
�ngruent with the ones that were in Mr. Soderho{m's draft of the resolution.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Vaught stated that the resolution contemplated
only the identical sign, exactly the same size and location as the one that blew down.
Gommissioner Gordon opposed the motion and resolution as drafted. He said that ifi there was a
modification of the resolution as to the size of the biliboard, he wouid consider supporting the motion.
ln response to Commissioner Kramer, Wendy Lane stated that for a fot with this street fronfage in a B-5
district, the totai business signage permitted is 934 sq. feet. SuperAmerica has 346 square feet of
smailer business signs plus the biliboard in question, which is 3,200 square feet.
Commissioner Vaught stated that under the conditions of the resoluction the sign is to be used as a
business sign, and a business sign only. He said that he would consider accept+ng friendly amendmenfs
to the resolution, however, the size of the sign was not one of them.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Commissioner Vaught stated that the term of the lease runs
to the year 2007. Commissioner Gordon moved fo amend the resolution to incllide a sunset provision
cons+stent with the length of the current lease. Commissioner Vaught accepted ihe amendment, an�
Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion.
�ommissioner Gordon expressed the fact ihat he stiii had a problem with the size of the biilboard.
In response to Commissioner Wenc1, Commissioner Vaught sfated that the sign was a{ega{ norr
conforming use. Mr. Soderhoim stated that the sign was buift fegally in fhe ear{y 1960's.
��
Zaning Committee Minutes
Dacember 10, 1998
Speedway SuperAmerica (98-288)
Page 2
�
Mr. Soderf�o(m explained thatthe sunsef amendmentwouid address his concern fhatthe Comprehensive
Plan calis for residenfial redevelopment of the North Quadrant of lowertown and that housing may be
buift kitty-comer from the site.
Commissioner Kramer cailed the question.
On a voice vote of 6 to 1(Commissioner Gordon), the motion to recommend approva! was passed.
Commissioner ICramer thanked Commissioner Vaught for work done on the resolution.
Adopted Yeas - 6
Drafted by:
.1.2G �
Geri L. Boyd
Recording Secretary
Nays -1 (Gordon)
Submitted by:
larry 5�rholi
Zoning Section
Chair
r�
L
�
'�
���..
� ��`s`� J '.
'"� ES'�fi�l
����,�:
_�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, December 29,1998 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3f° Floor
Cify Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boutevard
PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Kramer, Morton, and Vaught
EXCUSED: Gordon ABSENT: Gervais and Wencl
gy-3a.a
OTHERS
PRESENT: Donna Drummond, Martha Fausc, Patricia James, Laurie Kapian, and Larry Soderholm of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC - Zoning File 98-288 - Appeal of a decision by the Zoning Administratar that a storm-
damaged bifiboard cannot be reconstructed at 287 East Sixth Street.
Chair Fie{d explained that this item has come back to the Zoning Committee from the Pianning Commission after a
representative of SuperAmerica raised a legai fssue the evening before the Planning Commission to act on the resolution,
which did not allow the City Attorney enough time to give an opinion on the matter.
Mr. Warner explained that the letter receive from SuperAmerica expressed concerns about the attempt by the city to sunset
the length Qf time the sig� couid be up. He further stated that he could not find any existi�g language that wouid work.
At the question of Commissioner Vaught, Mr. Warner stated that the committee could not unilaterally impose the sunset
� vision.
missioner Vaught moved to ailow the appiicant to respond to these issues pertaining to a workable solution on the sunset
provision. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Faricy and approved,
Tim Keane, 7900 Xerxes Avenue, representative of SuperAmerica appeared. Mr. Keane stated that he did have the
opportunity to discuss the matter with the buiiding owner. He further stated that the buiiding owner, when asked about a
requested that it he were voluntary sunset provision, suggested the period o4 time that the tax code provides for amoRizing
a sign of this nature, that being 30 years. Mr. tCeane said that he suggested to the building owner that they should propose
a reasonable compromise and agree to a term that reflects some give an take with the city.
Mr. Keane further stated that they are prepared to agree to 6ri�g the sign into conformance with the existing code in 2015.
Mr. Kea�e stated that they are offering to enter a voluntary agreement to remove the existing sign, at that time.
In response to Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Keane stated that as part of this agreement a new iease wili be written to extend
SuperAmerica's lease to 2015.
Commissioner Vaught moved that the existing resolution be modified to indicate the date and require some written expression
of the agreement before the decision goes into effect. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Faricy.
Commissioner Kramer suggested that the documentation should incfude afl parties invoWed.
adopted Yeas - 5 Nays - 0
) Sy:
aurie Kap(a �
ecording Seaetary
Submitted By:
Larry S d rholm
Zoning ection
� .. . -. :.�
. '��/
. -.
��
ZONIlVG COMNIITTEE STAFF REPORT
FILE # 98-288
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
APPLICANT: SPEEDWAY SUPETLAMERICA DATE OF HEARING: I I/23/98
CLASSIFICATION: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Decision
LOCATION: 287 SIXTIi STREET (billboard seen over 3uperAmerica on E. Seventh
St.)
PLANNING DISTRICT: 17
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: See file
PRESENT ZO1vING: B-5
ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 66.408
STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT BY: Lany Soderholm DATE: 11/16l98
8. DATE RECEIVED: 10/20/98 DEADLINE FORACTION: 12/18/98
A.
B.
C.
D.
PURPOSE: Appeal of a decision by the Zoning Adminisuator that a storm-damaged
billboard cannot be reconsiructed.
PARCEL SIZE: 287 E. SiYth St. is 31, 896 sq. ft.
EXISTiNG LAND USE: Office-wazehouse, a significant lusforic building in the
Lowertown Heritage Preservation District
SURROUNDING LAND USE:
North: SuperAmerica on E. Seventh; freeway ramp, freeway right-of-way and pazkiug
across E. Seventh
East: Across Broadway St., freeway right-of-way and E. Seventh bridge
South: Office-wazehouse space in the J.H. Atlen Building, which has a 7-story section on
E. Sixth St, and a 3-story addition (address 417 Broadway) on top of which the
sign was Iocated. The 7-story section has "freeway-size" roo$op biIlboard that
faces east.
West: 2-story office of Buckbee-Meazs, Ina and the parking ramp for the Lowertown
Business Center
1
•
�J
_
��
99
• E. ZONIiVG CODE CITATIONS:
Sec. 66.408(a) on Appeals. "Any person affected by the decision of the zoning
administrator dealing with the provisions of this chapter may appeal this decision to the
planning commission within ttrirty (30) catendar days of the decision...."
Sec. 66.103 and 66.104 on definitians. "Adverfising sign. A sign which directs attention
to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment which is conducted,
offered, sold or manufactured elsewhere than on the premises upon which the sign is
placed. It shall be considered as a nonaccessory sign." "Business sign. A sign which
directs attention to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment which is
conducted, offered, sold, or manufactured on the premises upon which the sign is placed.
It shall be considered as an accessory sign."
Sec. 66.214(j) on Advertising Signs. "Heritage preservation districts. Advertising signs
shall be prohibited from all historic preservation sites or districts designated by the city
council."
Sec. 66.301. Intent of regulations on nonconforming signs. "...It is the intent of this
chapter that nonconforming signs shall not be enlazged upon, expanded or extended, nor
be used as grounds for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same
district. It is further the intent of this chapter to permit legal nonconfomung signs existing
• on the effective date of this chapter, or amendments thereto, to continue as legai
nonconforming signs provided such signs aze safe, maintained so as not to be unsightly,
nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following provisions: (1) No sign shall be
enlazged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity; (2) Should such sign or
sign structure be destroyed by any means to any extent of more than fifry-one (51 }
percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the
provisions of this chapter; (3) Should such sign or sign structure be moved for any reason
for any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located after it is moved..."
Sec. 66.302. Nonconforming signs; exceptions. "Any advertising sign existing as of the
date of this section [February 2, 1988] which is located in a zoning district which does
not permit advertising signs or which does not conform to the size, height andfor spacing
requirements of this chapter may be replaced, relocated or renovated in the manner
provided in this section; provided, however, that snch activity shall bring the sign into
greater compliance with the provisions of this chapter and satisfy the following standards:
(a) Advertising signs to be replaced, relocated or renavated on the same zoning lot:
(1) The zoning lot must be within a zoning district in which advertising signs are a
permitted use, as specified in section 66.214(a) or (i), or as permitted in a speciai
, 2
0
sign district approved by the city council;
(2) The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height
requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b);
(3) The gross surface display area of the advertising sign shall not be made larger nor
shall the height of the advertising sign be made higher than was the previously
existing nonconforming sign;
(4) The advertising sign may be relocated or replaced within the original wning lot
and tke spacing requirements of section 66.214(b) and (k) sha11 not apply thereto;
provided, however, that the sign may not be placed within one hundred frfty (150)
feet from the I-35E Parkway right-of-way;
(5) An advertising sign which is less than four hundred (400} square feet in azea may
be located on a roof top, and all advertising signs may overhang a roof..."
F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION
•
The sign in this case is a very lazge rooftop billboazd owned by Dacotah Properties LLP
and leased since I987 to Speedway SuperAmerica, the business next door. Because the
sign is almost four times the size of a standard &eeway billboazd, it must be custom
painted and therefore the message is changed infrequeatly. The billboazd is visible from .
the nearby freeway and is intended to attract freeway drivers to the SuperAmerica.
At the beginning of the simuner the sign blew over in the sewnd of two major
windstorms that hit the city. The sign peeled back the roof of the building and had to be
removed in order for the building repairs to proceed. LIEP staff advised contractors not
to replace the sign and that a building permit would be needed to do so.
