The URL can be used to link to this page

00-141ORIG�NA[. WHEREAS, on September 28, 1999, the District 2 Community Council duly filed an appeal from the Zoning Administrator's site plan approval pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64300(j); and �1 Presented By Refened To WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Commission] conducted a public hearing concerning the District 2 Community Council's appeal on October 28, 1999, after having provided notice to affected property owners and at the conclusion of the public hearing moved to recommend to the full Commission that the appeal of Aistrict 2 be gzanted; and 2 WFIEREAS, on September 1, 1999, pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning 3 Code, David Schwarz, d/b/a Schwazz Construction, made application to the Saint Paul Zoning 4 Administrator for approval of a site plan for a proposed addition to the Lincoln Pawn Shop 5 located at 1675 White Beaz Avenue, legally described as follows: Kerwin's Outlots to the City 6 of St. Paul, Minn. Subj to Rd in Doc No. 2708457; the Fol N 133 ft of E 125 ft of Lot 1; and 7 8 WHEREAS, by letter dated September 28, 1999, the proposed site plan was approved as 9 contained in Zoning File 99-242; and 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 WHEREAS, on November 5, 1999, the Commission, approved the recommendation of the Zoning Committee and granted the District 2 appeal based upon the following reasons set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-74: On September 28, 1999, the Office of License, Inspecrions and Council File # 00 � � y � Green Sheet # � � �3� � RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date Environmental Protection (LIEP) by letter issued approval of a site plan far a proposed addifion to Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Bear Avenue, subject to conditions including closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Beaz Avenue, re-striping the parking lot and new landscaping. The letter approving the site plan noted that the proposed addition was in conformance with City ordinances. 2. On September 28, 1999, District 2 Community Council filed an appeal of LIEP's decision, ciaiming LIEP erred in its interpretation of Sections 62.102 and 64300 of the zoning code and the requirements of the new pawn shop ordinance. Section 62.102 of the zoning code addresses nonconfornung lots, uses of land, structures, and uses of land and structures. Section 62.102(e) provides that a nonconfornung structure may . z - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 be enlazged or altered so long as such enlargement or alterarion does not 00 —l�k� increase its nonconformity. Section 64300 provides for plamuug coxnxnission and planning or zoning adtninistrator approvals. The applicable provisions of the new pawn shop ordinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) of the zoning staff report dated October 21, 1999. 3. LIEP erred in the interpretation of Section 62.102(e) that the expansion did not increase the nonconformity of the nonconfonning structure. The nonconformity of the structure was increased either by increasing the amount and azea of residentially zoned properry within one hundred fifty (150) feet impacted or affected by the increase in the size of the nonconforming structure or by increasing the nonconforming square footage from 1339 square feet to1997 squaze feet and therefare is not allowed without a variance. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, on December 8, 1999, Lincoln Pawn duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a public hearing before the Saint Paul City Council for the purposes of considering the action taken by the Commission; and 22 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64.206 -§ 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, 23 a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council [Council] on January 5, 24 2000, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and of the Planning Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council affirms the decision of the Commission in this matter based and adopts as its own the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Plamzing Commission as contained in Planning Commision Resolution No. 99-74. The Council finds that the proposed expansion further encroaches into an azea intended to separate a commercial use from residential uses and that such an expansion violates the legislatiave intent behind seperation requirements, a problem not solved by application of linear distance measurements; and be it ORI�INAL 1. . 00 �t�4\ z 3 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Lincoln Pawn be and is hereby denied; and 4 be it 5 6 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Mr. 7 Chuck Wedemeyer (Lincoln Pawn), the Zoning Admiiustrator, the Plamziug Commission and the 8 District 2 Community Council. ORlG1NAL Aequested by Department of: By: Form Appro}� d by City Attorney By: �l.�i�� "'WVL`ct— 't.� �VO Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY � �c'-'� �'\��, �o By: Approved by Mayor� Date c�Z/�€fC�� B �.�✓.s� G�G�i'� � Adopted by Council: Date ,�j .��p_� D�C Adoption Certified by Council Secretary ***�**�**�**+ -COMM.JOURNRL- *�*�**�x��orox�*w�* DRTE FEB-11-2909 �** TIME 10=46 �� P.01 MODE = MEMORY 7RRNSTiISSI�I FILE NO.= 167 N0. COM RBHR/NTLAC STfiTION tJRMEi TEL.FPHONE N0. STRRT=FEB-11 10�42 ENI�FEB-11 10�46 PRGES PRG.M7. PROC+RF'd1 NRFIE 001 OK . 69099 �2i002 -City oi Saint Pau1 - �� {ity Councii - � - 651 266 8574- �� 7 . 5 6 7 8 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 be enlazged or altered so long as such enlargement or a]teration dces not O o-l4� inciease its nonconfoimity. Section 64300 provides for planning commission and planning or zoning administrator approvals. The applicable pro�isioas of ihe new pawn shop oxdinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) of the zoning staff report dated October 21,1999. 3. LIEP eaed in the inteipretation of Section 62.102(e) that the expansion did not increase the nonconfomuty of the nonconforming shucture. The nonconformity of the strucnue was increased either by increasing the amount and azea of tesidentially wned propexty within one hundred fifty (150) feet impacted or affected by the increase in the size of thc nonconfozming structure or by increasing the nonconforming squaze footage from 1339 squsre feet to1997 square feet and thereforc is not allowed without a vaziance. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Yaul Legislative Code § 64206, on December 8, 1999, Lincoln Pawn duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and xequested a public heazing before the Saint Paul City Council for the pu�poses of considering the action taken by the Commission; aad WT�EEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64.206 -§ 64Z08, aad upon notice to affected parties, a public heazing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council (Council] on January 5, 2000, where all imerested pazties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREA3, the Council, having heazd the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the 7.oning Committee and of the PU nnino Commissioq docs hereby; I2ESOLVE, that the Council a�rms the decision of the Commission in this matter based and adopu as its own the fmdings, coaelusions and recommmdations of the Planning Commission as comained in Pl annin Commision Resolution No. 99J4. The Council finds that the proposed expansion fiuther eneroaches inW an area intended to separate a commercial use fmm residential uses and fliat such an expansion violates The legislariave intent behind seperation requirements, a pmblem not sotved by application of lineaz distance me-asurements; and be it ORIGINAL Ob..� �{� ci GREEN SHEET I �'�� No �� Peter Warner TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES ooui�rowcerae antoiasi ❑ rnrwTroucr ❑ arcaituc ❑n�14xu�LtElku�cESOR ❑RIIWew.aFR1nACCro ❑ WYORIORAfLfTMR) ❑ (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memorializing the decision of the City Council on January 5, 2000, denying the appeal of I.incoln Pawn to a decision of the Planning Commission granting the appeal of the Distric[ 2 Community Council of the Zoning Administrator`s approval of a site plan for expansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue. PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITfEE CIViI SERVICE COMMISSION When. ties this ae�� everwuked uMer a mMract ra mie departmem? VES NO Hae this P�mt fl�er been a aty empbyee9 YES NO Does tMS P�� P� a sldll nd iwnna�yP�d bY anY wrreM city emPbYee? YES NO IS Nit peraoNfirm a tergetetl vendoYt VES � etlach to arem sheH C i°JLa?s,p,�y �452�:?,,°df � !s�?1�9C �� Q OF TRANSACTION eosrmEVaue suots�o (c�aaF onel YES NO SOURCE ACTIVRY NUMBER INFORMATON (EJfPWl� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nasm Coleman, Mayor February 7, 2000 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal by Lincoln Pawn Shop Zoning Resolufion 99-242 City Council Motion of Intent: January 5, 2000 Dear Nancy: OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY Q O _,�' Clayton M Robinsan, Jr., City Attorney CivilDivirion 40D City Ha1[ TeZephone: 651 266-8710 ISWestKelloggBlvd Facsimile:651298-5619 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Attached please find a signed Resolution memorializing the City Council's Motion of Intent to deny the appeal by Lincoln Pawn of a planning commission decision to deny Lincoln Pawn's site plan application for properiy located at 1675 White Beaz Avenue. Please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Peter W.�a e�� Assistant City Attomey t� +• ^�k��p^�'��"°� ;i':�: , �, s,. PWW/rmb Enclosure � �' � :v�v�� DEPAR"I'MENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT oa-t�E( 3( _ CI'TY OF SAII�IT PAUL Norm Colem¢n, Mayo> December 14, 1999 Division of Plarming 25 West Fourth Street SamtPaul, MN55701 Telephone: 612-266-6565 Facsimi7e 612-228-3314 Ms. Nancy Anderson �� "��'"=`' �'°'� CiTy Council Reseazch Office xoom s io c�ri xan �EC �, �#�99 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: �o�� I would like to c nfirm that a public heazing before the CiTy Council is scheduled for Wednesday, January 5, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision granting an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan. -.. Appellant: LINCOLN PAWN File Number: #99-178-640 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision granting the appeal of District 2 Community Council of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop. Address: 1675 White Beaz Avenue; (west side between Larpenteur and Califomia) f Legal Description of Property: Kerwin's Outlots to the City of St. Paul, Minn. Subj to Rd in Doc No. 2708457; the Fol N 133 ft of E 125 ft of Lot 1 Previous Actian Planning Commission Recommendation: approvat of appeal; vote: 14-2, November 5, 1999 Zoning Committee Recommendation: approval of appeal ; vote: 3-2, October 28, 1999 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the December 22, 1999 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6554 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �a,�c,cc�.,'�i Nancy Frick City Planner cc: File #99-178-640 Paul Dubruiel Carol Martineau Wendy Lane, LIEP •�srmm• NOTICE OF PFtBLIC HEARING The Saint Paul City Counclj wAt condnct apublic hearing on Wednesday, January�5. 2000, at 5:30 p.m.3n the City Council Ch�mbers, Thiid Floor, City Ha11- Courthouse,to consider the appeaI of Llncoln Pawn to a decision of the Planning Commission granting the appeal of the District 2 Community Council of the Zo nina Admuustrator's approval of a site plan for the eicpansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White BeazAvenue. Dated: December 14, 1999 NANCYANDERSON ��" � Assist'ant Ciiy Cuundt Seczetary _ . . . (Dec..16) . � - =�ST, �PAiU.7 E(iAL I.�G88 �-=_ DEPARTMENT OF PLA�IING & ECONOM[C DEVELOPMENT Briarz Sweeney, Director • crrY oF sa�rr pauL, Norm Co[eman, Mayar December 29. 1999 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 Ciry Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 25 West Fourth Street Saint Pau[. M,ti 5� 102 RE: Zoning File #99-178-64Q: LINCOLN PAWN (Chuck Wedemeyer) City Council Hearing: January 5, 2000, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers p0-1�S � Telephone: 6�1-266-66?6 Facsim ile: 65l-228-339 / PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision granting the appeal of the District 2 Community Council of a Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVAL OF APPEAL; vote: 14-2 ZONRQG COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL OF APPEAL; vote: 3-2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION DEIVIAL � SUPPORT: Two (2) persons spoke. One letter. The District 2 Community Council was the appellant to the site plan approval. , OPPOSITION: Two (2) persons spoke. Dear Ms. Anderson: �J LINCOLN PAWN has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to grant the appeal by the District 2 Community Council of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue. Tlle Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on October 28, 1999. The appellanYs representatives addressed the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 3-2 to recommend granting of the appeal. The Planning Commission upheld the Zonin� Committee's recommendation to grant the appeal on a 14-2 vote on November 5, 1999. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 5, 2000. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. The appeal packet is attached. Sincerely, `� �� Nancy Frick Ciry Planner Attachments cc CiTy Council Members Chuck Wedemeyer, LincoVn Pawn Tom Fabel, Lindquist and Vennum Peter Warner Wendy Lane District 2 Community Council File #99-178-640 ao-��i � • � city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 99-74 date November 5, 1999 WT�EREAS, DISTI2ICT 2 COMMLTNITY COLTNCIL, file #� 99-275, has, under the provisions of Section 64300(j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, appealed the approval of a site plan by the Zoning Administrator for the expansion of a pawn shop on properry at 1675 White Bear Avenue, legally described as follows: Kerwin's Outlots to the City of St. Paul, Minn. Subj to Rd in Doc No. 2708457; the Fol N 133 ft of E 125 ft of Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, held a public hearing on 10/28/1999 at which all persons present were given an opporhinity to be heazd pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public heazing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: On September 28, 1999, Tom Beach, Zoning Specialist with the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) by letter issued approval of a site plan for a proposed addition to Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Beaz Avenue, subject to a set of conditions including closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Beaz Avenue, restriping the pazking lot and new landscaping. In the letter approving the site plan, Mr. Beach noted that the proposal was in conformance with City ordinances. This letter is attached to the zoning staff report, dated October 21, 1999. 