On September 4, 1998, Lawrence Sign Co. applied for a sign pemut to reinstall the sign
frame and panels that were biown down by the storm. On September 17, 1998, 7ohn
Hardwick of LIEP denied the permit applicarion. The Ciry received an appeal of the
decision from Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, on October 19, 1998. A more detailed
letter explaining fhe appeal was received on November 26, 1998. (Atthough the appeai
was received a couple of days late, the appellant had been in communication with LIEP
staff eazlier and the appeal was e�ected. Staff recommends that the Plaiming
Commission decide the appeal on the merits of the case.)
The sign pernut application is aIso being considered by the Heritage Preserva6on
Commission since the property is in the Lowertown Heritage Preservation District Their
review is expected on November 19, 1998,
�
t�'1
99-3ao
• The Pianning Commission had a case about two storm-damaged billboazds during the
surtuner. The Commission decided that billboazd companies could, without sign permits,
replace sign face panels that had blown down if no damage had occurred to the sign
structure. The decision was appealed to the Ciry Council, wluch upheld the Planning
Commission. Scenic Minnesota is now appealing the City Council decision to district
court.
The present sign appeal is the first one to come to the Planning Commission regazding a
sign where the sign structure was damaged by the two windstorms in May and June. It is
likely that addifionai, similaz appeais will come to the Planning Commission.
G DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMIVVII�NDATION: The CapitolRiver Council decided to
make no recommendation on this case because of the unusual circumstance that the
Speedway SuperAmerica sign was so similaz to an on-premise business sign inasmuch as
the sign advertised the SuperAmerica right below it. Generaliy, the CapitolRiver Council
wants to reduce the number of billboazds downtown. They requested a biilboard
moratorium, which was approved by the City Council, for District 17 during the current
billboazd zoning study.
H FINDINGS:
1. The sign that blew down in the storm had some chazacterastics of both an advertising and
� a business sign. It was big like a billboard and looked like a billboard. But since 1987 it
was used exclusively to advertise SuperAmerica products for sale on the premises
immediately next door, almost right below the sign. Under a straight reading of the
definitions in the Zoning Code, the Zoning Administrator determined the sign to be an
advertising sign because it was not on the premises of the SuperAmerica. It was on the
premises next door. Accordingly, John Hazdwick of LIEP wrote to the applicant and
denied the sign permit application pursuant to the Zoning Admuustrator's interpretation
that the sign was a billboard; then he went on to explain why the permit would likewise
be denied if the sign were considered a business sign--either a nonconforming business
sign to be reconstructed or a new business sign.
2. On their appeal to the Planning Commission, Speedway SuperAmerica states the
following grounds for their appeal:
a. Re-anchoring sign does not require a new sign permit.
b. Sign is a conforming sign under the Code's ambiguous sign regulations.
c. The historic district does not prohibit replacing Zegal nonconforming signs.
d. The sign is not an advertising sign.
e. The denial misapplies fhe provisions of the St. Paul Code of Ordinances Section
66.301 and Section 66.342.
• 4
�'�
Their appeal is explained in more detail in a letter submitted on November 16, 1998. �
3. Accepting the Zoning Administrator's determination that the sign was a nonconfomung
advertising sign, it cannot be replaced for three reasons:
a. The City Council has imposed a moratoriwn on pemuts For advertisiug signs in
the downtown and several neighborhoods until the current billboazd zoning study
is completed and amendments aze enacted or until December 3I, 1999, whichever
comes first.
b. Section 66.302(a)(1} providas that in order for an advertising sign to be replaced
or renovated on the same zoning lot, it mast be in a zoning district where
advertising signs are a pernutted use. The property at 287 E. Si�cth St. is located
in a part of the B-5 zone where an advertising sign would be permitted except that
the property is within the Lowertown Heritage Preseroation District, and no
advertising signs aze permitted in historic districts.
c. Sectioa 66302(a) goes on to provide in paragraph (5) that billboazds over 400
squaze feet in size cannoY be replaced or renovated on the same zoning lot. The
SuperAmerica sign was 20 high and 160 feet long, totaling 3,200 square feet; it
was a giant among billboazds. Standazd "neighborhood billboazds" aze under 400
squaze feet and standard "freeway bilIboards" aze under S00 square feet. The
sign in question was eight times lazger than the code pernzits. �
3. Assuming that the sign was a nonconforming business sigre as the appiicant contends, it
cannot be reconstructed for two reasons:
a. It cannot be removed. nor can it be moved. Section 66301 states that "...it is
fiirther tl�e intent of this chapter to pemut legal nonconfornung signs ... to
continue as legal nonconforming signs provided such signs are safe, maintained
so as not to be unsightly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following
provisions..." These provisions go on to say Yhat nonconforn�ing signs cannot be
moved. Section 66.301(3) staies that "(3) Shonld such sign or sign structure be
moved for an�reason for any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter conform to
the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located after it is moved."
(Underlining added.) The applicant's letter of 11/16/98 concedes that the sign
was indeed removed to facilitate repair of the roof and pazapet waIl that supported
the sign. The damage to the building, staff believes, woutd not have occurred if
the sign had not been acting as a sail in the wind.
b. The sign cannot be reconstructed unless the damage was less than 51% of the
replacement cost of the sign or sign structtue, The sign permit application
submitted by Lawrence Sign Co, estimates that the reconstruction project would
�
��
y Q-3ao
• cost $ l OQ,000. Staff normally asks the applicant to provide an estimate of the
replacement cost in order to derive the percentage of the damage. The applicant's
letter of November 16, 1998, contends that "this provision does not apply, since
this sign was not destroyed at all by the storm; it remained essentially intact while
the building roof failed." The estimated cost of $100,000 for reinstailation of the
sign and the claim that the sign and sign structure remained "essentially intact"
areinconsistent.
STAFF RECONIlVIENDATION:
Based on findings 1 and 3, PED staff recommend denial of the appeal. The Zoning
Admuustrator conectly deternuned that sign was an advertising sign under the terms of
the Zoning Code. Even though the billboard advertised the SuperAmerica next door, it
was not on SuperAmerica's premises. Moreover, even if the Zomng Administrator erred
in determining that the sign was a billboard, and the sign should have been considered a
business sign, the denial of the sign permit application was correct as explained in
finding 4.
�
.
G7
2�
OCT 17 1770 14�-S-M1 rROM CI71' Of' .r,l' f'RUL LIQ' TO
�pucanoN
Department of Plmrr�ru
Zontxg Sectiox
11�0 Crtyfl'a1lAnnex
25 ii'est Paurth �heei
Saiat Paul, IK1V 551J/2
Z6G-6589
APP�A!
and EconomicDevelapmmr
APP�LLAN7'
1240 l�Test
T,ip 55431 Daytime phone887-6100
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Name �
:atien 287 Sixth Street East, St. PauZ, Minnesot�
C_%.
'�YPE aF APT+EAL: Appiic<
p Board of Zonin
uncler the provisions of Ch<
appeal a decision made by
an Septe�tt�er 17
fdate of decision)
is hereby made for an appeal to the: •
peals ❑ City Councit x Pl�u�ing Co�nission
64, Seetion _ , Paragraph af the Zaning Code, to
i 9 98 . File number.,
GR4UHDS FOR APF�AL:�xpiain why you feet there has 6ean sn ercar in any requirement,
permiY, decisian ar refusai m de by an administrafive official, or an error in fact, procedure or
finc�ing made by the Board Zoning Appeats or the Pfanning Commission.
1. Re-anchoring sign does not require a new sign permit
2. The sign is a conforming sign under the Code's ambiguous siga reguIations.
3. The historic district does not prohibit replacing legat non-conforming signs,
4, The sign is not an advertising sign.
5. The denia[ misapplies the provisions of St. Pau( Code of Ordinances Sec�ion ���fl�����n �
66302. �„����
Attach addi6onaf sheet i�
ApplicanYs
City
'G. a O
��
�
.�' .
•
�
�
�
1 18���
� r.�
S��M1
�� I
�
CITY OF SANT PAUL
IPITERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 29, 1998
TO: Wendy Lane, Frank Berg
FROM: 7ohn Hardwick�
RE: More storm damaged billboards
99 -3�a
Today our office issued a permit to remove a storm damaged billboard form the roof of the Allen
Building at 287 E Th Street. The bIllboazd blew over and peeled back the roof of the building. It was
necessary to zemove the billboard structure in order to repair the roof of the building. Since this
is in the Lower Town Preservation area the billboard can not be rebuilt .The contractor doing the roof
repair was told not to replace the sign. While I was out looking at this sign I noticed thai a Universal
billboard at 421 E Th Street had also blown over onto the buildin� at that address damagin� the roof.
There was a Universal repair crew at the site (they did not have a permit). I spoke with the foreman
and told him that he could remove the si�n but could not rebuild or replace the sign without first
� obtainin� a pernut. The foundation had puled out of the ground and the only thing holdin; the si�n up
was ihe roof of the buildin;. This si the first sign I have seen where the foundation failed and pulled
out of the ground. Maybe �ve need to require a soils test before we issue any more freestandin�
billboard permits? Would it be a good idea to have our building inspectors inspect for these signs
since they are familiar with footings and soils?
cc: Bob Kessler
Peter Wamer
Virginia Palmer
�
�
September 4, 1998
b.;. Ed Locke
City of S*.. Paul
L�v�lding InspecYi�n and Design
=5Q St. Peter Street, Suite �QQ
SY.Pau�,Atl� SSiQ2-1510
IZE: Si�r. Permi?, SuFer.America
De� Ed
cugerAmerica weuid like tQ restQre their storm dama�ed si�n tha± �vas at 4I7 Sroadwzy
Street. Thanks for revie�vin' the enclosed pernut application, site plan and dra�vin�.
When agproved, please have someone notify us and �x�e wiil fon��ard a check.
Thanks a�ain, please call u�ith any quesYions.
Cordiaily,
� � a€t
Encts.
�, 945 PtERCE BUTLER ROUTE � ST. PAUt, M[NNESOTA 55104 � 612.485.6711 � FAX 612.488.6713
La.wrence �
.
ig�,
��
�
2'j
AUG-21-98 FRI 8 LRWRENCE SIG�
BUILOING INSPEC7tON AN� OESIGN
OFFICE OF LlCENSE, INSPECTfONS AND ENV(RONMENTAI
350 ST. PETEft S7REET. SIJITE 3C0
57. PAUI, MINNESOTA 55102-1510
(See back of farnt for
FAX N0. 651488671�
�. o:
99-3 ��
SIG�
PERMIT APPLICATlQN
�n nnd
Number SUeet Name St,61vd„Ave,etc. N S E W Cross Street Da!e
PROJECT �, 1 V('Ua�WA JV G. � f�' C L. b` �Q'. � r 1
ADDRESS
stgn Contractar Address Gf �{.g f�� e,.�� (.� (e.t (�o��� Phone
��A�^+�Q.ncC�c ✓� City c5�-. �w�.l� I^tN. SSIo�{ ��df'i-�s� 11
In�!uda Contatt Person ¢ a�� ���L1 E State,Zip
�Business/Owne L L/� Address a�� � (D'� -�. f, Phone G
�. pA<o�a� �rope�}.:e$, /' City a-�{f.�, a (d�
Inciude Contact Person �� w c�i C r; �icS o-� State,Zip �-� ,�y � � t'U_ SS / CS �
I New Ssgn Aiter Ezisting Sign / � Estlmated Start Oste Estimatad Comple4ian Dete ES7IMATED VAIUE OF PROJEC7
� feSS�S-r-1 } �Cl��� �s�� S �d0 C9U0 ^
Completc Stctian I(os Section II foc PoRable Signs) and Section AI
t30TICE: A Site Plan and a Dnwing of each sign must accompany this permit applicatioA.
SEC170N T - GENE.ItAL StGNS
�
i
Ptace X or check marK m square neut lo sign type. Enle� number ai gigns oF aeiected type, width and iength In faet antl Lot Dimensions S.rxet Fron;a�a (
In�has, and tola! square leet of sign. Use addltional columna (or s(gns of difteren! sizes or lis; in Descripfion o( Arof ect. Widlh teng;h (N�-�her o` fee jf
W9t1 Waii Wal1 Wall Wdtt EsfeHng Si¢napa (�3 X s �(�U I
on tho haperty
Frna Standing Free Standing Free Sfanding Free Standing Free Standing aforo �h�e project
Projecting Proje
R Roof
ity � Quan
Widch � Widtl
Le�cU � � ,,.� Lcng�
Rooi Root
Quanuty nuenti'
Wdth Width
Le�B�h Langch
Sque�e Spuare
Nning inciuded YES projechon away Stru�ture
� ❑ Gom 0uiiding {fUln) S¢e:
in Permit.
Manyt +Square 6eet
�ilt nxt WU secaoa iorLtcuniv a �xt
Tlfaninn;c� `-'� i_.�I
� _%'�'
:opy to Reatl �
S u P e� �or�5
y S �j - cAF�
Roof
Qusntity
Witlth
Length
Squ&�d
Height Length
- P(�RTA&LE S[GNS
n Height
wqmc(Sq. Feet�
� O— 75 the Sign Loca'ed
on a Comer LoYI YES ❑ PA �!
�
Slgnega to be
Removad (�n
SQ�ara Feet}
�U—
���
Totaf Squ�ia
�Bat af SiBns f
thie Permit
� �oo
cnption af Profect 4
�e.�S���l �<�r`1
r
�
Qlow� p �
Appifcant certifies that alf information is cofrect and thaf all
pertinent state regufations and city ordinances will Be complied
with in performtng the work for which fh+s pemtit'ss issued.
� �� .� -- �� �'-6 71.�
ppficanYs'Signature 7elephone Number
ming Remarks
{s Sign in 2 Shepp�ng YES �!:O �
CenledStnp Mall�
Does the S:gn p�cjact over yE5 NO �
a PubllC Rr ofVlay7 rl �
iJ
Enler amounl o( Projzction cvx�'
Aub'i:Right l.�—�.
is the S�gn Locatetl YES � NO �'
cn a Comer �ct�
t6e S�fi�t u il7u�unated nriti�an r�xtrics:
tw�c'� ._ --
u �.br
►^aw. e. � �c.n e 1 S
�
S�,Q �
Sign Perm{t Fee
Ptan Check fee
Sta;e Surcharge
Total Permit Fee
I PIN
o�
s
S�
$
s�
�
mmg �ietnct I (
1 �Q,
ovra^;e Signage Reeiewed 6y �Ja!e YFJ Recl�xved
�
�
-�-
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
g
.�';�
�
� �
� �
���
� �
� S
�
� �
�
N
x
�
�
� �.,
0
�
�f
OFFICE OF LICEDISE, NSPECTtO�iS A?ID
EWIRO�i.�fEYiAI PROTEC770V
Robert Kessler, Di�ettor
�
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, 6layor
September 17, 1998
Geoff Michael
Lawrence Signs
945 Pierce Butler Route
St Paul, Minnesota 55104
LOWRYPROFESSIOhAL BUILD/.\G
Sui+e 300
3i0St PererSrreer
Sairti Paul, Afinnesota 55102-I5f0
RE: Sign permit application for Super America at 287 East Sixth Sueet.
Dear Mr. Michael:
99-3aa
Telephans: 6l2-266-9090
Facsimik: 6(2d 66-9099
61I-266-912f
Your permit application for the referenced sign has been denied for the following reasons:
1. The proposed sign is located on and attached to the building at 287 6 th St East. Since thz si�n
is advertising goods or services offered off the premises, it is an advertising sign. (b6.103 a).
The building at 287 6 th St, East is located within a Herita�e Preservation District and
advertising signs are not permitted within heritage preservation districts. (6b.214 j)
2. Since the sign was removed in order to repair the damaged roof of the buildin; we must treat
any permit application to replace the sign as a new sign permit. In addition to the fact that the
proposed sign is located in a heritage preservation district, the proposed sign does not meet ihe
spacing requirements of Section 66.214 which requires a minimum of 1,000 feet of spacinQ
between advertising signs on the same side of the street. As a new advertising sign, section
66.214 (h), which prohibits an advertising sign to be located on a roof, would also apply. If this
application were considered to be a request to replace a nonconformin� advertising sign on the
same zoning lot, the regulations in 66.302 would apply. Based on sections 66302 (1), which
states that the sign to be replaced must be located within a district w�hich allows advertisine
signs, and 66302 (5) �vhich states that a sign greater than 400 squaze feet may not be located e=
a roof, the sign may not be "replaced, relocated or renovated".
� Since I have the unpression from my conversations with representatives of the principals
involved �vith this proposed si;n that our interpretations and determinations in this matter «�ill be
appealed, I am including the following information in order to expedite the process.
N.�J
permit application page 2
�
If the referenced sign were to be considered a business sign rather than an advertising si�n it
would still be a nonconformina sign due to the size of the sign. As such it would be subject to the
provisions of Section 66.301 (2) tivhich states that a sign destroyed by any means to an e�ctent of
more than 51 % of its replacement cost, may not be reconstructed except in conformance with the
code. The si�n would also be subject to 66301 (3) which states that if a nonconforming sign is
moved any distance for any reason it inust thereafter conform to the code.
I£ the proposed sign were considered a new business sign, it esceeds the maximum allowable
signa�e for this location and a variance �vould be required. It also «•ould require review and
approval of the Herita?e Presee Commission. Since appeals and variance requests
conceming signs are both heazd by the Pianning Commission, it would expedite matters to
include the appropriate variance requests in any appeai application.
Finally, you should be aware that any sign greater than 50 squaze feet requires struciurat
drawings signed by a structural en�ineer registered in the State of Minnesota of both the sign
structure and the buiiding that the sign is attached to or on.
Any decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator re�azding signs may t;e
appealed to the Plannin� Commission by submitting an application stating the reason you be.i:cc
the decision is in error alon� with the appropriate fee to this office «ithin 30 days of the dat� of�
this leTter.
If you have any questions regardin� this matter you may contact me at 266-9082.
Si e ely, o
%��.t� ���
John Hazd�vick
Zoning Specialist
cc: Larry Solderholm, Principal Planner
Wendy Lane, Zoning Manager
Aazon Rubenstein, Heritage Preservation Staff
�
3�
r
.W.ESP.URYp1
ROBfFTL HOFFMIN
4ERHD M iitlEDE'LL
FWIMDJ.CPoSLQI
<a+[ x. FuiFrc
,aou o. nni�a
fx++aci_wxvEr
aWtlFSSW�aEtt
deasronfxxuErgx
• uwnwnssn
n+oussa. sraiuw
wcw.�-i,c+r�aux
A141E pFH
JCN 3 SYAfF2EV/Sq
TqMesJ. RttN
x�sv,awrv
TCCOI.fREp/hV
cx�,un� scac
awa wodasc
o+na xow� •
�aww coners•
P/YL0.0.lM.�R
AW�L pILCW
1 tFTfID!l4�A£1'/AUi
WRNFLB.I�rWQY
CitEWRYEKCNSts➢
G+RYA VPNREYE'
6VrE L B^JAtES
I1MOTrvJ.%Eqlg
PtM1M. MAf,R�J�N
Wlh4L RCQAGK
M�QNEL W.57LEY
FONi & %RFPS
iERRENCEE&SHOP
usaa cwnr
G1iYA RFiWE1(E
aa�srco�cxx+van�sn✓a
KEVOFII o�v.¢ocGE
&0.lKEJ D'JIN3A5
wuweC. c.¢imM ae.