2. On September 28, 1999, the District 2 Community Council filed an appeal of this decision, stating as grounds for their appeal an error by staff in its interpretation of Sections 62.102 and 64300 of the zoning code and in requirements of the new pawn shop ordinance. 5ection 62.102 of the zoning code provides for nonconforming lots, nonconforming uses of land, nonconforming structures, and nonconforming uses of moved by Gervais seconded by in favor 14 (Nowlin Abstained) against 2 (Duarte, Faricy) �o-t�� • Z.F.#99-275 Page 2 of Resotution structures and land. Section 64.300 provides for planning commission and planning or zoning administrator approvals. The applicable provisions of the ne�� pawn shop ordinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) of the zoning staff report dated October 21, 1999. 3. The Zoning Administrator erred in the interpretation of Section 62.102(e) that the expansion did not increase the nonconformity of the nonconforming structure at 1675 White Beaz Avenue. By increasing the azea of the structure within the nonconforming setback from the neazest residentially-zoned property line, the nonconformity of the structure is increased and therefore is not allowed without a variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Cade, the appeal by the District 2 Community Council is hereby granted. C� � 80-1�{� • Saint PauI Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 5, 1999, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, McCall, Morton and Nordin Present: and Messrs. Corbey, Dandrea, Fotsch, Gervais, Gordon; Johnson, Kramer, Nowlin and Shakir. Commissioners Mmes. M and Messrs. *Field, *Kong, *Mardell and *Margulies Absent: *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Donna Drummond, Amy Filice, Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Nancy Homans, Allen Lovejoy, Larry Soderholm, Joel Spoonheim, Brian Sweeney, Lucy Thompson, Altan Torstenson, James Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; and Wendy Lane, Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection. • I. Approval of Minutes of October 22, 1999 MOTION: Commissioner Kramer moved approval oJthe minutes of October 22, I999; Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements Mc Ford announced that just before the Planning Commission's last meeting, the City Council adopted two additionat special sign districts which they have referred to the Planning Commission: 1) Hamline Midway; and 2) Merriam Park. Also, the City had just lost one case concerning billboards to Scenic Minnesota. The couR decided that billboards on Grand Avenue and Highland Village that the City had said cou(d be replaced because of storm damage to the sign surface themselves, shoutd not have been allowed. This week the City Council adopted the 1994 Large STAR Loans and Grants. There were a few modifications, but Mr. Ford �vas not sure of what they were. They will be reported later. _ Last week Mr. Ford gave a report to the Csty Council, following on cases involving trucking facilities and zonina for trucking facilities, and also following discussion at the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan related to the use of industrial land for trucking faci{ities. The City Council had requested that PED prepare a report on possible amendments to the Zoning Code that woutd do a better job of protecting residential neighborhoods from the adverse impact of • trucking facilities on adjacent properiy, and that subsequent to that report they would ask the Planning Commission to complete the study and recommend amendments to them. This last C9�—I't\ � week, the City Council started the process of instituting a moratorium on additional permitting for trucking faci(ities unti( that study is done. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Chair Morton had no announcements. IV. Recognition of Ken Ford's Retirement Mr. Tom Harren announced that Mr. Ken Ford's official last day in the office will be Thursday, November 18, 1999. Consequently, this is the last Planning Commission meeting where Ken wi{i be serving as the Planning Administrator. Tom shared with the Commission some thoughts and reflections on Ken's work in PED, and indicate some of the appreciation the PED staff has for the great work that he has done. In the past three years that Tom has worked very closely with Ken. In addition to it being a very enjoyable experience, it has also been very much a learning experience for Tom. Ken has made Tom aware of some things in planning and development that have been very valuable. Ken has become a very important part of PED, and his leaving will be a great loss. PED has benefitted from Ken in many ways. First, he brings a tremendous amount of knowledge to the job. He has been able to provide some insight into things simply because he is very knowledgeable. This has come about because Ken has taken continued extra steps to keep . himself educated. Secondly, his experience in workin� in planning and development issues has set the foundation for planning for many of the last years. Finally, and probably the most important thing and the most significant contribution that Ken has made to PED is how he has shared his knowledge and his experience �vith the other staff: AII of the planners and other PED staff have come to depend on Ken for the knowledge and experience that he has. Ken has always been witling to share that knowtedge and experience with the other staf£ He has served as a mentor and advisor to many of the planners, and he has served as a mentor and advisor to Tom over the tast three years, and Tom is very appreciative. While Ken's leaving will be a tremendous Ioss to both PED and the Planning Commission, Tom is sure that Yhe Commission shares with his wishing Ken the very best as he takes an opportunity to start a new venture in his Iife. Other events that will take place within the next couple of weeks to continue to show Ken PED's and the Ciry's appreciation for the work he has done include: 1) a presentation at 3:3� p.m. at the City Counci! on November 17; 2) a party on November 19 at the Town and Country Club beginning at 530 p.m; and 3) a reception to be held Wednesday, November 17, from 9:30 - 11 a.m. at the Saint Paul City Ha(1 Conference Center, Room 40B. Tom extended his appreciation, personally, to Ken for the help he has given him in the last three " years, and on behalf of PED, for the work that he has given over the many years that he has been with PED and with the Planning Commission. Chair Morton read the Planning Commission resolution honoring Mr. Ford, and she added her own personal thanks to someone has been a pleasure to worS: with, has ahvays been helpful, has , �o -t�l • . a(�vays been cheerful, and ahvays been there to help. Mr. Ford noted that he has attended 425+ Planning Commission meetings. The Commission has worked through policy issues: 1) trudged through them with community groups; and 2) trudged throu�h them in committees. There's been Land Use, two major Comprehensive Plan Chapters, and many more studies of special issues, five major studies in housing, plus low income housing strate�ies, the various evolutions of neighborhood improvement pro�rams, at least three studies in transportation, library services, fire and emergency services, parks and recreation major studies, community service centers, swimming pools, child care, etc. The Commission has provided the forum and done the work to think through policy that ought to guide development of this city. Week and week and month afrer month, the Planning Commission has provided the forum where the ofren competing interests in the city come together over the issues that have to be resolved if those policies and directions that have been set are goin� to be realized in �vhat happens on the ground in our neighborhoods. Over and over again, people have found here a fornm where they are listened to that is fair and open and where there is a possibility of resolving issues based on some carefully thought out policy. Metal shredders, shops for guns or pawning, or sex, roads here and roads there, parking lots, building setbacks, more or ]ess historic structures and districts worthy of preservation, and the garage next door. Over and over a�ain, it's very difficult for this city and even for members ofthe Commission to realize the significance of the forum provided by the Planning Commission. Has it made a difference? Ken noted that last year he had an opportunity to take a group of Japanese city officials on a tour. As they were driving down Grand Avenue, a Japanese woman who's very familiar with cities in the United States because she lives in San Francisco (their tour guide), commented on how extraordinary lovely Grand Avenue was. She mentioned the apartment buildings, the consistent setbacks, the mixture of residential and commercial uses, etc. Ken couldn't help think, looking down Grand Avenue, that virtually every block has been touched by decisions of the Planning Commission. From Grand Avenue to Concord to Barge Channel Road to the riverfront, downtown, Payne Avenue, Phalen Village, South St. Anthony Park, University and Raymond, Raymond and Energy Park Drive, West Seventh Street, etc. You'd be hard put to find a corner in this city where the decisions the Planning Commission has worked through with citizens have not made a difference for the better in the quality of the fabric that were have in our community. Ken expressed that iYs 6een a tcemendous privilege to be a part of that for all this time. It has been an extraordinary privilege beyond what anyone has a right to expect for his career to have worked all this time with the colleagues he has had all this time in PED. It has been a great privilege to work with the leadership this city has had. It has been a very special privilege to work with generous citizens who have put so much effort and so much of their time and thought into the work of this Commission. Ken mentioned one commissioner, Anne Geisser, whose imprint is so many things he has mentioned, and who has been with the Commission so long, and has given extraordinary dedication and talent to many things. He congratulated her in advance on her departure from the Commission, since he �vil! not be here at that time. Mr. Ford stated that it has been a tremendous privilege to �vork with the leadership of the Planning Commission. iVo one has brought moze wilGn�ness to keep in touch on a week]y basis to keep the business of the Commission moving, more political savvy that s useful for this work, and a better combination of firmness and fairness in conductin� meetings than Gladys . �-,�� • Morton. Ken thanked the Commission for al1 the time they have had together, for a(t their hazd work and for being fun people to work with. MOTION: Con:nzissionzer Geisser moved approvat of the resolution l:onoring Mr. %n Ford; tJ:e resl of the P[anning Commission seconded t{ze motion which carried unanimously on a voice vate. V. Zoning Committee #99-236 US West Wireless - Special condition use permit to allow a cellular telephone antenna to be installed in the Oxford Street right-of-way, west side between Concordia and Carroll (Allan Torstenson, 266-6579). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was laid ovec to November 9, 1999. #99-247 Nationwide Groun-Acorn Mini Stora�e - Site plan revieiv for a proposed mini- storage facility located east of Case between A�ate and 35E (Tom Beach, 266-3086). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was Iaid over to November 4, 1999. #99-268 Pong Yun Kim - Special condition use permit with a modification of the required • setback from residential uses and a variance of required parking to allow a billiard hall at 681 Snelling Avenue North beriveen Van Buren and Blair (7ames Zdon, 266-6559). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was also laid over. #99-270 Esperanza Duarte - Rezoning from RM-2 to OS-1 to aliow a mixed use, residential and office services (one residentia] and two office units) at 550 Concord Street between Pa�e Street East and Curtice (dames Zdon, 266-6559). MOTION: Commissiofter Gervais moved to recommend approval of ihe rezoning from RM- 2 to O&I to nllow a mixed use, residential and office services (one residential ttnd two ojfice undts) at S50 Concord Street between Page Street Bast and Curtice wltich carried on a voice vote (Duarte abstnined). #99-272 Metro Airoort Commission - Special condition use permit to construct a dike to maintain access to businesses located off of Eaton Street during high water events at the south side of Eaton Street west of Highway 52 (Nancy Homans, 266-6557). Commissioner Gervais repoRed that Ulis case was laid over for six months. #99-273 Sonathan L. Faraci - Special condition use permit for the erection of a 90-foot telecommunications tower at 1296 Hudson Road (Nancy Frick, 266-6554). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was ]aid over to November 9 for more . 