.
October 15, 1998
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY ceL I,INDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORVYEST FINANCIAL CEMER
790a XERXES AVENUE SOU7H
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431-7794
TELEPHONE(672)835�epp
FAX (612) 846-3333
John Hazdwick
City of St. Paul
Lowry Professional Building, Suite 300
37Q Sauth St. Peter Street
St. Paul, MN 55102-1510
Re: Sign Permit Appeal - 287 East 6'" Street
Dear Mr. Hardwick:
9 �1-3ao
JYNRIHI
PE:FRA COnE
VaWYANWIW
.K`EE B�EMER
�a«isre�eeric.+�
�eon&.,t sun�
H{REW i. G�M91
saecaawcw.weaFe
NBY.W G MYMPV
ue�u�
api��.uo¢a�
OW'"!p°IERKµFA
WWCYRFAOSi
QA' i3.I311 Nl6flY
srrrefxi Kr�a
TA'%4l5 F. NEXNtFR
m�aatwu<
suaw,tiw�e++
.rowvr. rt�
c Raw�s
GBapRpc0BV5
.pin E TON�R
r••'�°�t 315n0
A�LREW0.M.W ^
[WAalPA{SMN£
Usni RM91NSIXJ
WL�SGlA55�iC
50nY.�A INtup56+.SFJG'�
J]SfR{l i1R0.VSF� R
A4V1(0, PWSfOFtER�R �ON
K CG]5El
NG(FOWY
0.16lfiEll�tDIX:REN
ILUNE MtAtJG/rV
.KISEPf{qii5
' asoonMmEDwvnswsu
` pLYAOWRmW
uat,vpu�rts
••• aarenfurrtOwiaw
The purpose of this letter is to serve, pursuant to St. Paui Code of Ordinances Section 66.408, as the
appeal for your written determination dated September 17, 1448, of the application of SuperAmerica for a
sign permit at 287 East 6'� Street. SuperAmerica wiil suhmit a memorandum in support of this appeal
eazly next week. Please advise our office of the schedule for hearing this appeal. Additionally, we
respectfully request you copy our office on any correspondence the city receives relating to this appeal.
Should you have any questions, please contact me at 896-3203.
3incerety,
.
Timothy J Keane, for
LARKIN, QFFMAN, DALY
& LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Sam Van Tassel, Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC
Chuck Erickson, Aacotah Building
Peter Warren, Assistant City Attorney
.
oaseszo.oi
3y
aa�sv.un�w
qLgFATL IICfiAW1
GQWDtlR(ll�HL
mvurm�. cavui
GEiEN FU1Ht
JOIN0. FlLLWEP
FPNKLIYR/EY
LTIeHIF9SlY..C6L
PWST�fEft1 NEfE�i'
uesnn �isgrt
t1KkAA4P.5i0.TA4W
MIC}U84.NCqNN
ClNE d@/
!]IiBANERltlKM
ThqMPSJ.RYlN
JN.E$P.CUMI
mro�x�auav
c�r¢n� s�c
.NMf16 UMMUST
WTIEfpIN('
JOWALDTI$t�
PNAB.FWN(EiT
P1ANLplWN
NAT1i�TIM. NLOTIENEl1MIJl
NKlYF18.LF8W0l1
b�EGMYE KCQSfOD
GMYA VON ¢EVE'
bVABL 9THE5
TINOMYA KFME'
011�HKPfCER3Q1
6'�lfNL0.C81CK
AUC3S4F1 W. SOlEY
0.GN61PEP5
IHiPENCEEBINqP
(14A0. GRAY
G>AY0.�F181p¢
CHUSTCRERJ. HORRLSTW.
NpBrLC 1C1i120IX£
em��.muc�ns
wivawc. c�eimni. w.
�ctober 20, 1998
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY ceG LINDGREN, LTD.
ATTORNEYS A7LAW
Y560 NORWESTFINANCfALCEN7ER
7900XERXESAVENUESOUTH
BLOOMINGTON, MINNESOTA 55431•1194
TEtEPHONE (612) 635�3800
FAX (612) 8963333
John FTardwick, Zoning SpecialisY
City of Saint Paul
350 St. Pefer Sireet
Suite 300
Saint Paui, MN 55102-1510
Re: Sign Permit Appeal
Dear Mt. Hazdwick:
AlNRNLL
PETFRA CDY3E
VARYD.WRPN
.Mt1EEBN@ER
J}N1S(fHHl4Vfl1
lIKl49EI.A SWRI
NtftEW F, �diN
mEneu�cx;wmua
11fi3M1IG
MNAl�E19!
�s�.i+neor+
ClPISTCPI£RKtPRtB
1lWGYRFi06f
OWGlA4LLP/J.0.ER
s�»e+awnrtma
IFKMNSL.NF.YNNEQ
uaaar.wars
&wa+nwvw�mv�
.K{NF plM
C HtlNi4u�E5
C9iB�IRCfiPJtA
JpNEttIHER
JN.ESAl9fi0L
MLREWARYMI "
dJY6J.B411M1lE
116f�SRGPASIX�
mcas.u�
Sq4YAR gNLN.�C1fABG"'
J�EAIJ.FlRANIE.R
WHK40ARIOREASON
Cf 'tl�lN�F. 1
J�CiCF.OLLY
0.1�tiEMUW(iia
N1.WE W!lGAV
.RI5641(YfIS
' aSOwumIDxN6WMSIN
� cn.v.�u�rtmw
rus+�rts
-^ owxin�unmwwwn
VTA MESSENGER
Please find enclosed in support of the Speedway SuperAmerica appeal letter of October 15, 1998, and in
response to your letter of October I9, 1998, a check in the amount of $380.00 and an executed appiication
for appeal stating the grounds for the appeai.
Shou2d you have any questions, please contact me at 896-3203.
Sincerely,
..._-----
Timo . �eaue, for
LARKIN, FFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
hmb
Enclosure
0437879.01
•
.
�
�
OFF[CE OF LIC�iiSE, (NSPECT[O\S AtiD
E�IViRO`�SE�lTAL PROTECTIO\
Rabert Kessler, Director
SATNI
PAUL
�
Al1AA
GITY OF SANT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Ala}•or
October 19, 1998
Timothy Keane
Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd.
1500 Nonvest Financial Center
7900 Xerxes Avenue South
Bloomington, Minnesota 55431
(AfVRY PROFFSSIONdL BUlLOL�'G
Suite 300
3JOSt. PelerSaeet
Sairtt Paul, Afirtsesota 35[01-I510
RE: Sign permit appeal - 287 6th Street East.
Dear Mr. Keane:
y9-3ao
Tefephone: 612-266-9090
Facsimile: 611-266-9099
6lL266-91?J
Sent via fax and regular mail 10/19198
� received yottr letter da:ed 10/15/93 today stating your intent to appeal our decision denying a
� permit application for the referenced sign. Our determination was issued on 9/17/98 and by
ordinance, 66.300 (j), you have 30 days from that date to file an appeal. Appealing a decision of
the Zoning Administrator requires a submission of an application for appeal form along with the
required application fee, ($380), and an explanation of the grounds for appeal. Your letter ���as
received after the 30 day appeal period was expired. Furthermore, the letter itself does not
constitute filin� an appeal. However, since you have stated your intent to appeal our decision
regarding thz referenced sign several times previousiy, I will accept an application for appeal if
the proper form is submitted alona with the appropriate fee and a letter stating your grounds for
appeal, if it is received in this office by October 21, 1998. Although I am w to accept your
late application, I don't know if the Planning Commission, because of the untimely submission,
wi1( be willin� to hear the matter.
If you have any questions regarding this matter you may contact me at 266-9082.
Sinc,erely, " ,
i ,.,.,
� John Hardwick
Zoning Specialist
ec: Wendy Lane
, Larry Solderholm
Peter Warner
�
rnu.� . n v.. �i✓.s�.n r���n
�
LAItKJN, H01'FMnN, DALY & LiNDORLN, Lru.
AT70RNEYB AT LAW
November
I.any Soderh
City �i' Si. Pa
Depa��inicnt c
1) UU City He
25 West Pow
St. Paul, MN
Re: Specd
28? S
Desr Mr. Soi
Tliis lettcr is
Application 1
SuperAmeric
admissian th
be necassary
rac:��s
In Ja��uary l'
source o� mc
llacotah is a
7'hiw Supc:rA
Lowcrtown.
on the si�i !
fncc � rusidc
1987, perfoi
1998
Principal Planner
Planning and Lc:onomic Development
Annex
i Streel
i5IO2
SuperAmeriea LLC Zoning Appeal
Sixth Street Esst
VIA FACSIMILE 228-3220
& U. S. MAtL
�bmitted in s«ppoi�t of Specdway SuperAmerica LLC's (SupezAmerica ot AppellanQ
• Appea} dated actaber 20, 1998, appealing the determination of the Zon[ng Section of
s request w zeinstell its sig+� located at 297 Sixth Straet Hast. Tl�is appliCation is not an
a sign permit or ai3y action by the zoning administrator of other City officiais is ar mi�t
� allow Appellani io lawfully repair SuperAmerica's sign at 287 Esst SixU� Street.
87, SuperAmerica and Charles rsickson, owner of the DaCotah, signed e lease for
� to use the then-existing sign mounted on 4�e Dacotah. The lease income is a significeat
�me i'or the Dacatah and helps make it commereiaUy viable despite the building's age. 'Tha
lvee and five story building immediateJy adjacent to a single-story SuperAmerica statian.
nerica was specialiy designcd pnd constructed of red and buff bxiek to blend in with
Ti�e si�n face sits directly ahove the station canopy and stote. The Dacotah building surCece
de is modern metai corrugatet} siding. Tha sign face az1d station both face T-9Q. They dsr not
itial or commercial area. SuperAmerica has ]awfuliy used and maintained the sign si�tce
ninR maintenance tasks and repairs as necessary. On May 31,1996, by latter to
�
....u..vdd 1��W�
1600 NORWEST cINaNC10.LCENTER
7p0pXER%ESAYENUESOUTN
B1001AIN0TON.MINNE80TA 66�91•H94
TEIEPNONE (812) 836.tB00
FAX (8t2) BYB��.17�
�
�
-
a oa�ne�
Ydtr. orir
a. ka+wraiwme+
+�a.rm. wtuaw
mwxorcw
' /1lOMMItmN4AlOON�W
•• y1�+�4R1NN
"' CW.Y�M�O�M
LARKIN, HOl>FMAN, I7ALY & LINDOREN, L'3'D.
Larry Soderho
November 1 G,
• 3'E�gc 2
n, Principal Plsnncr
998
q 9-3a o
SuperAmerica s sign-maintenance contractor, I.awrenca Signs, the City of SY. Peu3 advised thal when
"existing sign anels are removed and ncw pancls are reinstalled" "(t]he Csty views the current work an
the �•eference s��;n as rouiine maintenunce snd as such did not require s parmit: '
ln the May sto m oi' ] 998, the roof of the building at 287 Bast 5ixth Stree;t sustained struciural damage,
induding the of poriion on which the sign was mounted. 1'he sign at�d supporting stnicture remeined
essentially 'ss�t ct. However, thc huilt-up roof suffered extensiva dantage, SuperAmeriea quickly detached
the si�n struci �re to faci(itate the roof repairs. Both the building ovmor and SuperAmerica intended ihe
sign to be re-a�tached as soon as the roof'repairs were completed.
'1'l�c roof is no repaired, and SuperAmerica has hired a contractor ta re-attsch the sign. The contractor,
I,eiwrence Sig s, Soliows a business practice of a)ways applying for sign permits whenever they do any
signircant sig i work. They do nat analyze wheiher a permit is required or i�ot under different zoning
codes. 1'0llo ing this standard business practice, Lawrence Signs suhmitted a"Sign Permit Application"
to the C;ity of �;i. I'aul for re-anchorin� the SuperAmerica sign, on Septamber I, 1998. By ]otter to
LE�wrence Sig s dated September 17, 1998, snd received September 21,1998, the City 6f St. Paul denied
thc pennit, co struing the appJic�tion es one for a new sign, advertisi»g �oods offered off the premises,
anJ a sign to e constructed in a Neritabc Preservation District. Mr, Hatdwlek did not expres� a position
mi whether or »ot u permit was required in the first place.
� Gi20UNAS �'OR AP1'TAL
,
Rc-nnchorin��thc sign to the repaircd roof after it was removed only to make it easier to repair that roof is
nul placin�; or erecting a sign. The City CounciS did not intond to imposc Q pem�it requirement to
re-anchor the •eme sig�a in the snme place, especially here, wliere the sign was detached only in responsa
to w;nd dama e to the building. Itequiring a perrnit here provides the City sn unexpected method of
re6ulating sig is. If ¢ permit is required and denied, the City will be andorsing an offrcial policy of usin�
nadural disast�r und the resulting good acts of propesty ovmers to puntsh those property owners. This is
ncither the le er nor the s�irit of the zoning code.
7"he St. Paul 'ity Adn�inistrstive Code (Code) § 66.2Q1 governs signs in genarel. It states thet sign
pern�its are r quired to place, ereci, or maintain a sign. Since the Gode in other sections uses ihe word
« ��
"rcplace" wh n a sign is to be pui buck wherc it already existed, "place" as usad in this sectson means
i»it.ia,i placc� ent where a si�n has not bcen placed bafore. (See § b6,302 "replaco, raiocate, or renovate").
SuperAmcric does not seek to piace the sign, since the sign will be re-a�tichored in exactly the same
positiosti it w s before, SuperAmcrica likewise does not seek to "arect" the sign, since ihe sign was
esscntittl]y in act afier the roof Sxiled. SuparA�nerica removed anchor bolts and detached the sign
siructure to f ciliwte thc roof repair. '3"he Code's use of "maintain" most logicelly meazis "keep in glace
without A re �niC' rather than "perform mainienance on", 5inca the City does not contend that sigu owners
nce�f a sign p to perform day-to-day maintenance sueh as paint, raplaee bolts, changa light buibs, and
sc� futtit. Su�berAmerica is not "maintainin�" a sign within this Code meaning. No section of the Code
�
!��■
LARKIT�f, I�Or�MAN DA[.v & LtNDGREN, LT�,
Larry Sodezho n, Principal Planner
November 16,�i99$
mandates a sig i pcnnit !'or re-anchoring of a sign wliieh has merely been moved to aliow repairs on the
building belavl.
lu ff�ct, in the � 9961etter referenced Above, the City expressed exaetty ihis common-sense position to
SuperAmeriea repairs which tempocarily remove the siga or parls of the sign ara repeirs which do not
reyuire a pem� t. To reyuire a permit at this time contradicts the City's earlier position end teads to thc
a�nciusion tha the City is ncting azbitrarily. Under the cieaz languaga o�the Code, and consistent with
the City's prio position, re-anchoring the sign is a repair which doas not require a permit.
1f a permit is r�;q��ired and thc sign is deemed a noncomforming sign, Cdde § 663d1 app}ies.
Scc. G6.30I. Intcnt
' Jt is recogn9zed that signs exist within the zoning districts which
� were lawful before this chapter was enacied, which would be prohiUited,
� regulated, or restricted under the terms of diia chepter or future
� amendmonts. It is Aic intca�t of ihis chapter that non-canfbrming signs shall
� not be enlarged upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for
i adcliug other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the saq'te distr+ct. It is
. further the intent oP this clfapter to permit legal nonconforming signs
� existing an thc effective date af this chapter, or an�endments thereto, to
cuntinue as Icga1 nonconforming signs provided such signs are safe,
maintained so as noi to be unsightly, nor removed and no'z abandoned
subject to the fo)lowuig provisions.
7he ciearly e�ressed intent of iho Code is to allow nonconfortning slgns to stay where they sre, provided
thcy meet Co e requirernents. SuperAmeriea's sign satisfies the provisions of the nonconformity end
should bc allqwed to bc re-a�schored on ihc same place.
Tl,c first
loc:ation is
Thc second
m�ans to an;
apply, sinr.e
building roa
The third p
exactly the
The i'ourth
•r.oninb dis
sion is "No sign sl�all be cnlarged or altered in a way whiph increases its nonconformity."
proposes only to re-anchor thc sign to the new roof; the sign's dimensions and
aro exactly ihe same �as before the roof damage, the structure remains the same, end the
sume. I�o enlargement or aiteration witl occur.
ision is thAt no sign shall be replaced or reconstructed sfter beiag "destroyed by any
ent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of 9ts repiacemant cost." This ptrovision does not
sign wus not destroyed at all by the storm; it remained essentielly intact while the
'on applies to signs that ere �noved. As stated above, tItis sign witl be r�-anchored in
, place. Since it will not be moved, this provision does not apply.
sion baa�s enlarg(nb, extcnding, or moving signs devoted to a use not permitted in tI�e
No enlnrging, extending, or moving will occur, sa Yhis provision does not apply.
�
•
_
�'�
LARKIN, IiOPFMAN, DALY & LINQC'iREN, LTD.
Lrvey Soderho
T}ovember 16,
i Page 4
n, Arincipal Planner
998
Ti�e fiflh provi��ion applies onfy wl�en a structurc loses its nonconfortning status. Neither the
SuperAmerica�st�ation the sign advertises nor the building at 2$7 East Sixth Street have lost
nonc�nformin status, so this provision does not apply.
�I9'3ao
The sixth prov sion sllows repainting, rcp�sting, or replacing when there is a chenge of nonconforming
use. Again, n change of use is proposed, so this provlsion does not apply. Since the sign conforms to a11
the provisions f§ G6.301, and the clear intent of t1�et section is to allow the sign to continue as it existed
bcfore, the re- nchoring is permitted.
qncstions,
Si erely,
umrt
�moty, �.
I.ARKiN
� lanb
C: Jto�
Steve
�444G72.G1
,
respcctfully rec�uests approval of its Application for Appeal. Should you have any
se contact mc at 896-3203.
/ �9�
UA Y & LINDGREN, Ltd.
Mueller, Specdway SuperAmcr;ca LLC (via Pacsimile)
Zeckinger, Speedway 5uperAmerica I,LC (via facsimilo)
��
•, ••• • • • .. rwkEND�r• • • ,•
1VAE50.{PRptl
h�°9tTLKMFMAV
GH(O1DHfPIFLHl
Evxum�.uuscou
fF.NENMIH2
.KfN0.flM11fAER
FANJ(I.IIOAVEY
cwn�s s rnoo¢�
cvmsronatiaFrtrn
woan v�r+
T:(MVSP. ST0.lWJ�
MFW+II.G.NQPVN
plNEO18i
avua� ewn.Es
nurnwri�
w.nwa�me.esow
CIXPNL RCC/SK
MIG'Ofl.W.bGIEY
FIXdiA uYG@S
]E¢R6�KEE &SHCP
fNtYA�
CIFISTCPFEkA HPAftibTVl
NQ0liJ.Ci¢RV�^6E
BRtKFJ Oq%iA5
vauuun a c�o-xmt a+.