4 oa � � �E 1 � information. #99-275 District 2 Communitv Council Aoneal of an administrative decision approving Lincoln Pawn Site Plan at 1675 �Vhite Bear Avenue -(Nancy Frick, 266-6554). MOTION: Commissioner Gervais moverl to grant tl:e appeal of t1:e Aistrict 2 Community Council of trr: adn:inisirative decisiort approving Lincoltz Pawi: $'ite Plan at 167.i White Bear Avenue. Commissioner Faricy reported that she and Commissioner Field �vere the only two Zoning Committee members who disagreed with the findin�. Their first preference for this case was to lay it over for two weeks in order to give Mc Warner an opportunity to review it. Commissioner Faricy's ob}ection to the Committee decision was: Lincoln Pa�vn existed la�vfully prior to the effective date of the Pawn Shop Ordinance which went into effect on April 27, 1999. The code does not apply to this site plan. Staff found earlier that Lincoln Pawn does not fit the zoning definition of nonconforming use. A lawful use existing on the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code, but that is not now permitted in the district in which it is located. Pawn shops are permitted subject to special conditions in the B-3 zoning district. The spacing requirement which was added to the code in 1999 results in the structure being nonconforming, not the use. Therefore, staff found that the zoning code requirements for enlarging of a nonconforming use do not appfy to Lincoln Pawn. A(so, as long as the expansion is less than 50°/n, the code requires site plan approval, not a special condition use permit. In your packets this morning there's a letter from Mr. Fabel from Lindquist and Vennum in which � he specifies that the owner of the pawn shop is willing to make a commitment to the City that he wilt never allow the sale of firearms to occur at his business. Commissioner Gervais announced that in front of all commissioners today there is a substitute resolution different from the one in the packet that �vas mailed. Commissioner Kramer explained that the substitute reso{ution has the same conclusion, but was actually written by City Attorney, Peter Wamer. He added that the argument has been brought forward that if this pawn shop were to expand 1 inch to the west, it would not be allowed, but if it wants to expand 60 feet to the south, it's O.K. That does not seem to be consistent with the Planning Commission or the City Council when the 150 foot separation �vas instituted. The other thing that disturbs Commissioner Kramer is that in addition to increasing not only the amount of volame of the building within the 150 foot setback, that we have also, if we allow that expansion to occur, increased the number of properties that are no longer protected by the ' 1 SO foot buffer. Because the expansion travels further south, additional property is impacted. Another thing is that not only is the addition within the I50 foot area, but it is parallei to the existing residential property, so you've actually added volume of pawn shop directly parallel to the residential property. Previously, there was 40 or 50 feet of pawn shop that was parallel �vithin the 150 foot area. The addition, interestingly enough is 49.—% of the size of the property ' tl�at is immediately parallet. While he appreciates the applicanYs offer to not sell guns, he noted that this property has never sold guns. They only pa�vn guns; they sell them elsewhere. The Planning Commission cannot put conditions on building permits. If the o�vner of the property wants to do that, it's great, and Commissioner Kramer applauds him. Withottt a specia! condition use permit to amend, the Planning Commission cannot make that requirement. The . �� _+� � • City Attorney has also informed us that if we do put such a requirement on a permit, it is, unfortunately, only voluntary. State law prec{udes the Plannina Commission's ability to regulate gun sales above and beyond what state iaw altows the Planning Commission to do. Commissioner Gordon stated that he will be the firsf to acknowled�e that there are arguments on both sides, and that both sides have been well represented. He voted in favor of the appeal at Zoning Commirtee. It came down to the interpretation of the words, "increase its nonconforming," because Section 62.102(e) provides that a nonconformin� structure may be - enlarged or altered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. Is there an increase in the nonconformity as a result of the enlargement or • alteration? Commissioner Gordon asked commissioners to consider, hypothetically, a city street. On one side of the city street is a pawn sl�op; on the other side of the city street, say fifty feet away, you have a residential zoned area and residences. Norv, you expand the pawn shop one more block to the south. The residential area originally impacted by the pawn shop has now been expanded by one block. As originally built, iYs affecting the residents on the other side of the street. Once iYs expanded to take another city block to the south, you have impacted an additional residential area and if there are residences on that block, you have impacted additional residences. That's what happening here. IYs not going a block, but it is extending, and to the extent that it extends, it does impact on an additional area of residentially zoned property, and it does impact on additional residences all of which are within 150 feet. To Commissioner Gordon, that's one increase in the nonconformity. Also, they want to expand the size, square footage, from 1,339 sq. fr. to 1,997 sq. ft; that again, is an increase in the nonconformity. Because of these two nonconformities, there is a conflict with the provisions of • Section 62,1Q2(e). That is why Commissioner Gordon thinks the Zoning Committee's action was proper and he will vote for the motion to grant the appeal. Commissioner Nawlin noted that he is abstaining from the discussion and will not be voring on this matter. Chair Morton c]arified the motion by saying it is to support the Zoning Committee's decision to granT the appeal of District 2. Ms. Prick explained that she would not �vant to characterize that what Mr. Warner did was look at the lega( ramifications of this case, rather he tried to put the rationale of the Zoning Committee, as he understaod it, into better words in the resolution than staff had done, The motion on tke floor ta grant t/ie appeal of the District 2 Commurury Council of an administrative decision approving Lincoln Pawn site plan a11675 White Bear Avenue carried on a roll call vote nf I4 - 2(Duarfe, Faricy} wiil: I absiention (Nowlin). Reaort on Tobacco 5hons Zoning Studv -(Larry Soderholm, 266-6575). � Commissioner Gervais reported that this report was also laid over to November 9, 1999. Commissioner Gervais read the agenda for the next Zonin� Committee meeting to be held Tuesday, November 9, 1999: 1) U.S. Wireless, special condition use permit; 2) Nationwide Group-Acom Mini Stora�e, site plan review; 3) Pong Yun Kim, specia] condition use permit; 4) . oo-��t� • Jonathan L. Faraci, special condition use permit; 4) Herberger's, sign variance; 5) AT&T, special condition use permit; 6) AI-Arabi Hisham, nonconforming use permit; 7) Macalester College; and 8) the Tobacco Shops Zoning Study. VI. Comprehensir�e Pianning Committee Liaht Rail Transit in the Central Corridor - Study Findings and Recommendations, Adopt Resolution - (Ken Ford, Soel Spoonheim) MOTION: Co»:missioner Geisser movedfor approvnl ifte Liol:t Rail Transit Commit2ee's recomrrrendatio�: on Light Rail Trar:sit. Mr. Ford gave on short presentation on the committee recommendations. The committee has been on a very short time schedule and has done an efficient study. Mr. Ford walked through the conclusions and recommendations, beginning on page I 1 of the report. 1. A rivo-track light rail system connecting downtown Saint Paul and downtown Minneapolis can be accommodated well within the existing University Avenue right-of-way. 2. Properly designed and supported by related actions, a light rail transit line would likely make a very positive contribution to improvement and development goals for University Avenue and its adjacent communities, a contribution strongly supportive of key Comprehensive Plan policies. 3. �Vith careful planning and management, disruption of business on the Avenue can be kept to � a tolerable minimum during the period of construction. 4. It does not appear that light rail would likely make the same strong positive contributions to overall development on an Interstate-94 alignment that it can make on University Avenue. 5. If we proceed with steps toward the construction of light rail on University Avenue, or on other ali�nments, the City should play an active role and should ensure the following: a. The City should paRicipate sufficiently to complete work necessary for positioning Saint Paul high among the competitors for TEA-21 federal funding in 2003. This wouid include timely approval of an Environmental Impact Statement. b. Planning for station areas should begin as early as possible once the alignment question is answered. This is a strong recommendation from those in Minneapolis who are wrestling �vith the difficulty of simultaneous final engineering and station area plannin�. c. Cood design and quality for station areas and throughout the system is of the utmost importance. Comfort and pleasure for riders and ped�strians is one of the important attractions of liglit rail and readily perceived quality and comfort are important for the ' strongest contribution to transit and to the Avenue. d. Early and extensive communication with communities, properiy owners a�d interest groups along the route will be important for al1 design phases and broad participation will be needed in station area planning. e. In all decision and planning stages, attention should be given to the redevelopment ' resources, plans and tools that will provide for the greatest positive reinvestment impact at station areas. £ Lioht raii can contribute a great deal toward many city and neighborhood objectives, but to do that successfully it must be carefully designed wiih those objectives in mind. Alignment and station ]ocation choices are criticaL Throughout the planning process, . oa-«� • the focus should be on what we want to accompiish with light rail and how it can be designed to achieve that. Commissioner Geisser thanked the Light Rail Transit Committee for their di(igence in getting this done; they met every week. She shated her appreciation with the members of the Planning Commission who participated on the study. Commissioner Geisser tha�ked PED staff who worked double time to get this material to the Committee: I) Joel Spoonheim; 2) Allen Lovejoy; 3) Tom Harren; and 4) Ken Ford. She also thanked Commission members �vho attended one or both of the community meetings. The results are terrific; all are to be applauded. The Planning Commission has taken the initiative and has given the City's elected officials a document that they can go with. The Commission has given the opinion that this is where the it believes light rail should be and we better get on the train before it pulls out of station and we're not on it. Commissioner Geisser stated that the Planning Commission has done as instructed by the City Council; the Commission has examined what they asked and did all the reviews. Therefore, she resolved that the Saint Paul Pianning Commission adopts the report entitled Light Rail Transit on Universiry Avenue: A Review of the Potential dated November, 1999, and commends the information and conclusions and recommendations of this report to the Mayor and City Council. CommissionerNowlin added that in the end, the committee unanimous]y supported the document and recommendations that were produced. The repoct de(iberately does not get into the debate about University Avenue versus West 7`" Street The charge was to look at the Central Conidor. The report reaffirms what was done in the 80s about the planning for light rail • transit. The motion on tlzefloor approving U:e Comr�zittee's recommendations on LiglztRail Transit carried unanimously on a voice vote. VII. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee Commissioner Faricy reported that the l�ieighborhood and Current Planning Committee met on November 2, 1999. Eight commissioners were present. The Great Northern Corridor: A Communi Vision - Set public hearing (Dec. 3, 1999) MOTION. Commissioner Faricy moved to set a public hearing date ofDecember 3, I999, to review tlze public input regar�ting The Great Northern Corridor: A Community Vision, and refer the document and iestimony to the Neig/�borl:ood an�t Current Plannirxg Commdttee carried unanimously on a voice vofe. Chioolte Mexican Grill• Commerciai Development District -(James Zdon, 266-6559) �� Commissioner Faricy explained that the Grill has a beer and wine license at this time, but they want a liquor license in order to be able to serve margarita with their Mexican food. There's a cap on the number of Iiquor Iicenses that are awarded to each Ward in Saint Paul. The cap in Ward 3 where this restaurant is located is six. As a result, we are going to move this into a commercial development district. The City Charter provides for commercial development . �o-t�S • districts which are excepted from the cap on intoxicated liquor {icenses in each Ward. The Saint Paul Legislative Code provides an additional requirement that when the Ciry Council considers creating or expanding a district, the Planning Commission sha116e consulted for advice concernina the proposal_for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances. The proposed commercial development district is consistent with the recently adopted Land Use Plan, which states that fhe purpose of the plan is to promote a balance of land uses in the city to streno hen the city's tax base. The property is zoned B-2 where a restaurant and liquor license establishments are permitted. The Chipolte Mexican Grille is in the Highland Crossing building. The district counci! did approve and recommend this ]icense for the restaurant. They put one stipulation on it-that the license would be granted to the restaurant and not to the Highland Crossing company that owns the building. The chief manager of Highland Crossing LLC, Jim Stolpestad, has accepted that proposal. MOTION: Commissioner Faricy n:oved tkat the Planning Co»:mission report to the City Council tl:ai the proposed Commercinl Developn:ent Disirict is cot:sisient with tlte Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, and thaf the Planning Commission supports creation of the proposed dis[rict. Commissioner Kramer explained that he missed the meeting on this because he was in helping in the Ciry of Maplewood where they don't have a commercial development district, and they actually had to go before the voters to get permission to renew liquor licenses in the City of Maplewood. They had turned away three restaurants because they had run out of licenses. Commissioner Kramer noted that this is a very positive provision that Saint Paul has that allows • the City to do the right thing when it makes sense. He asked Commissioner Faricy if this proposed commercial development district is for the premises (physical area) of the restaurant orjust that particular restaurant. Commissioner Gordon asked if this commercial deveiopment district is just for the site iY is located at. Commissioner Faricy replied that it was. Commissioner Gordon asked if the Grille intends to serve other hard liquors in addition to margarita. Chair Morton responded that it would be lawful for them to serve any other liquors. Mr. Zdon added that it is his understanding that the only liquor they wi(l 6e serving wilt be pre-mixed margarita. Commissioner Gordon wondered whether there was another way to accomp]ish this without creating a special district. Mr. Ford replied that it would be extraordinary, at least, to put a special condition on requiring your favorite drink. He thinks that it's clear that the permission goes �vith the facility. If Chipolte moved out, someone else could come in and take advantage of it. Chair Morton asked Mr. Zdon to clarify that since this is a liquor license they could serve any liquor they wanted to serve. Mr. Zdon concurred. Commissioner Kramer asked if the commercial development district applied just to the premises of the restaurani or to the entire Highland Crossin�, Mc Zdon answered that it applies only to the premises of the restaurant. Commissioner Kramer asked if �vhoever leases the premises of ' the restaurant can apply for a separate liquor license. Mr. Zdon responded that was correct. Commissioner Nordin asked how it was possible to make part of a huilding a district. Commissioner Geisser replied that the Commission has done it before. At Sibley Ptaza, when Champs wanted to open a new Mexican Restaurant, the City gave that site permission to open . 