JqNR MLL
FEtEftJ.CAYIE
UPFYO. WQfIN
Febntary 12, 1999
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Mr. Peter Warner
� usocn�mtmwwsca+six
^ diYOA(REDW
Ws&np36E1'IS
^ qiY0fY1TE9Ell0/w
Department of Planning and Economic Development Office of the City Attorney
Zoning Section City of St. Pau1
1100 City Hail Annex 15 W Kellogg Boulevard
25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102
St. Paul, MN 55102
Re: SuperAmerica Sign at 287 East Sixth Street, St. Paul, MN
Dear Messrs. Soderholm and Warner:
Our office has been notified that Scenic Minnesota opposes the Planning Commission's decision
regarding the SuperAmerica sign at 287 East Sixth Street in downtown St. Paul. Scenic Miunesota seeks
to appeal the Planning Commission's decision to the City Councii. It is our opinion that Scenic
Minnesota lacks standing to seek such an appeal. This letter sets forth our reasoning for challenging the
Seenic Minnesota appeal.
St. Paul Code of Ordinances § 64.206 provides in relevant part:
An appeal may be taken to the city council by any person, firm or
corporation or any officer, deparcment board or bureau affected by a
decision of the boazd or planning commission. (Emphasis added.)
This "affected by" standard repeats identieal language from Minn. Stat § 462357, subd. 6. The precise
meaning of "affected by" is not defined in Yhe Code of Ordinances, state statute, or in Minnesota case Iaa.
Authoritative treatises on municipal law and case law in many other jurisdictions have interpreted that a
person must be "aggrieved by" a decision to have a right to appeal it, and assign the same meaning to
"aggrieved by" and "affected by". It is manifest the intent of "affected by" in the St. Paut City Code is to
incorporate this "aggrieved by" standard. It would be bad public policy for the Minnesota Legislatuse, or
St. Paul City Council, to grant appeal rights on all decisions to any gerson, including non-residents and
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY 8L LINDGREN, LTD.
A7TORNEYS AT LAW
1500 NORWEST FlNANCIAL CENTER
7900XERXESAVENUESOUTN
BIOOMINGTON, MINNESO7A 55431-1194
TELEPHONE (612) 835-366a
FAX (67� 8963333
�
C�
-
�� �
OFCq118
NLKF.blY
D.I�INEM�
p1I1NE WLLKrW
.KC6MCiIi6
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. " 7_ ��
Mr. Larry Soderholm
• Mr. Peter Warner
February 12, 1999
Page 2
non-resident corporations. Consequenily, the "aggrieved by" standazd and decisions are a sound place for
St. Paul to draw the line.
Scenic Minnesota's Interest Does Not Dif£er from Anv Other Citizens'
Generally, to be "aggrieved" or "affected," a party must have a stronger interest than unaffected citizens; a
legal properry interest in either the subject properiy or adjacent properiy impacted by the decision.
Commonly any person aggrieved or affected may take an appeal from an
administrative decision to the zoning board. ... Although a party in order
to be aggrieved need not show a legal injury, the party must ailege and show
injury or damage other than as a member of the general public.
McQuillin on Municipal Corporations, § 25.258. Here, Scenic Minnesota has neither alleged nor shown
that they are any different from ordinary taxpayers. In fact, their aesthetic/historic concerns aze exactly
the same as those that could be raised by any visitor or resident, taxpayer or not, in the City of St. Paul.
Scenic Minnesota Has No Propertv R_ght in the Neiehborhood
• To be affected, and consequently to have a right to appeal, a party must have a properry right in the azea or
neighborhood:
The appropriate parties in appeal ... or other proceedings for relief against,
or reversal of decisions of boards of adjustment or other zoning authorities,
generally must be those aggrieved by the decision, by reason of its adverse
affect upon properry rights. ... the words "any person or persons
aggrieved" include any land owner or resident within the city whose
situation is such that the decision of a zoning boazd may adversely affect the
owner in the use of property owned or occupied by that owner. ...[A]n
owner of property not directly affected by the action of a zoning board
cannot assert merely a general civic interest so as to come within the
meaning of "person aggrieved." However, there can be no aggrievement
when the zoning regulations of a municipality aze amended in such a way
that no particulaz area or property is affected. ...[A]ggrieved is not broad
enough to include anyone other than a person directly affected by the action
of an administrative official or board chazged with the enforcement of the
ordinance.
McOuillin on Municipal Comorations, § 25.318. T'his language is broad enough to inciude a wide variery
of property interests, including adjoining property owners, nearby property owners whose property value
• is affected, tenants, neighborhood or overiay district residents subject to the same zoning reshictions, and
seliers or buyers of land. See Mc uillin § 25318.10. But "[a] property owners or taYpayers assaciation,
whether or not incorporated, which itself pays no taxes or owns no properry affected by a zoning boazd's
decision, is not qualified as an aggrieved party to appeal from a zoning decision. Mc uill' § 25.318.10.
r �
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, I3ALY & LINDGREN, LTD.
Mr. Larry Soderkokn
Mr. Peter Warner
Februaiy 12, I999
Page 3
Scenic Minnesota Has No Propertv Ri h�t Impacted bv the Decision
We are not aware that Scenic Minuesota owns any land in the City of St. Paul, nor are we aware that any
property they might own is diminished in any way by the Plaiuung Commission's decision. To our
knowledge they have never claimed or alleged such ownership or injury. Obviously, if Scenic Minnesota
owns no property, tken there is no property for the decision to impact. Even if Scenic Minnesota were to
own properry somewhere in the city, that properry is not impacted by the decision. The Allen Building
and the contiguous SuperAmerica store are fhe only property impacted. Finaily, diminishment of propem•
rights is affected, and the decision enhances both the Allen Building and the adjacent SuperAaierica
Store. The decision diminishes no properry right. Without injury in fact, a party cannot have standing.
Virginia Beach Beautification Commission v. Bd. Of Zonine Appeals of Vir�inia Beach, 344 S.E.2d 899,
902-903 (1986}
Associations Such as Scenic Minnesota Never Have Standine
C�
An association which neither owns adjacent properiy, nor has members owning adjacent property, has
never been granted standing to contest a zoning decision in the United States. 8 A.L.R. 4th 1087
(surveying United States cases on standing of civic or property owner associations to challenge zoning
board decisions as aggrieved parties). Without propeny neazby that has been hanned by the Planning
Commission's decision, Scenic Minnesota and its individual members do not have standing to bring this -•
appeal. We suggest that the St. Pau1 Ciry Council follow the lead of coutis in many other jurisdicYions, in
setting sensible limits on who may appeal City decisions.
Scenic Minnesota Does Not Renresent the Nei¢hborhood Interests
Even if Scenic Minnesota members awn impacted property, Scenic Minnesota is not tke proper
organization to pursue this appeal. Most jurisdictions that have considered the question, follow the
reasoning in Douglaston Civil Ass'n v. Galvin, 324 N.E.2d 317 (NY 1974), to detemiine wfien an
association properly represents the interests it claims to protect. Douglaston and the many courts
following it have held that the association must have four prerequisites to pursue an appeal on behalf of its
members:
The organization has the capacity to pursue an adversary position;
2. The size and the composition of the arganization fairly represents the communiry of
interests it seeks to protect;
3. Full membership in the organization is available to all residents and property owners in the
affected neighborhoods; and
4. The adverse effect of the decision sought to be reviewed on the group represented by the
associarion is within the zone of interests sought to be protected. �
AWAItE v. Town of North Hempstead, 367 N.Y.S2d 374, 376 (1975) (quoting Dou lg aston).
�
LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINAGREN, L�. �j q 3ao
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Mr. Peter Warner
S February 12, 1999
Pa�e 4
5cenic Minnesota does not fulfill these prerequisites. Scenic Minnesota appears to have made no effort to
involve Lowertown neighborhood residents or owners of lustoric buildings in their membership. See
United Civic Associations v. Planniug Bd. Of Clifton Pazk, 583 N.Y.5.2d 901, 903 (1992) (holding that
the interests of a group with fifty-one members living all over town "are not necessarily the same as those
persons residing in the vicinity of the project ") This, despite the fact that they claim to protect
neighborhood aesthetic and historic interests. In this matter, in fact, they directly oppose Charles
Erickson, owner of the Allen Building, in his effort to preserve the building as a viable commercial
enterprise. In pursuing their agenda for the aesthetics of Lowertown, they ignore mazket realities. The
agenda of Scenic Minnesota threatens to "preserve" Lowertown and the greater City of St. Paul, by
discouraging investments, precluding modemization, and conscripting owners, like Mr. Erickson, into
service of Scenic Minnesota's aesthetic. Scenic Minnesota does not fairly represent the community it
purports to represent, nor does it include key members of the communiry in the affected neighborhoods.
While not dispositive of the issues argued herein, it is interesting to note that none of the truly "affected"
parties who received tegal notification of the original appeal in this matter objected at any point in this
process.
COI3CLUSION
• We urge the City of St. Paul to interpret "affected by" to sensibly limit appeals to the City Council in
accord with authority in every other jurisdiction that has considered the question. Specifically, a party
seeking appeal must own a property interest, and that property interest must be hanned by the decision.
Without these prerequisites, a pariy lacks standing to appeal. For the reasons contained here, Scenic
Minnesota is not a pariy "affected by" the decisaon, and the City Council should not hear their appeai.