00 -�� . Tlze n:otion on t/te floor carried unntzimous[y on a voice vote. West Side Flats Development Stratew - Presentation -(Lucy Thompson, 266-6578) Commissioner Faricy introduced Ms. Thompson, who introduced Brian Sweeney, Director of PED, �vho made the presentation. He stated that one of PEDs char�es over the past nine months has been to change the culture for development in the"City of Saint Paul. Mr. Sweeney feels that today we can celebrate a tremendous victory for the City of Saint Paul around the development strategy for the West Side Flats. This strategy is a result of a 12-month process in which PED worked with the community on the West Side as welf as the development partners within the city, most specifically, the Saint Paul RiverFront Corporation, who took the 3ead on this. Late spring, early summer there was an engaged conversation with the West Side community, specifically, with WSCO. It was our mutual goal that all parties involved in this process �vould be able to sign on to the West Side Flats Development Strategy, which has been developed with the help of Ellerbe Becket and later, with the help of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. The consufting firm worked cooperatively with all parties to put together this final document. This strategy is not prescriptive, per se, for every block and for every use. It allows flexibility and a true mixed-use, urban village concept to be developed. Developers around the country are looking at this site as one of the most exciting developments in the Upper Midwest. Jerry Trooien has also been very much a part of this discussion. Mr. Sweeney introduced Patrick Seeb. Mr. Seeb, Executive Director of the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, addressed the � Commission. Dave Engfer, chair of the West Side Citizens Organization joined him. Mr. Engfer and Mr. Seeb both expressed the difigent work of many people to help to bring this together. For the first time in many decades, there's a plan on the table that everyone seems to support. It is an excellent first step. Mr. Engfer hopes to be visiting the Pianning Commission many more times in the future proposing additional steps to this development process. Mr. Seeb introduced Kim Way, an urban planner from Ellerbe Becket. Mr. Way feels that the interactive process so far has come up with a framework that can guide this very important part of the city for the future. Mc Way showed s(ides of a variety of mixed- use development guides for this site that can be done over the short-term and lona term. One of the things that was learned in the process �vas the importance of connections, so a lot of attention was paid to how this area is the joining element between downtown, the river and the West Side community, and how we can strengthen and reinforce connections. There was a lot of discussion about what types of uses should be in this area. Everything from an office park to - an urban mixed use residentiai village. Many different types of uses were overlayed on this azea to sugaest how those uses might happen. The second part of the process �vas a technical charette to which engineers, architects and planners were invited to look at some of the detailed aspects of the Flats area and to define what things need to be paid attention to. The railroad and the utiliTy lines need to be considered. What could �ve do if these remained? What might be the � possibilities if these were moved? All the thin�s that came out of the public process drove the strategy. The first phase of the strategy is devoted to development along the riverfront. The second phase is suggesting that there is active discussion with ]andowners along �Vabasha about expansion or • 10 �o -ti�� • redevelopment. There should be development along both Robert and �Vabasha Streets that encourages pedestrian activity. The third phase in the process wouid be extending the idea of ihe urban grid throughout the forty-five acres, and creating a truly mixed-use development. Logically, this area would develop as a three-four story development area so that the views are not blocked from the bluff or the downtown. Commissioner Gordon asked if the report describes or defines what types of uses would come under the heading "entertainment?" Mr. Way responded that the JLT Group has some very distinct ideas of what they'd Iike to see in this area. They have ta]ked about an urban mixed-use business oriented theme park. The report talks about specific entertainment uses. Commissioner Gordon asked how the land was currentVy zoned. Mr•. Way replied that it is currently zoned Industrial. Commissioner Engh asked if the DNR was present during the discussion about the flood wall and the levee. Mr. Way responded that the DNR did participate with tlie Army Corps of Engineers to talk through some these opportunities. Commissioner Nowlin asked how �ve get good commercial te�ants into the development. Mr. Way replied that part of the purpose for the strategy is to give pmspective developers an idea of the City's broader vision for the area. Up until now, there hasn't been one. This strategy provides a framework with which the City can have constructive discussions with developers. Mr. Seeb added that there were approximateiy six developers that were involved in all the various sta�es of creating this strategy. • Commissioner Nordin asked if this area, since it is zoned industrial, is contaminated. Mr. Way replied that there are stifl some contamination issues. Some ofthe soils may need to be removed, which provides the opportunity for the possibility of putting parking underneath each block. Commissionec Nowlin informed Commissioners that most of acea is very old landfilL The biggest cost factor there has been piling. Because it's riverene soil, the rock is 90 feet down. IYs going to be expensive to deveio�, and apparently this plan has taken that into consideration with its density. Mr. Way responded that when a developer comes in with a proposal, he's going to have to take those costs into consideration, which wi11 drive his plan. Here, we have a strategy that deals with these issues. Commissioner Dandrea asked if there is a city across the country that has had a comparable � opportunity that Saint Paul could look at; a city that has done a project of this scope successfully. Mr. Way replied that he can't imagine any city in the United States that doesn't have this opportunity. He said that he has worked on approsimately sixty different riverfront communities across the United States. Most of them were industrial; a lot of them have rail Sines. Chattanooga's a good exampie. Patrick Seeb, Ken Greenberg and others have visited � some of these cities, and tl7ere has been discussions on models. Commissioner Corbey asked ho�v the determination was made to put housing in this area versus industrial when there's a rail line running right throu�h the center of it. Mr. Way nofed that this strategy is not requiring any specific use. It's sayin� that there should be a mix of uses. . 11 Ot�-i`tl . Industrial is probably one of the (east favorable uses because it doesn't support the urban village concept. The housing may not come along until later in the process, but there are a number of housing developers who are not afraid of the railroad being there. Rail lines run through cities evetywhere, and people tive right next to them. Developers don't really see the rail line as a challen�e. There are things they can do, architecturally, with buildings (sound proofing and vibration proofina, etc.) to soften the effect of the rai] line. At some point, the rail line might actually relocate, and if and when they do relocate, it wouid be a spectacular place for housing. Ms. Thompson clarified what tlie Planning Commission is asked to do. The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing in two weeks on November 19, 1999. At that point, it would be referred to committee. The idea is to get the Planning Commission, the City Council and HRA to endorse this document as the vision of what, generally, ought to happen in this portion of the West Side Flats. After that, the existing redevelopment p(an would be amended to include the relevant portions of this document incorporated into it. MOTION: Commissioner Fi�ricy moved that a public hearing date be set for November I9, ]999, to review the West Sirle F[ats Development Strategy, and that staffset up n time schedule for t/ie public hearings. Commissioner Geisser recommended that the Shepard Davern public hearing be first on the agenda for November 19, 1999, before the West Side Flats Development Strategy, as it could be a long public hearing. • TI:e nzotion on tlte floor carrietl unanimously on a voice vote. VIII. Communications Committee No report. TX. Task Force Reports Commissioner Kramer reported that the White Bear Avenue SmalV Area Plan Task Force met on Wednesday, November 3, at the Cedar Machine Shop at the corner of White Bear and Maryland, to talk about intersection improvements at White Bear and Maryland. Commissioner Dandrea was also present. The next meetiag of the task force will be held Wednesday, December 1, 1999, to discuss the intersection of White Bear Avenue and East Seventh Street. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held at Big Mike's Pizza on Seventh Street. He invited all commissioners to attend. Mr. Soderholm announced that the next Advertising Sign Committee meeting will be held at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, before the Zoning Committee meeting. Both meetin�s will be held in Room 30 (old County Board room) right next to the City Council � � Chambers. X. Old Business None. , 12 Do -��i l � XI. New Business Mr. Ford said that in his earlier comments he overlooked two or three things he had intended to say. The presentation today on the West Side Flats reminded him of one of those comments. Tt was very inspiring to him and he thinks that the Commission has a number of opportunities in this city �vhen he sees the trend of things underway. There are some exciting years ahead for the Planning Commission. Mr. Ford is extremely pleased tivith the personnel decisions that have been made since he announced his retirement. There is no planner for whose professional skill and commitment and insight into what makes neighborhoods and cities work that he has higher regard for than Larry Soderholm who has been a good friend and colleague of his since he came to city planning in Saint Paul. Mr. Ford is very happy to leave the planning administrator seat for Larry. XII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 a.m. Recorded and prepared by • Jean Birkholz, Planning Commission Secretary Planning and Economic Development Deparhnent, City of Saint Pau] Respectfully submitted, Kenneth Fard Planning Administrator Approved /��P� / � �/ �� (Date) 7 if r Engh Secretary of the Planning Commission • \planninglminutes.frm 13 MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE 7hursday, October 28, 1999- 3:30 p.m. ` J City Council Chambers, 3` Fioor City Hall and Court House 15 West Keilogg Boulevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: OTHERS PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, and Morton Engh Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, and Nancy Frick of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. �� — ��1� District 2 Community Council Appeal (99-275) Appeaf of an administrative decision approving Lincoln Pawn site plan. Nancy Frick showed slides and presented the staff report. Ms. Frick stated the District Two Community Council (the appellant) submitted an appeal based upon its position that the Zoning Staff erred in interpreting the code when the site pfan was approved on September 28, 1999. Staff recommends denial of the appeal. � At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Frick stated the new construction of the Lincoln Pawn site is approximately 50 feet from the closest residential�y zoned lot line. The nonconformance of the structure has to do with the distance between the �ot line and the structure. The appeal poses the question in regards to the need for a Special Condition Use Permit to enlarge the structure regardless of its distance from the fot line. . Chuck Repke, Community Organizer for District Two, appeared and read a statement and expiained the handouts which were entered into the record. He made three points 1) Section 62,102(e) of the zoning code provides that a nonconforming structure may be eniarged or aitered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. The buiiding existed fawfully prior to the efFective date of the pawn shop ordinance, April 27, 1999, but it does not now comp(y with the spacing requirement which went into efFect on that date. 2) The proposed enlargement of 1675 White Bear increases the nonconformity associated with the structure. The enlargement of the structure at 1675 White Bear builds additionaf building wal{s that would be well within the (150) feet of the residentiafiy zoned property. 3) She zoning code requires that pawn shops be separated from residentially zoned property either by a pubfic street or a distance oP one hundred fifty (150) feet measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot Iine of the residentially zoned property. The structure at 1675 White Bear is 57 feet from one residentiaily zo�ed property at 1760 l.arpenteur. The District 2 Community Council is concerned with fhe issue of the use of the proposed expansion at 1675 White Bear. It is the District 2 Community Council's position that the structure can not expand within the one hundred fifty (150) foot distance as long as any part ofi the use is for a pawn shop. The use of the expansion is not at issue, only that the structure is nonconforming and it is being proposed to be more nonconforming. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Repke stated the District Councii's position that they couid not expand the buiiding even if they wanted to put in a video rental operation. Had Pawn �o -t�t\ Zoning Committee Minutes 99-275 � Page:2 America existed on the Whiie Bear Avenue site, thaf blank space behind the proposed Pawn American Store is still part of the buiiding that houses a pawn shop. The b�ilding is nonconforming because it houses a pawn shop. Mr. Tom Fable, attorney representing the Capital City Investmenis (owner of the buiiding), appeared and stated the building and the pawn shop business were established at that location long before the City chose to regulate that particular form of business. The ordinances have to do with business uses that have been grandfathered-in because of changes in the ordinances at a later point of time. Ordinance 62.102 states that a nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered as long as such an enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. The nonconformity has nothing to do with the volume of the structure. The nonconformity is the violation of a new building of the 150 foot barrier. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Fa61e stated Section 64.300 addresses the expansion of the size of a business. If a business expands by more than 50 percent they must return to the Pla�ning Gommission for a new conditional use permit. A purpose of a setback provision is to have a specified distance between the beginning of the usage and whatever it is they're trying to set back. The nonconformity is the 150 feet distance, not the volume of the building. Ms. Wendy Lane, Offce of License and Inspection, stated they made the original decision to • approve the site plan and building permit. There are a number of nonconforming properties in the City that don't meet the required setback for the zoning district in which they are located, including a number of singie family homes. They are a conforming use but they have a nonconforming setback from the side property line. If they have a 100 square feet, four feet away from the side property line and the code requires a six foot setback, they could put an addition on the back of the house another 400 square feet at the four foot setback line. They don't have to go to six feet, as long as they don't go any closer to the existing building. They can continue to expand along that line. LIEP has used that provision more than any other use for single family homes. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Lane stated the application of this principle to the pawn shop business is consistent with the ordinance. The set back is being considered, not the volume. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Ms. Lane stated there has never been a case that is a continuation along an existing nonconforming set back line that LIEP has required an applicant to apply for a variance or a modification for a speciai condition use permit. Mr. Repke appeared and stated the key focus of this application is that the structure is nonconforming. Increasing the structure in the nonconforming area is what they are raising issue to. The public hearing was closed. • After further discussion Commissioner Morton moved to approve the appeal based on the fact that enlarging the structure does increase the nonconformity. Commissioner Kramer seconded it. do—��al • Zoning Committee Minutes 99-275 Page:3 Commissioner Kramer stated he had a problem with the defermination that this case is not a nonconforming use because it used the term "not now permitfed". The staff has interpreted that to mean "not now prohibited". This is not a permitted use because the lot is not 150 feet and so there are instances where it is not permitted in this zoning district. Also there is the issue fhat it is a special condition use permit and the zoning code makes a differentiation between "permitted uses" and "uses permitted subject to special conditions". The definition of nonconforming use does not use that term "sub}ect to special conditons" it only uses "permitted". Commissioner Gordon voted for the motion because it comes down fo the definition of increasing its nonconformity. The nonconformity was 1,339 square feet within 150 feet and now there is 1,997 square feet within 15� feet and that is an increase in the nonconformity. Afterfurtherdiscussion, the motion to approve the appeal of an administrative decision was passed by a 4 to 2 vote. C� Adopted Yeas - 4 Drafted by: (�� n,a� �"12.�n,��.v Caro{ Martineau Recording Secretary Nays - 2 (Field, Gervais) Submitted by: � � Nancy Fric Zoning Section Litton Field Chair / • • APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of P[anning and Economic Dwelopment Zoning Section II00 City Hal! Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT I Name Chuck Wedemeyer - n��t�A�� Lincoln Pawn, 7675 White Bear Avenue • PROPEf2TY LOCATION Gity St. Paul St. MN Zip 55106 Zoning File Address/Lo TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: C+ Board of Zon+ng Rppea4s � City Council Daytime phone under the provisions of Chapter 6�, Section , Paragraph of tfie Zoning Code, fo appeal a decision made by the St Paul Plannin4 Commission on November_5, 1999 (date ofi decision) }g . Fi1e number: P.C. File No. 99-74 Zoninq Fi1e No. 99-242 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error i� any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an adm+nistrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or inding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. The Plannin Commission erred in interpretation of Section 62.102(e)(2) of the Saint Paul City Code. The Planning Commission decision is contrary to the intended and logical interpretation of this zoning ordinance, and it also is contrary to long-standing City practice. If affirmed, the Planning Commission decision will be harmful to residential and business property owners throughout the City, and will result in a substantial increase in variance applications to the City Council. Please see attached letter from leqal counsel. • I Attach additional sheet if necessary) ApplicanYs �� t-��"w' 'l (2 /a City agent_�ac�.�_ � ` ` `Fsif �-Wl oo-t�t • LINDQUIST R VE��TNUM P.LL.P. ATioRNEYS A7 Uw lhomas L Fabel (651)312-9200 ffa6el�lindquistoom 444 CmM STREEr SURE5700 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA $5101 Tet�pNE:651J12-1300 FAX:657-7L35332 December 8, 1999 Ms. Nancy Frick City Planner City of St. Paul 25 West Fourth Street St. Paui, Minnesota 55102 amo ios caraz 805WTHE�GNiHSTREET ANNNEAPOIIS,MINNESOTA55402-2205 Te�Eatior+e: 6tt371-3217 FAX:612-371-3207 Re: Appea/ of Planning Commission Resolution 99-74, Denying Proposed En/argement ofLincoln Pawn Shop, 1675 White BearAvenue �� Dear Ms. Frick: Enclosed pfease find an Application for Appeal in the above matter, a filing fee of $300.00, and a fetter of support for the appeal from this office. Please distribute the letter with the Appeal to Counci{ Members prior to the date of consideration. Thank you very much for your advice and assistance. TLF:ims enclosures cc: Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer Very truly yours, LINDQUIST & �Nf�IUM P.�.�.P. � nau iisoaizu bo -1�� LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.�.�.P. ArrawErs Ar Uw Thomas L Fabel (651)312-9200 ffabel(o�JindquisGmm 444 CELtOR STREFf Surt�1700 ST. PAUL. �.MNNESOTA55101 TFiEVHOt+e 651312-1300 FAX:651-2215332 <�� eo SanH E� SrR�r MINNEPPOlIS.MYNNESI�TA55402 T¢�rot�E:612J7132N FAX:6'123713207 December 8, 1999 City Council President Dan Bostrom and Council Members City Hall 15 West Keilogg St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 99-74, Denying Proposed Enlargement of Lincoln Pawn Shop, 1675 White BearAvenue . Dear President Bostrom and Council Members: This firm represents Drs. Sohn and Frank Gaertner, property owners of the premises at 1675 White Bear Avenue which are leased and operated as the Lincoln Pawn Shop, along with Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer, the lessee of the property and the awner of Lincoln. This letter is written in support of Mr. Wedemeyer's appeal from a Planning Commission decision, dated November 5, 1999, which upheid an appeal on a proposed expansion of Lincoln Pawn. The efFect of the decision was to reverse an earlier site pian approval by the Department of Licensing, inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEPj for the expansion. Both LIEP and PED believe that the expansion is permissible under the City Zoning Code, which means that both also believe the Planning Commission decision to be erroneous. As legal counsei for the property and business owners, we join in the view that the Planning Commission decision is both an incorrect interpretation of the relevant ordinance and inconsistent with longstanding City practice. Hence, we urge the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission and to reaffirm the prior position asserted by two departments of City government, LIEP and PED, both supporting the issuance of a building permit. • Doc# 1171568\1 aa - i�\ LINDQUIST R' VENNUM P.LL.P. • Letter to Pianning Commission December 8, 1999 Page 2 The issue in this appeaf arises from the fiact that this buiiding housing Lincoln Pawn is located wifhin 150 feet of residentiaily zoned property, which is the setback requirement for new pawnshops adopted in April, 1999. The pawnshop ordinance, Section 60.544(3), provides that pawnshops are permissibie in Zone B-3, provided that the business is "conducted within completeiy enclosed buifdings and is separated from residentially zoned property either by a public street or by a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet measured from the buifdina waff of the oawnshop to the nearest lot {ine of their residentially zoned property." However, Lincoln Pawn has been in existence since 1994, at which time neither the setback requirement nor the special conditiona{ use permit requirement now applied to pawn shops were in existence. Hence, Lincoln Pawn now exists as a legal use in a non-conforming structure. Section 62.102(e)(2) of the St. Paul City Code psovides in celevant part as follows: A non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. • !n the case of a setback requirement, this Code provision always has been interp�eted by the City as meaning that a nonconforming structure may be enlarged so long as the new construction comes no closer to the relevant line of ineasurement. This interpretation is entirely consistent with the pawnshop set-back ordinance, which defines the condition of conformity as a distance "measured from the building wall." The Planning Commission rejected this longstanding interpretation of Section 62.102(c)(2), which for years has enabled building owners (mainly homeowners) to expand their usage without going through the costly, time-consuming and often tortuous process of obtaining a variance. Under the Planning Commission's new interpretation of this zoning ordinance, an "increase in nonconformity" would include any expanded volume of usage within the area defined by the setback requirement. Hence, since the proposed expansion of Lincoln Pawn would place more pawn shop area within 150 feet of a residentialiy zoned property (although no closer than before), the Commission concluded that expansion was not authorized by Section 62.102(e)(2). That the Pianning Commission's interpretation is, shall we say, strained goes without saying. So aiso is the fact that this interpretation contradicts past City practice in analogous situations, as is evidenced by the zoning staff positions asserted by both City departments responsibie for such interpretations, LIEP and PED. What may be less self evident is the mischief that this interpretation will cause if consistentiy applied • Docd 1171568\1 ao—��c� LINDQLTIST R' VENNUM P.LL.P. • Letter to Planning Commission December 8, 1999 Page 3 to analogous zoning questions. For example, homes which do not comply with curcent setback requirements would be incapable of straight-line expansion without complying with the costly variance requirements. Similariy, no home on a lot smailer than a current minimum lot size could be expanded without a variance. The oider neighborhoods of St. Paul have many homes in both of these circumstances, and for many years homeowners have been ailowed to obtain building permits for expansions without the necessity of a variance, through the City's application of Section 62.102(e)(2). Quite obviously, the only reason for both District Council opposition to the proposed expansion and for the Planning Commission's decision is the nature of the business conducted at Lincoln Pawn. While it is true that some pawn shops have become neighborhood concerns and a source of increasing regulation in recent years, it is not true that ali pawn shops are bad neighbors. Indeed, the proposed construction at issue in this appeaf would be a significant improvement to the appearance of this property, which should be regarded as a benefit to the neighborhood. Moreover, the owner of • Lincoln Pawn, Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer, has made a commitment to the City that he will never allow the sale of firearms to occur at his business. While such sales may be perfectfy Iegal, Mr. Wedemeyer has made this commitment to demonstrate his desire to be a good neighbor and to avoid a major complaint which often is voiced over this line of business. Thus, Council reversal of the Planning Commission decision with the condition that no firearms sales ever occur at Lincoln Pawn is a very acceptabie resofution to both the business and the property owners. It is a weil known adage among lawyers and judges that "hard cases make bad faw." This means that difficuit facts sometimes cause decision makers to bend the law in a way which ultimaiely leads io bad results in other circumstances. The Planning Commission's decision illustrates this adage. Moreover, the Commission's decision to deny site approval in this case is a direct violation of the constitutional requirement that similarly situated land use appiicants must be treated the same. Northwestern Colleae v. Citv of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1979); Hav v. Township of Grow, 206 N.W.2d (Minn. 1973). For both of these reasons, the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed. Any effort to change the regulatory standards for the operation ofi pawn shops should be accomplished through legislation, not through a novel interpretation of the zoning ordinance. Especially is this true where the consequences of the novel interpretation will be adverse and unfair to many property owners in many circumstances totally unrelated to pawn shops. • Doc# 117156%\I da -�`�\ LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.L.L.P. • Letter to Planning Commission December 8, 1999 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration. TLF:Ims enclosure cc: Phillip Byrne, Esq. Peter Warner, Esq. Dr. John R. Gaertner ` Dr. Frank M. Gaertner, Jr. Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer Mr. David Schwartz Very truly yours, LINDQU c NUM P.L.L.P. /�.� �2it / C��C�'`'� Thomas L. Fabel • Doc# 1i715b8�1 � ZiiO4i1999 16:22 651 223 5332 � 2283341 LTNDQUIST 8L VENNUM P.L.L.P. A� roRxers As tww lTmu�s L pah.i (651}317-93D0 ff.bciQl"vdquisicom 4G Cmi.R STqEEf SuRE 1� Sr, p�u4 MM+£�A�197 TftEPa�el31312-1300 FNC 86Y?216332 Plovember 4, 1999 St. Paui Pianning Commissior� 1100 Ciry Hali Annex 25 F❑urth Street Wesi St. Paui, Minnesota 55102 hu.o�r � � —��` ��00 �S CE1+tER ea sovn, ec�m� s��r AtK+EM']Lt9. F!N ME90T4 �i02-2205 Tom+or�e 812�715211 FAY012S7]3YJ] Re: Proposed £ntargement ofl.�ncaln Pawn Shop, l876 {M�ite Besr Arenue � Dear Cammissioners: This firm represents Drs. John and Frank Gaertner, property o�rrners of #he premises at 1675 White Bear Avenue which is leased and operated as the Lincoln Pawn 5hop. The owner of Lincoin is Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer. On the Commission's agenda for Friday, November 5 is an appeal from a site plan approval for an expansion to Lincoln Pawn. By a vote four to two, the Zoning Committee sustained the appea! on Octobe� 28, We respectfully suggest to the Commission fhat #his action was both an incorrect intefpretation of the relevant ordinance and inconsistent with iongstanding Gity ptactice, which means that 1he decision cannot withstand judicial review. Accordingly, we urge the Commission tc rsject tha Committee action and to sustain the prior position asserted by two depaRments of City government, LIEP and PED, both supporting the issuance of e buikding pefmit. The issus arisas from the fact that this building is iocated within 150 feet of residentially zoned property, which is the setback requirement for new pawn shops adopted in April, 1999. Howaver, this shop has 6een in existence since 1994, at which time neithef the setback requirement nor the special conditionai use permit requirement now appiied to pawn shops were in existence. Hence, Lincoln Pawn now exists as a legal use in a non-conforming structure. • ��_ t)oc�f 117079TI � ili�4i1999 16�22 651 223 5332 � 2283341 I.INDQIIIST & '�ENNC�M P.L.L.P. Letter to Planning Commission November 4, 1999 PBge Z NO. 63'I dc-trt Section 62.102{s)(2) of the St. Paul Gity Code provides in relevant paR as foilows: A non-corNorming structure may be enlarged or alterad so long as such enlargament or alterati�n does not increase its noncor�formity. In the case of a setback requirement, this Code provisfon always has been interpreted by ihe City as meaning that a noncarrforming strucWre mey be eniarged so long as the naw construction comes no closer to the relevant line of ineasurement. . The Zoning Committee accapted as an altemative interprefation for this provision that an "increase in nonconformit�' incfudes any expanded vofuma of usaga within the area defined by the setback requirement. Hence, since the proposed expansion would place mora pawn shop area within 15Q faet of a residentiai{y zoned pro¢srty {altfiough no closer than before), the Committse conciuded that expansion wae not authorizad by Sactfon 62.102{e)(2). That the Zoning Committee's interpretation is, shall we say, strained goes without saying. So aiso is ihe fact that this interpretatfon contradicts past City prectice in analogous situations, es is evidenced by the zoning staff positions asserted by baih City departments responsible for such interpretations, LIEP and PED. What may be less seff evidant is the mischief that this interpretation will cause if consistent(y appiied to analogous zoning questions. For example, homes which do not comply with cuRent setback requirements wauld be incapab�e of straight-line expansion without complying with the costiy variance requirements. Similariy, no home on a lot smailer then a current minimum lot size cauld be expended without a variaRCe. Tha older neighborhoods of St. Raul have many homes in both of thase circumstances, and for many years homeowners have been allowed to obtain building permits for expansions wiihaut the necesaity of a variance, through the City�s appfication af 5ection 62.102(ej(2j. • Quite obviously, the only reason for both the appeai and the Zoning Committee's decision in ihis case is the nature of the business conducted at Lincofn Pawn. Whife it is true that some pawn shops have become neighborhood cnncerns and a source of increasing regulation in recent years, i1 is nat true that aVl pawn shops are bad neighbors. Indeed, the proposed construction at issue in this appeai would be a significant imp�ovement to the appearance of this property, which should be regarded as a benefit to the neighborhood. Moreover, the owner of Lincoln Pawn, Mr. Chuck '✓G4 DocB 11 J079T1 � _ lli�4i1999 16�22 651 223 533Z � 2283341 LTNDQUIST 8L V�NNUM P.L.L.P. Letterto Planning Commission Novam6er 4, 1999 Page 3 N0.637 80-1y� Wademeyer, is vary willing to maka a cammitment to the City that he wiA never aliow the sele of firearms to occur at his business. While such sales may be parfectly legal, Mr. Wedemeyer is willing to make this commitment to demonstrate his desire to be a good neighbor and tQ avoid a major compiaint which often is v�iced conceming lhis line of trusiness. l"o repeat, appraval of this buiiding permft with the condition that no firearms sales ever occur at Linco�n Pawn is a very acceptable resolution to both the business and the property owner. n LJ It is a well known adage among lawyers and judges that "harq cases make bad law.° This means thei di�cult facts sometimes causa dacision makers to bend the {aw in a way which uitimateiy cannot be sustained. The Zoning Committee dacision iilustrates this adaga. A decision to deny a building permit in this case wouid bs a d'srect vio4atian of the constitutional requirement that similariy situated land use applicants must be treatsd the same. NoLj{�,westem Col�eqe v. Citv of Arden Hiils, 2&1 N.W.2d 865 {Minn. 1979}; }�av v. Township of Grow, 206 N.W.2d (Minn. 1973). The longstanding practice of City offciais in providing a straightforward interpretation of Section 62.1 b2(e}(2) requires lhat the permit for Lincoln Pawn be granted. Any desire for a change in the regulatory standards for ihe operation of pawn shaps should ba accomplished through legislation, not through a creative application of the zoning ordinance. Thank you for yaur consideration. Very truly yours, LINDQU4S7 & VE UM P.�.L.P. / Thomas L. Fabel TLF:Ims enclosure L� cc: Peter Warner, �sq. Dr. John R. Gaertner pr. Frank M. Gaertner, .fr. Mtr. Chuck Wedemeyef Mr. David Schvrattz G2� Tuck 1)7079TI �.r— K� —a �s `�?1I� 1TRIcCT � ��011�.�1�'1�T1�1I � �' (��17i��IL �o-a�—�5 ao-1� SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOI7S OF \ORTHEASTERN SAI�T PAL L i PARKW AY(GREENBRIER • BEAV ER LAKE HE[GHTS PROSPERITY HEIGHTS • HAYDEN HEIGHTS P7iALEN VILLAGE • Ltisco�t� P.��uc EAST PHALEN � FL�,ZEL P.�2�C FROST LAKE • HIL[.CRFS? Appeal of an administrative decision to approve a site plan for the expansion of a pawnshop at 167� White Beaz Avenue. The District 2 Community Council urges the zonin� committee to grant our appeal of the administrative decision to approve the site plan for the expansion of a Nonconformin� Structure at 1675 White Bear Avenue. Further, we would recommend that the zoning committee pass a recommendation that would adapt the staff report by deleting Findings 3 and 4 and inserting as follows: 3. The zonin� committee disagrees with the interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator, with regard to the site plan for 1675 White Bear Avenue, for the followin� it:�T.Y�fii•Y a. Section 62. 102 (e) of the zoning code provides that a nonconforming strncture may be eniarged or altered so long as such enlazgement or alteration does not . increase its nonconformitv. The building at 1675 White Beaz, that houses Lincoln Pawn, is a nonconfomung structure in accordance with the zonins code definition of a nonconforming buildin�: "A lawful building existin� on the effective date of the adoption (October 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that does not now comply with the area, width height, yard, percent of lot coverage, or other re�ulations concem bulk or location on the lot, or spacing requirement from another use, off-street parking or loading requirements, or other regulations of the district in which it is located." The building existed lawfully prior to the effective date of the pawn shop ordinance, April 27, 1999, but it does not now comply with the spacing requirement which went into effect on that date. The oroposed enlarQement of 167� White Bear increases the nonconformitv associated with the structure The zoning code requires that a pawn shop "is separated from residentialty zoned property either by a pub?ic street or by a. distance of one hundred ffty (1 SO) feet meast�red from.lhe building wall qf the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of the residentially zoned property; ' All four walls of 1675 White Bear are within one hundred fifty feet of the nearest lot line of the residentially zoned property at 1760 Larpenteur. The proposed enlargement of the structure at 1675 White Beaz builds additional building walls that would be well within the one hundred fifty (150) feet of the residentially . zoned property. 1961 SHER�ti oo� AvE`�� • S,a[�r P�cL • MN • 55 1 1 9-3230 • PxovE: (651) 7?-'-2220 • F.ax: (651) 774-21: � oe -�� Section 60.534.6 attempts to create a buffer of one hundred fifty (150) feet from buildin�s that house pawn shops and residentially zoned property. To build anywhere within the one hundred fifty (150) feet is increasing the nonconformity of the structure. The proposed expansion of the structure to the south incrzases the number of properties that are within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the structure that houses a pawn shop and thereby increases the nonconformity of the structure. The zoning code requires that pawn shops be separated from residentially zoned property either by a public street or a distance of one hundred fifty (I50) feet measured from the building �vall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of the residentiallv zoned propertv. The structure at 1675 WYute Bear is 57 feet from one residentiallv zoned progerty at 1760 Larpenteur. If the proposed expansion is approved the structure will be one hundred forty-eight (148) feet from the residentiallv zoned �ropertv at 1749 Califomia that, currently, is one hundred fifty-two and a one half (152.5) feet from the neazest buiidin� wail. The building at 1675 White Beaz is nonconforming because of its set back from residentially zoned property. To increase the number of properties that the nonconformin� structure is nonconformin� to is increasing its nonconformity and clearly not within the spirit of Section 62.102 (a). � The District 2 Community Council is concemed that staff has raised the issue of what would be the use of the proposed eYpansion at 1675 White Bear. Tt is the District 2 Community Council's position that the shveture can not expand at all �vithin the one hundred fifty (150) feet distance as long as any part of the use is for a pawn shop. The use of the expansion is not at issue, only that the structure is nanconforming and it is being proposed to be more nonconforming. Staff also states that there aze other situations where the code was interpreted in the manor they have proposed, but no evidence was offered. Disfict 2 would contend that anytime a buildina was nonconformin� do to a set back of a set distance ?hat any le_gal, espansion of the nonconforming structure should occur outside of the set back area. Few nonconforming structures in the City of Saint Paul azeIocated on 125 by 130 foot lots. We would contend that most set back issues would be in situations where one wall violated a distance requirement not an entire structure, or where the use has become nonconformin� not the structuze. Again, the District 2 Community Council believes that the proposed expans±on of the building at 167� White Bear violates the spirit and intent of Section 62102 concemin� nonconformin� structures by: increasing the structure's nonconformity by buildin� within thz 150 foot set back required from the residential properiy at 1760 Larpenteur. Further • it's nonconformity is increased by increasin� the number of properties within 150 feet of the structure (1749 California). � i J aa -1�t� � Proposed Expansion 1675 White Beaz Distances from residentially zoned property at 1760 Larpenteur RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY 1760 LARPENTEUR • I" W W ll� � N Proposed Existing Building 3xpansion 1675 White Bear � White Bear Avenue i 25 i 50 � � c � d �. � a� .� c � oa � a �-�Q 6,�.0,�.� a - i ,, -, � � � � �-i �i� 00-1�� CJ .,��Q b�, Q.