Verf truly yours,
�
Timothy J. K ane, for
LAIZKIN, H FMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd.
cc: Qaentin H. Wood, Esq., Mazathon Ashland Petroleum LLC
Roman Mueller, Speedway SuperAmerica LLC
Charles Erickson, Dacotah Properties
0460496.OI
�
Y�II
i
•
1. SLJNRAY-BATIT.ECREEK-HIGHWOOD
2. HAZEL PARK HAUEN-PROSPERTT'Y HILLCREST
3. WEST SIDE
4. DAYTON'S BLIT�F
5. PAYNE-PHALEN
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ii.
12.
13.
14.
15.
17.
NORTH END
THOMAS-DALE
SUMMTT-TJNIVERSTTY
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE-MIDWAY
ST. ANTT-iONY PARK
MERRTAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAMLIIv'E-S?rTELLING HAhiLI'��
MACALESTER GROVETAND
HIGHLANb
SUIviMIT HILL
DOWNTOWN
Z�NING F�LE4 -2
�
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICrS
99-3�0
� _.. - - - ----
r
�� ,� .«,
ZON�NG �iLE -��
,•
;E<: - �
K _'r's� '} i `
S J. _
if.. . _ . _ : `-. _ . .
-�'."-::�.__�. � - � �T�- 3 � - _ � � s �� , g �a
td 1 y
Y � ���• s��� 3 i3 ���3��8�� 2��y3.�4� I
1 9 �. s a gx as .c .i• ine� � g zdi Is
� a . . . � �-. i�� gy � II�z€ '15a i ' � y �;�� •x ��
�� x � 3 �s �x�ii ��t3� �`3' 4�•r �a�@'F•s sr 3aS3&
i a� �t.�a ��s $ s¢ . sQwB � i°i�
� � � � � �� . $ � 1 �$ ��� ��..� 3� . � � y � g 3�s �
J� w .� � di[ ^sie� ��g'Y � i 4 s��
LY Q�� r'� ����� ~ S� 6 �;i����#��� fi s}�.j�
�` � �. - . .�- o'" , a � - -�$ �: �3' gg a � � ° • ` a � �s
� _ R �' : ga � _3r s3 3§��6�$ s: � '
.?.. . ..�3 ss ..��' � la aE Eg'� s" °` ss
s '�`�� � •. .� q w 9��°. •fi �y��e3 ¢�oe3����idi � ��3��� 9A �f�3 ie
�� i. : a { �, §��
-_ stlb4� 9�Sd�R:r.:$aG:Y3 3zxJ� Jari�<°ais� 3s i��'J��s
�'`_ � s
-3ua ' a
r" � Ri
�-;.; . �
� � `°-
� ��<>
;^; � ���� .
rr �.. . � - ' , � ------- G�� n co c y�Q
°:�,; f�.�:°.:� ;' , `��, a��� ��
� .
� y, � � ` �
- � � �� :' �q� , ,f°`;`/ C �` • � ,.
'{"T� . "l 9 $ { t //
'
eY ?.�W^ �.�� . ia'� �.� 8� "
�^': _ _`,? '-�T � � ``1 ` � '.• : � ' r��s�6�'
�, s �`-�"'_ ' � � � ' .
� �-� � � -_:�� ¢ ��;
� � � �
�
� �a ��r � � � � _.� -��.
� � _� : -
, � � r a
�
�� x �� ,_ J _ j i�� g�
_ - , �
�. _ # � . �` '� ` �
�� ` .� � : � 5 � �� � �.
" � < � ,� r '.
���� ^ r � � - ` w ��" �.
w"� ,� r � ' �' .,
�
� � � -�� . � a ,/ �, ! u � '
� � �Yr` p-` �.` v. , �--^ � � __ -
�� �. � - .
`� � �' � �.- s �
� - � �^- �� �+, -
���
'� ->,.. aY � y,
'ko . r' I' ' �' ��� yyy y, !�5 ' � ,
T . . �S �'YI � � � � � J . • � � � J_ � !f�
� f =i.'�'�y"�-�`_ : <� � \ �•. �\ ` �r
1_f�'"�y�"P_A"A' �,�,�'�~ ��� � � . ' 4 � - �. \ f .•.
�Y„�, 'bY' `� . _ � #RS 2' , �- a 1 < ' �, .'.
� � C 4� � ' :
� �� � "� ` r
� -���" .`� � §�� _ " - `� =
r
��, , � �-�¢� \ � �; �`: �'�
�G;;r: u . : - _ 'h � \'', ' .��-�
� 3.� L \ �
� `� ° �' f '� ",-^:�' •� ��..: �, /F, /
,�n. %';,�. , __ .� r���j
'C�.:' _ ' / .:,
� u'r;a`: � . - .. : �- \ � 'j`
.,:;' -- � / W ---
�,-,. . /� ,= ' �.
`�` -� ' , S � � � a � �
�z� . : Sr ' �� _ +��' � ',
�� u < �`; � _, " 3
" � '..,- ^C%�✓':.: • S� ` -- S� � ��°' }e • X(
' � ' � t '' • �3: ' _ _ F
:.���' `'. -_ ' `�6����' �i,
-v .,..� � c;�x � ,
�°�. �:�. .. ''" . ,.�����.
1�v..£.: ^�pr�yL.: `�\ �
p.Y� •.i[. :�^i�.c. .- _ _ .
� ya� Y 1�.. . . . �
st �'� . ; a �i:.,���"y.��'.$•.�� -' ':.5.
? - } a � y .,• .
r�o !. ,t s t �...� .- ,
...�.e,._...s_...s,.R.,..�_'.�_....�. ,. ._._ .._ ._ . - •
i � .
�� )
:� � e d �� � �� " -
� g�3���. . .,� a g.
��
�a��8� 3 � � � �
i-,���-�:'� � �F=s i s u�
�''.�'3 �§�t�3���� : .
£ is3�� .+�a�%s=: i � � b �.
}, �=�3^'�e;;��� 9 Fp� �� �m �.
�-��� ���g�3���$�� � . ``.'
��aSSS �}"�:r•��8t@a 8 ' a3 r d- ^ sq .:
�y.�g�} � �1� ,t�} F � a �,a �
� a �a a
�9�ss$ ��$�s�5��� �� r �� a � �
8"'��'� aa ���'• a �'� � � �'- ;
s � 3
� •9g4 �''��'_� ��� s=
a�`$a33 �-3.:.� xia� : a � FO- � ��
��� a'� s
� ��� �����
---�-- j, � �e�� `�ga ��
/ °'
, �` °'°` � �
1 � / �' ,�� 2.
' �} �� �'� ��°; �� :
e 3
€� _ ��
�'��� � r§g��� 5s'y � g :_
�-� ����-��- � ; ��� � � `.
/ � �\''\� �� � ,
�, �. � � � 4 Z 3S'� �'2 �,
, �. \� ��' �
, \
����._� � _��� �� :;�
:� �
�, � -;��: � ,�
F �� :� � ��e , t- �
' ,��_ '�, � , � `
� � S
�' .;
� � _ � _ � -� n = -
g �,, / ,,�'''�f � s �o '
r. �/��k' a
^ +� / 9 � Y „
�� �� � , ' �! •`• , xl
�� � �4 � � _` a �
. g5�� �\ : j• w : $ : -: �
`�- e I��� p� y ' `` �, u:� ..�
�f$ S � �' "' "
���� yg-•{ � � �
� ///3 � •
___'_' ' _ f� -_�
a� °S��
-��� f ' � �
m��.
�
:_ �
� I
�
�
z
;a �
�
. �
i
,
�:_.
e ^ com,urc:-::
..o,..� indus;rc::
V V�IC.'.�i
.�T,"�� .K�.� li;
! �' � ' '�� V / 2\
%' '" In � � • �� �✓��
1
� �'"\ � :'�� �, � , , i ��
��/'��O
BY-I,AWS OF SCENIC MINNESOTA
f:�d:�:i:�:i>i�l
ARTICLE I.
Name of Corporation_ The name of the Corporation is Scenic
Minnesota, Inc.
ARTICLE II.
Location of Princinle Office. The Corporation's principle office is
1985 Grand Avenue, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55105, or such other
addresses as the Corporation may from time to time use and register
with the Secretary of State of Minnesota. The principle office of
the Corporation is also the mailing address.
ARTICLE III.
Purposes o£ the Corporation. The Corporation's purposes shall be
operated for charitable, educational, and scientific purposes as
defined by � 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Specifically,
and limited by the foregoing general purposes, the Corporation's
purposes shall be:
1. To promote and carry out programs that protect natural
beauty in the environment, preserve and enhance landscapes and
streetscapes, protect historical and cultural resources, promote
the enhancement of scenic approaches to, and settings of, cities
and towns, improve community appearance, and foster establishment
and preservation of scenic road systems.
2. To promote education of the public about the economic,
social, and cultural benefits of protecting and enhancing scenic
resources and community appearance.
3. To coordinate local, regional, and state efforts to
preserve and enhance visual resources.
4. To provide information to appearance commissions, garden
clubs, historic preservation groups, environmental organizations,
civic groups, government agencies, and other individuals and
organizations interested in preserving and enhancing visual
resources.
5. To research, study, and analyze federal, state, and local
policies affecting visual resources.
6. To encourage and Poster any other such activity that has
the purpose of promoting appreciation and preservation of visual
resources.
7. To do anything, perform any act, and exercise any right in
any power now hereafter conferred by the laws of the State of
Minnesota upon a general not-for-profit corporation organized under
1
qq -3�
the laws of the State oP Minnesota, and in general to carry on any
of the activities herein set forth to the same extent and as fully
as a natural person might or could do. However, nothing set forth
in these Articles shall be construed as authorizing the Corporation
to possess for any gurpose, any object, or any power to do anything
forbidden by law to a not-for-profit corporation organized under
the laws of the 5tate of Minnesota or to engage in activity not
approved by section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,
inciuding any substitute or successor section. The Corporation
shall not gossess or exercise any power or authority, either
expressly, by interpretation or by operation of law which will
prevent it from, at any time, qualifying and continuing to quali£y
as a corporation described in section 501(c){3) of the Internal
Revenue Code, including any substitute or successor section.
B. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ARTICI,E V.
Board of Directors. The Board of Directors (Board) shall govern the
Corporation and control its property and business and shall have
all the usual powers of a corporation Board in setting the policies
and managing the business and affairs of the Corporation. They
shall make all rules and regulations they deem necessary and proper
for the government of Scenic Minnesota, Inc. and the orderly
conduct of its business and affairs consistent with the
Corporation's charter and by-laws. The Board shall have the power
to appoint such subordinate officers, employees, or agents as they
deem may be necessary to conduct Scenic Minnesota, Inc.'s business
and to design their titles and compensation, if any. To this end,
the Board may engage an Executive Director, who shall help carry
out policies approved by the Board and, subject to Board approval,
enter into all contracts required for the conduct of the business
of Scenic Minnesota, Inc. The Board shall use their best efforts
and act in good faith to fulfill Scenic Minnesota, Inc.'s purpose
and exercise the Board's powers as expressed in the Corporation's
charter and by-laws. The Board may, by a two-thirds vote of its
entire membership, suspend or expel any member upon evidence of a
material violation of these by-1aws, public laws or regulations or
practices of Scenic Minnesota, Inc.
rs������r��
CQm_position. The initial Board shall be comprised of three members
and the Board shall thereafter be comprised of not less than three
nor more than fifteen members. The Board shall appoint the
directors at the annual meeting from a slate presented to them by
2
99 -3ao
��
-� �
�
� ���- �
;, �
.
.
� ��
�
�,. i + ` �, �_
i +- �-�� �' � � ��
�
� � ��
. � �;., ;� •
� / � .,�.
�:
i ,.
1 � _ r � i. � �:
� 1V-ci
z g-3
2ti�
2
£ebruary 22, 1999
., � i r1v� � r�ii �� �� ���n u �v�� •
BRIAN 6&'�ES
ATfORt�E'( A7 UVW
t986 drmd Avenue
Selnr PoW, MMR�ssota 551D5
�6,2j ssags�,
BY FAX ONLY
Mr. Larry Soderzclm
Department of Planning and
Economic Development
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
99 3ao
R E�E►UE�
F � g � 21999
ZoN��
Mr_ Peter Warner
O£fice of City Attorney
City Hali
15 Wes� Kellogg B1d.
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Speedway SuperAmerica Billboard Appeal.
Dear Messrs. Soderholm and Warr.er:
Z have just reviewed Mr. Keane's letter of February 12,
1999, in which he challenges Scenic Minnesota's standing to bring
the referenced appeal. This letter responds to the issue of
standing and raises the issue of the jurisdict,ion of the Planning
Comr,�ission to overtuzn the zoning AdministYators decision which
disallowed the rebuildinq of the subject billboard.
�. •f • -�!_f• •1 _�� • •'.- :��-.
As the record indicates SuperAmerica missed the orzginal.
appeal deadline of the Zoning Administrator's decision not to
allow the subject billboard to be zebuilt, The appeal deadline
was thirty days after September 17, 1998. In his letter
rejecting Mr. Michael's application for a permit to rebuild the
billboard, Mr. Hardwick was specific about the appeal process.
"Any decision or interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator
regarding siqns may be appealed to the Planning Commission by
submitting an application stating the zeason you believe the
decision is in error al _��l,c� w� h h �gp* fee �o th� s
of��e w�thj�n�0 dav� oP t e d te ef th+c letter " Record p. 31.
Mr. Keane responded with a brief letter on October 15,
R-32. The letter did not state reasons for the appeal and,
significantly, did not contain the required fee. Eailure to
timely submit a notice of appeal and appeal fee is fatal to
appeal. County of Ramsey v. Minneso�a Pub. Utilities Comm'n,
1S.W,2d 740, 744-45 (Minn. 1989)(notice of appeal timely but
day late was fatal).
1998.
more
any
345
fee a
rCD 1G•Gl J� �n�� r�ni}i}anu a c�,�ir o�.cc�...�.-+ �•c.... v.�
9 9 -3ao
Soderholm, Ptarner
February 22, 1999
Page 2.
.�. ..
Soenic i�Rinnesota has members who hava p�operty interests
within twa blocks of the propased billboard site. These memhers
will submit affidavits supporting their interests at the heazing
on riednesday, Febxuary 24, 1999. Scenic Minnesota obtains
ozganizational standing through these members. Organiaational
standing is a common and well-accepted legal concept.
Regards,
_•_� � � r .
Brian Bates
cc: 3ohn Mannillo
, TOTAL P.02
�v
District 17
CapitolRiver
Council
332 Minnesota Street Suite N150, Saint Paul, T.Pi I SS101
9y-3aa
6512210488 FAX 651221 0581
- Webrite: www.capitolrivaorg E-mail: capriveiCpionee[planet.in5.net
Larry Soderholm, PED Zoning
25 West Fourth Street
1100 City Hall Annex
Saint Paul, Mn 55102
Re: Zoning File Number 99-010
Dear Mr. SoderhoLn,
R ECEIVED
FE8 2 31999
������
The information sent to the District Council office regazding the appeal ot the decision of the
Planning Commission #99-010 also included the information sheet on Speedway SuperAmerica
LLC's appeal of the decision of the Zoning Administration #98-288.
The packet of information included several correspondence's between Zoning Specialist, John
Hardwick and Mr. Timothy Keane, representative of Speedway SuperAmerica. In a letter dated
October 19, 1998 (attached) from Nlr. Hazdwick to Mr. Keane he indicated that Mr. Keane had
not properly filed an appeal of the zoning administrations decision to uphold the special sign
district that a storm damaged billboazd can not be reconstructed. In ttils letter it states that not
only did the 30 day time period for apQeals expire he also did not complete the proper appeal
forms or submit the appropriate fee. Mr. Keane was granted an extension to submit the necessary
documents. Mr Keane's anneal was acce�ted and the Plannina Commission heard and suanor[ed
his anneal. T
I would like to bruig to your attention a separate zoning matter File # 97-87 mt�ilul December 22,
1997. The CaipitolRiver Council, Distriet 17 (CRC) opposed the decision of the Zoning
Commiltee of the P(unning Commission to allow a slgn vuriunce for AUiance Bunk. 'Cl�e
information slteet on d�is matter indicated that all appeals must be filed witlun 15 days. As you
maybe aware this was during the Holiday season and end of the year business. As a result of the
timing of this zonir.g matter the CRC filed it's appeal on January 21, 1998. Our anoeal was not
accented hv staff and subseauentiv was not heard bv Citv CouncH.
Our concem is with the inconsistent handling of important zoning matters such as these. The
CapitolItiver Council requests that fair and consistent pracuces be assured in zoning matters for
the downtown community.
Please inciude this information in your staff report for the February 24th public hearing.
Sincerely, \
�� �J��U r lJ
elson, Community Organizer
� PUBLIC HEARING NOTiCE
• � z SAINT PAUL CITY COUNCIL
{ ?a: satKr '�akt c�ty cou���l
f� - t3a�tto.� co�^�a�Y
We ow.� Ptoper�'y �r 6rh_a.,d 57vtef ,� sf.Oau! a.�d � G � u p e SuP�
�tl.A �S 5 r�yut �ta Re��stut� - rl�e:v s�'qh . �3a.%/� Cr � Gitj'
stg�1 D�'�a� I GGa.r.�rati•
� TO Property Owners within 350 feet;
Representatives of Pianning DistricF 17
�� �
= � � APPL{CANT
PURPOS�
�oca�r�a�
OF PROPEF�TY
TlME OF HEARiNG
PLACE OF HEARII�G
HOW TO PARTICIPATE
ANY QUESTIONS
Brian Bates - Scenic Minnesota
Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission that would permit
reinstaila;ion of a large storm-damagad sign until 2015.
287 Sixfh Streei between Wall and Broadway
Wednesday, February 24, 1939
5:30 P.M.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hall - Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard - Sainf Paul, Minnesota 55102
1. You may attend hearing and testify.
2. You may send a letter before the hearing to
25 W Fourth Street, 1100 City Hail Annex, St Paui Minnesota 55102
3. Participation is not required. This is your notice of public hearing.
Call Larry Soderholm of the Zoning Office at (651) 266-6575 or your District
Council Representative at (651)221-0488 with the following information:
Zonsng File Number: 99-01�
Zoning File Name: Brian Bates - Scenic Minnesota
Mailing Date: February 10, 1999
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY �/�
C[ayton M Rabinson, Jr., City Attomey
Civil Division
400CiryHa11 Tetephorre: b512bb-8710
ISWestKelloggBlvd Facsimile:657298-i6I9
Saint Paul, Minnesofa 55102
I�AND DELIVERED
Nancy Anderson
Saint Paul City Council
Room 310
Ciry Hail
RE: Appeal of Scenic Minnesota, Inc.
Zoning File 98-288
Council Action Date: February 24, 1999
Dear Nancy:
Attached please find the signed original of a resolution memorializing the decision of the Saint
Paul City Council in the matter of the appeal by Scenic Minnesota, Inc. which concerned the
SupexAmerica sign located at 287 East Sixth Street.
In addition, af you could, would you please caption this and other similu matters invoiving the
approval of zoning related appeals appeazing on the consent agenda as a resolution
"memorializing the deczsion "of the city council. The council made its decision on Febnxary 24,
1999. This resolution merely reduces the decision to a writing. Ca11 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
���I "' �V�'�'
Peter W. Warner