�-�,� a- - a /o -�P-9S dc7-��1� • (cP�th Rogers 1739 E Ca(ifornia cr.pw�,��, Sn�! F�'�ng_13n3 T0: St.Pa�il Pi�lrtnjn� C:nlprplSS!O!l Znnin� Cnmmittee, 1(�0 [tOt f921 1f12 I188� fQ @XPdlld thB LI!!COlft P2Wll 3!tA. ThB C! �� nf �t Pa� il hadQ enough pawn shops therefore fhis expansion wouid be unnecessary. I wouid prefer if the city had less pawr shops ov2rall so this expansian is �,2edless in my m�nd. Thank you, - � ! � �-� �r5 Keith p Rogers � • Do-l�� • Z023TNG COMMITTES STAFF' REPORT ___�_________________________ FILE # 99-275 C J • 1. APPL2CANT: DISTRICT 2 COMMCJNITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 10/28/99 2. CLASSIFICATION: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Decision 3. LOCATION: 1675 h'AITE HEAR AVENUE (between Larpenteur and California) 4 PLANNING DISTRICT: � 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTZON: See file 6. PRESENT 20NING: B-3 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 60.214, 60.544(3), 62.102, 64.300 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT SY: Nancy Frick DATE: 10/21/99 8. DATE RECEIVED: 9/28/99 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 11/27/99 A. PIIRPOSE: Appeal of an administrative decision to approve a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop located at 1675 White Bear Avenue. B. PARCEL SIZE: 16,575 SquaTE feet. C. EXISTING LAND IISE: A pawn shop. D. SIIRROIINDING LAND IISE: North: Restaurant. (COmmercial zoning; Maplewood.) - East: Commercial. (B-2) South: Restaurant. (B-3) West: Single family residential (R-3) E. ZONING CODE CITATIONS: Sec. 64.300(j) provides that "the grant or denial of approval by the planning or zoning administrator is subject to appeal to the planning commission by any person, firm or corporation, or by any office, department, board or bureau affected by a decision of the planning or zoning administrator with thirty (30) days ... Sec. 60.214 provides definitions o£ nonconfoxming building and nonconforming use. Sec. 60.544(3) identifies pawn shops as principal uses permitted subject to special conditions in the B-3 Zoning DistYict. Sec. 62.102(e) states provisions for nonconforming structures with conforming uses. F. HZSTORY/DISCIISSION. Lincoln Pawn had a building permit application pending at the time that the City Council established a moratorium on pawn shop permits and licenses pending a zoning study and possible amendment of the zoning ordinance (NOVember 9, 1998). On January 22, Z.F. �99-275 Page 2 1999, th= Saint Paul PZanning Commission recommended a zoning code • amendment which provided that pawn shops continue to require a special condition use permit in B-2, B-2C, and B-3 zoning districts with a new condition that pawn shons must be separated from residential zoning dzstricts by either a public street or a distance of ZSO feet, measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of residentially zoned property. The recommended pawn shops amendments were adopted by the City Council on March 10, 1999 and went into effect on April 27, 1999. A March 2, 1999 memo to City Councilmembers and various staff inembers prepared by Larry Soderholm discussed how pawn shops existing and proposed at that time compared to the separation requirement being proposed by the Planning Commission, The memo included a statement that "the new standard would not apply directly to existing businesses that don't meet it; such businesses would become legally nonconforming with regard to the separation from residential. Legal nonconforming pawn shops would not be allowed to expand, however, without a public hearing and a Planning Commission permit." This statement did not draw a distinction between nonconforming uses and nonconformir.g structures, which the code tteats differently, however, and as such was in error. See Findings 3 and 4 below. G. DSSTRICT COIINCIL RECO2IlKENDATION: The District 2 Community Council is the appellant. H FINDINGS: . 1. On September 26, 1999, Tom Beach, Zoning Specialist with the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LSEP) by letter issued approval of a site plan for a proposed addition ' to Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Bear Avenue, subject to a set of conditions including closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Bear Avenue, restriping the parking lot and new landscaping. In the letter approving the site plan, Mr, Beach noted that the proposal was in conformance with City ordinances. This letter is attached to this staf£ report. 2. On September 28, 1999, the District 2 Community Council filed an appeal of this decision, stating as grounds for their appeal an error by sta£f in its interpretation of Sections 62.102 and 64.300 of the zoning code and in requirements of the new pawn shop ordinance. Section 62.102 of the zoning code provides for nonconforming lots, nonconforming uses of land, nonconforming structures, and nonconforming uses of structures and Iand. Section 64.300 provides for planning commission and planning or zoning administrator approvals. The applicable provision of the new pawn shop ordinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) above. 3. Staff concurs with the code intexpretation made by the Zoning Administrator, with regard to the site plan for 1675 White Bear Avenue, for the following reasons. • Z.F. #99-275 Page 3 c`3� —\ti\ • a. Section 62.102(e) of the zoning code orovides that a nonconformina structure may be enlarcod or altered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. iZt should be noted that "noaconforming building" is the term used in the definition section of the zoniag code, but that "nonconforming structure" is tne term used elsewhere in the code; terms are intercnangeable.) Staff concurs that it is this section of the code which applies to the Lincoln Pawn site plan. Staff finds that Lincoln Pawn is a nonconforming structure in accordance with the zoning code definition of noncon:orming building: "A lawful building existing on the effective date of adoption (OcCOber 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that does not now comply with the area, width, height, yard, percent of lot coverage, or other regulations concern bulk or location on the lot, or spacing requirement from another use, off-street parking and loading requirements, or other regulations of the district in which it is located." Lincoln Pawn existed lawfully prior to the effective date of the pawn shop ordinance, April 27, 1599, but it does not now comply with the spacing requirement which went into effect on that date. Sta£f also concurs that the enlargement of Lincoln Pawn does not increase the nonconformity associated with the • structure. The zoning code directs that distance between pawn shop and residential property be measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of the residentially zoned property. The building wall of the existing Lincoln Pawn building is approximately 50 feet from the nearest lot line of residentially zoned property, directly to the west, 1760 Larpenteur. The proposed enlargement of Lincoln Pawn extends directly to the south; the building wall of the extension would not be any closer to the nearest residentially-zoned property line. b. Section 62.102(f) provides that a noncon£orminq use shall not be enlarged unless the planning commission approves a permit for an enlargement as set forth in a subsequent clause of the code. Staff finds that this section of the code does not apply to this site plan. Staff finds that Lincoln Pawn does not £it the zoning code definition of noncon£ormina use: "A lawful use existing on the effective date of adoption (October 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that is not now permitted in the district in which it is located". Pawn shops are permitted subject to special conditions in the B- 3. The spacing requirement which was added to the code in 1999 results in the structure being nonconforming, not the � use. Therefore, staff finds that the zoaing code requirements for enlargement of a nonconforming use do not apply to Lincoln Pawn. Z.P. �99-275 Page 4 c. Section 64.300(m)(2) provides that a new special condition . use permit is needed when the floor area of a special condition use expands by fifty (50) percent or more, and, conversely, Section 64.300(n)(1) provides that site plan approval but no new special condition use permit is required when the floor area of a special condition use expands by less than fifty (50) percent. Staff concurs that the proposed expansion of 658 square feet is 49.14& of the 1339 square foot floor area of the existing pawn shop, and therefore may be expanded without obtaining a new special condition use permit, although a site approval is required, in accordance with Section 64.300(n)(1). 4. Finally, staff also finds that the interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator in this case is consistent with how the City has treated expansions of other SCUP uses, many of which occur within nonconforming structures. Examples cited by LIEP staff include college expansions within campus boundaries, recreation centers, hospitals, gas stations, and a host of other uses permitted subject to conditions. As noted, as long as the expansion is less than fifty percent, the code requires site plan approval but no new special condition permit, and that is how the Zoning Administrator has proceeded. • I. STAFF RECO2�AfENDATION: Based on Findings 3 and 4, staff recommends denial of the appeal. • �- � • APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of Plannixg and Economic Development Zoning Sectiori 1100 Cin' Hal1 Annex 25 West Fourth Srreet Saint Paul, hf.\' S5101 266-6589 APPELLANT I N PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATION Address/Lc u File, na, � St�ti Zip 5S!! `-'7 , �/�E ��ti q9- a 3 � �/ic,C.ol.t/��Lc.N /�ci� S do - �� Ffi e cue.anEy�; ��—' � �'�,.,._: fiea�in `date�`;> s��.��. : = by �rr.v�u.� ...:iG,:. oh � e �774��ZZZA TYPE OF APPEAL Appiication is hereby made for an appeal to the: ��i?n„�� -v�-�+SS r�,-c� �� Board of Zoning Appeals ❑ City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �� , Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to �,�,ti�� 5� appeal a decision made by the � on �f%�T �� !�' , 195?. File number: c�a, � �1� ' (date of decision) GROUNDS FOFt APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has bean an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative offcial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeafs or the Planning Commission. = i.v i.✓TE�,�°�iv�g-�'im(; o-F la a. io ��✓� �`� .3o"U /�.c,/� i�c. �c�LC.c�cO-�-c�..7.i vF /LcZcJ � �� os2n�,cf2,�.c:e RECEIVED SEP 2 31999 ZONiNG � Atfach add�tiona/ sheet if Applicant's signatu �Y City agent OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIOYS A�"D E:v'VIRO.�'�tE\7AL pROTECfiOY Roben Kessler. Director SAINT I MU2 �, AAAA CITY OF SAR�tT PAUL No�m Coleman, Mayor September 30, 1999 David Schwarc Schwarz Construction 10961 32nd Street N LaI:e E(mq MN SSQ42 LOVYRY PROFESSIOh:lLBUfLDI.VG Te(ephone: 65l-266-90� 3505[PeterStreet,Suife300 Faarimile.•651•166-9099 SainiPaul,bT�nesota SSIO2-I510 651-266-9I2� Re: Building permit for Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Beaz Avenue is suspended Site plan file 99-242 Deaz Mr. Schwaa: On September 28, 1999 I approved the site plan for an expansion of ihe Lincoln Pawn Shop and shortly afrer that our o�ce issued a buildina permit for this work. As we had previously discussed, Section 64300(j) of the Zoning Code states Yhat any person or organization can fcie an appeal within 30 days filing of any decision made by staff to approve or deny a site pfan. On September 28, 1999, the District 2 Planning Council filed an appeai of our decision to approve the site pian. They contend that Lincoln Pawn is a nonconforming use and therefore it cannot expand without approval from the Planning Commission. Appeals are heard at a public hearing at the the Planning Commission. You wili be notified of the heazing date and will be sent a copy of the staff report prior to the hearin�. Nancy Frick (651-266-6554) is the staff person who has been assigned to the case. The Zoning Code says that if permiis have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction must stop untii the Ylannin� Commission nas made a deYerminaYion of the appeal. Therefore, the permit issued for the espansion of Lincoln Pawn Shop is hereby suspended and construction must cease. If the Planning Commission denies the appeal, yoar permit wouid be reactivated. If the Pianning Commission approves the appeal, you could request a refund of your permit fee. Whatever decision the Planning Commission makes, an appeal coutd be fiied within 15 days to the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom Beach Zoning Specialist cc: Chuck Wiedemeyer Nancy Frick G:\L'SERSgEACHTO�f9T_J:api • . \ I • C� SAINT PAOL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL hbrm Colemar., bfayor September 28, 1999 David Schwarz Schwarz Construction 10961 32n Street N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 OFFICE OF LICEtiSE, ItiSPECT70: tS A.��D E�"VIROti`fE�?ALPROTECTtOV � O _ 'i, ` Roberl Kessle�. Diretlor 1 � LOWRY PROFFSS10N.1L Telephone: 651-?65-9090 BUILDING Facsimile: 612-266-9099 Suire 300 612-26b-91?: 3S0 St. Pete� St�eet SaintPaul,dlinnesara 55f0?-I510 RE: Approval of site plan 99-242 Addition to Lincola Pawn Shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue Deaz Mr. Schwarz: City staff have reviewed the site pian for the proposed addition to Lincoln Pawn and found it to be in conformance with City ordinances: — When Lincoln Pawn was established on this property, pawn shops did not require Special Condition Use Permit. The zonin� code was amended in November 1996 to require Special Condition Use Permiu for pawn shops and amended again in Apri1 1999 to add a condition that pawn shops must be at least 150 feet from residentially zoned property. The use of this property as a pawn shop is conforming since pawn shops are sti11 allowed under the B-3 zoning for the property. However, the structure is nonconforming because it does not met the recently adopted setback requirement. But accordin� to Section 62.1 Q2(e)(2) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, nonconfomiing structures with conforming uses may be enlazged so long as such enlargement does not increase its nonconformity. Construction of this addition _ meets the requirement because it is not built closer to the residential properiy line than the existing building. — Section 64.300.m.2 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code says that when a use that requires a Special Condition Use Permit expands its floor area by 50% or more it must obtain a new Special Condition Use Permit. "Ihe existing pawn shop building covers 1339 squaze feet. The proposed expansion covers 658 squaze feet which is 49.14% of the floor area of the existing building. Therefore the expansion does not require a Special Condition Use Permit_ Please note that the 50% expansion provision is cumulative. Therefore the floor area of any future expansion proposal would be added to the 658 square feet of the current expansion and the total of these areas �vould be compared to the 1339 square feet of the existing structure. Therefore, site plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Site impro�•emenfs Ttie proposed addition and aII other site improvements must be installed as shown on the approved site pian. This includes closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Beaz Avenue, restriping the parkin� lot and new landscaping. 2. Sanitary setirer The exisYing sanitary sewer will go under the new addition. It �nust therefore conform to the standards of the Plunnbing Code. Call Tom LeClaire at 651-266- 9051 if you have questions. 3. Roof drains The roof of the addition must drain to the south side of the building. 4. Oufside storage No outside storage is permitted. 5. Permits The City permits listed below are required for the work shown on the approved site plan. - Building permit A permit from Building Inspections (6S 1-266-9007) is required. - Sidewalk permit Remot•in� ttte existing drtveway in the Larpenteur pub2ic right-of- way must be done by a licensed contractor under a pennit from Public Works Sidewalk Section {651-266-6120). • 6. Time limit and inspection �Vork covered by this site plan must be completed no later than • 9/24/00. A site inspection will be scheduled based on this date. 7. Appeals The approval of this site plan by staff is subj ect to approval to the Planning Commission. An appeal may be filed any time within 30 days of the date of this letter. If an appeal is filed, a public hearing wiIl be scheduled at the Planning Commission. If pemuts for this project have been approved prior to an appeal being filed, all work on the project must stop until the Planning Commission rules on the appea2. If you have any questians, you can reach me at 651-266-9086 (phone), 651-266-9099 (fax) or tom,beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us (e-mail). Sincerely, Tom Beach Zoning Specialist cc: Sewer Division, PIanning Division, Traffic Division, District 2 Planning Councii G.\[:SERSBEACHTO?i�99_t:app.wpd . �• APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW � OFFICE OFLICE�ti'CE, I.�SPECj'I��.S'�,4�� ENY7RO.�ibfE:�'TAL PROTECTIbti� 3.i 0 SI. Peter Street, Srrite 300 Saint Paul, tbT.�'S.i102-I.i10 266-9086 APPLICANT/ Name, CONTACT PERSON ;.' :�, 1 . • - �,�� ' Name of owner (if diffe '�' ,, Address 1 - i' • • ; ,._-.. - PROJECT INFORMATION ApplicanYs signature ��1.1 12 t5 cz ir a Project name/descriptio u1 Address/Location f� �G, �"! -r ��•/! ,��•—P Legal description: Sec l', Le, c (attach additional sheet if necessary) Estimate� cost ��°� SFAF.F USE ONLY � . . . . _ _ . : ': P{anning LJistrici' Z Zoning �-3 Land lise g FE�story �S - Revizwed by Comrtients: '. � ` - G - ,°daXSt�' f �.rr esy j�.f'' G"✓i✓ _ •: � ,�s{ ,�� '� P,�S � �� °: €39l�1!S9oeaaot? s4F� i�: .. �ct�Ck�I�c fL�l. �� ,: - _ ,. s. c ,_. . . ; . ... ,,, . , >. . (a(tachaddrionsFsheefsifnseessary} -- :-:--:<,--_..;: Bondfle#ter of credit/escrow 5 FaFe '?' '� SiEe pfan epproved by Date :°'` , .;, ;.. , > .: _ . _ _ :. Wark ab�roved bv " _ _ Date ::;:: . . _ o�-��\ Zoning office use only SPRr - Z`� Fee 7�Z-5 J`.�` Steff ineef'� da:e: ° `� Z Z City age � G'ff =- � Daytime phone� S'og -�G�� Fax ��"' 7'�7- o��Q G➢.1JSC O-1�- � D��n.. .-� , � G �, �I , M � � � a � A � M � b Rl Q �m �x " G� m,� �. �X. S4h��t7 SOWe.e SeYV'.�a. � ��'�. CJi{� Yu� / Vl�� 6�.IM. 'Sah•tsrr icWa" IMNSf W+.t� p�uM,6�� o�t. $'�o�S W{O.rc i� W�l/ jse. Uh�W G.�.�v�. �° . _.'_.':'_ .�'t25 -•-' . _ _ _. � .! � n �� ; __ i � , 4D r � ll 0 .� �k �� s �� 0 ` �� " c ��. � � �. �� n s � � . � a-�� L. b ~ fi r � � � -� � - .... _.. ... � ._..:..�-.• _ . . . . _ ='��.-��. ..w �! r � � i P � � r� U �c -l�l • � �. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. SUNRAY•BA'ITLECREEK-HIGHW OOD HA�EL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTIY HILLCREST WEST SIDE llAYTON'S BLUFF PAYNE-PHALEN I�IORTH END THOMAS-DAT.E SUMMIT-UTIIVERSITY WEST SEVENI�I COMO HAMLINE-MIDWAY ST. ANTHONY PARK MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAhiLINE-SNELLING HAA1L�.�L MACALESTER GROVELAriD HIGHLAND SUMMIT HILL DOWN"I�OWN � Q�'-2�5' CrfIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS �. J � ��}��3� ��.� '?� • DISTRIC7 2 aN � '� �' �� •� � ;REATER EAST SIDE ::.� �H �ER �-i�t i a'�' o�� , ,; ; '; � � '� �� -- ��c;o'oja`;o:o�c o.o 0 CA�(FvRN1A � 'O i0'�!a`�:O � „ —i _, . __ � o a : �o�o;o � �.4,0 00000000000 � 0000c.000acoo 0000000000 o'o o�o � c `o o O.U;G�� }O � � .. ee ��3 a � n o ,o o,o' , � , � v_� , �� o � � � u ._ � `i , � a � i � . J �i0 a O O G O O O O U O O O ; Of010C� OOOt> � O � � �IQ';OiOIG! „�'� [ O,Gj�;0�0 O'O!O O O'O O(O�O•Q;Oj01 {2 � i_ � . . . : . : . _� __ , ' � ;� � + �� P�uc�,r�r is �i • ,2� Gh��tct,K� ��=N��ti t -�— � ,�� ' � zonu�g d�sirict t�undary • ,'.: �� DA7E �r� suSjzclpro?'-•�Y '�NG. DiST � h.1A° ;: o one Sa,;,ily � t� ... Y h.•;o (d:�ily . � �-_:._ k¢� multi�l?lamit� `f � �� l� � n Y \ � } c Z � _ _ � �� L nor,r;� • � ^ comm=:dz' � i 0 �.c iC7'JUS!.'i:' i �' vzca�: ; �o� �o;o�oio� o �ao�o�o; d I Q I plflloiol o I q i� I 4' I—"—I 1 t�l � I�l �la�°�� o 0 0� o 23-29-2 2 — } � t i � � � -- �� rr... 'o .� � ..� � 60 ' i 6p � --•• 93.�f5••-.._ , 60 + (4J 2 9. 67 7 /2 zD --• C 8 � � � � � � (S) �X ITSO {y � �� '�o � � . � �. �""' ° � I �� r.l !ro �I o° �M a ° Im ° � '~ °� ��i � (0= m �I +� Ni I� fv � � �' (�so) � x � �1 .+�I I + � �� I , ry _ _ I � _C_ /33�1 _ � J� � --� 78 � /_3.25 � 133_2� I � /33.� � � � �} T 1,, � 1 et -/soJ��.�5 �—`_. �� t '� 090 �� I � +`" I '� � � ' �' N X � . � f o x 0/ � O 23n y , � y ta � 28o I. ? ZOD I� Z!0 ` 0/ o I,b 4i � �' a� �c� (Q!/ ' � �N 3 D '� f`' ( 2 p�� m �I l,, {� . (�) ' �°) � �� i �z) � �u) ; i74 k) I � � �� '•� T SC „ 0 C ��) �Z� (�) � $ I 4 3 �� So so.tz s� ry O J ; (>> Cz6� . A Z � /�� v • r Zz, � D �� 9� i� lBO � 0 37c �N oj a� �:2 I � ° j� �g1 ; � �9o;_L----c9o�---- 4 (,P � ' C 28 � �29� �- py 2 f �'�°) �3i� t48� N � ._--- zae. Fs -.._, � — _ Ct/2o� '; 1� _"'� _� _ _ n; � ,�; � . i �rsr� (i5z� �� `-1 j33 � 33 � x � h �:f a�•ti c�1 �N �b G � ��i'�!��:.�I ��t� "t5 �(4 1�$ � I� 11 � ID � 9 i 9! 7 j 6 � 5 I 4 I 3 2� J Q� � • � l".9CRTE0 /Z !'« # /32 6.' 9 n� � I �1' ! ? �✓ r r � �'� ' Pi� y � � � �35} ••• •-� �n �n OA O/ 94 9Z . "JL I ^C , „L 7T 7Q ?Q �1 � � • • �- 31 Prr�posed Expansion 1675 VVhite Bear o�-i�t \ I�istances from residentially zoned property ,. < , ; . - . �Nhite Beax Avenue -� 3 1 RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY 'I760 LARPENTEUR I"" W W � � � Proposed Expansion 1675 White Bear �'O -�``� Distances from residentially zoned praperty at 1760 Larpenteur Proposed Expansion Existing Building 1675 White �ear � � � � � � � � � � � i 25 �� '��TI V�hite Bear Avenue ��1 �o -1v` Proposed expansions should not increase the nonconformity of the nonconforming structure RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY � �� -�`�� g�7CI��7C � �(.�I�J[��JI�T��Y (��J�T��, SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF NORTHEASTERN SAINT PAUL PARKWAY/GREENBRIER � BEAVER LAKE HEIGHTS PROSPERITY HEIGHTS � HAYDEN HEIGHTS PHALEN VILLAGE � LINCOLN PARK Ens7 P�i� • HazeL Pnizx FROSi LeucE • Hi[.LCxPSr January 3, 2000 Council President Bostrom 320 C City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: Lincoln Pawn's appeal of the Plaxuung Commission's Resolution 99-74, denying the proposed enlargement of the building at 1675 White Bear, which houses Lincoln Pawn Dear Councii President Bostrom and members of the Council, The District 2 Community Council urges you to support the decision of the Zoning Committee and the Planning Commission by denying the appeal of Lincoln Pawn to expand the structure at 1675 White Beas Avenue. In the December 8, 14491etter that accompanies the appeai, Mr. Fabel, the attorney from Linquist and Vennum, does a very good job of confusing a relatively simple issue. The issue in front of the Council is the interpretation of Section 62.102 (e) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code: Section 62.102 (e) of the zoning code provides that a nonconforming sh may be enlarged or aitered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformitv. a. The building at 1675 White Bear, that houses Lincoln Pawn, is a nonconforming structure in accordance with the zoning code definition of a nonconforming building: "A lawfui building existing on the effective date of the adoption (October 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that does not now comply with the area, width height, yazd, percent of lot coverage, or other regulations concern bulk or location on the lot, or spacing requirement from another use, off-street parking ar loading requirements, or other regulations of the district in which it is located." The building existed lawfully prior to the effective date of the pawn shop ordinance, Apri127, 1999, but it does not now compiy with the spacing requirement which went into effect on that date. The nroposed enlar�ement of 1675 White Bear increases the nonconfornuty associated with the shucture. The zoning code requires that a pawn shop "is separated, fi�om residentially zoned property either by a public street or by a distance of one hundred fifty (1 SO) feet measured from the building wall of the 1961 SHExwooD AVENUF • Snn.T PAUL • MN • 55119-3230 • PHONE: (651) 774-2220 • FaY: (651) 774-2135 �,0-1�{� pawn shop to the nearest lot Zine of the residentially zoned property; " All four walls of 1675 White Bear aze within one hundred fifty feet of the neazest lot line of the residentially zoned property at 1760 Larpenteur. The proposed enlazgement of the structure at 1675 White Bear is entirely within the one hundred fifty (150) feet required buffer of the residenfially zoned properiy. Section 60.534.6 attempts to create a buffer of one hundred fifty (150) feet from buildings that house pawn shops and residentially zoned properiy. To build anyrvhere within the one hnndred fifty (150) feet buffer is increasing the nonconformity of the structure and violates the intent of 62.102(e). b. The proposed expansion of the siructure to the south increases the number of properkies within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the struchxre that houses a pawnshop and thereby increases the nonconformity of the structure. The zoning code requires that pawn shops be sepazated from residentially zoned properiy either by a public street or a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the neazest lot line of the residentially zoned property. The structure at 1675 VJhite Bear is 57 feet from one residentia� zoned pro�ertXat 1760 Larpenteur If the proposed expansion is approved the shucture will be one hundred fo ,-eight (148�feet from the residentially zoned properta at 1749 Califomia that, currently, is one hundred fifty-rivo and one half (152.5) feet from the nearest building wall. The building at 1675 White Bear is nonconforming because of its setback from residentially zoned property. To increase the number of properties that the nonconforming structure is nonconforming to is increasing its nonconformity and clearly not within the spirit of Section 62.102 (a). Lincoln Pawn's Counsel would have you believe a structure has not increased its nonconformity unless it violates its worst encroachment to its neazest neighbor's properiy. In his letter he proposes that "straight line expansion" should be allowed, so that if your neighbor's attached three-season porch is within two feet of your attached garage then your neighbor has the right to build his new recreation room within two feet of your bedroom window. Worse, he contends, and staffls initial approval of the site plan would indicate, that is how staff has been interprering the code! In Lincoln Pawn's case it would appear that this inteipretation of the code is being taken to also mean that if you violate the setback requirements toward one neighbor, you have the right to violate the setback requirements to all of your neighbors. Clearly the code is there to protect the adversely affected neaghbor and the Board of Zoning Appeals exists to mediate these situations. �o - (�-E ` Ttiroughout this process, Counsel for Lincoln Pawn has not offered one case of precedent where the City Council has determined that a nonconforming structure can expand in the required set back azea without a variance from the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. He implies that somehow some undocumented staff decision has taken away your ability to create precedent on the interpretarion of the code. There is no precedent on this issue, or Counsel for Lincoln Pawn would site it. Both the Zoning Committee and the Plauuing Commission have detemiiued that anyone who wants to build in a required setback azea should be required to seek a variance from the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. The District 2 Community Council would a�ee that is the proper interpretation of the code and where this case belongs. Finally, Counsel for Lincoln Pawn suggests that they aze being treated unfairly because of the nature of their business. We grow tired of attomeys who argue that because the business or clientele are less then popular they deserve special treatment. Or, that logic should be thrown out the window because it is coming from mere neighbors. The use of the expansion is not at issue, only that the structure is nonconforming and it is being proposed to be more nonconforming. Lincoln Pawn's proposal that they should be allowed to encroach on their neighbors' properiy rights in exchange for an agreement that they not sell guns is among the most insulting that we haue heard. To use the threat o£ gun sales as a way of enticing the Council to set poor public policy is beneath contempt. We accept that Lincoln Pawn is a lawful use and that they have for years bought weapons over the counter. We have no desire to allow these kinds of property rights infringements to become accepted public policy in exchange for this kind of blaclanail. Again, the District 2 Community Council urges you to support the only clear, concise and logical interpretation of the code by supporting the decision of the Planning Commission and denying the appeal of Lincoln Pawn. Sincere , � Chuck Repke Community Organizer Disirict 2 Community Councii CC Council Members ORIG�NA[. WHEREAS, on September 28, 1999, the District 2 Community Council duly filed an appeal from the Zoning Administrator's site plan approval pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64300(j); and �1 Presented By Refened To WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Commission] conducted a public hearing concerning the District 2 Community Council's appeal on October 28, 1999, after having provided notice to affected property owners and at the conclusion of the public hearing moved to recommend to the full Commission that the appeal of Aistrict 2 be gzanted; and 2 WFIEREAS, on September 1, 1999, pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning 3 Code, David Schwarz, d/b/a Schwazz Construction, made application to the Saint Paul Zoning 4 Administrator for approval of a site plan for a proposed addition to the Lincoln Pawn Shop 5 located at 1675 White Beaz Avenue, legally described as follows: Kerwin's Outlots to the City 6 of St. Paul, Minn. Subj to Rd in Doc No. 2708457; the Fol N 133 ft of E 125 ft of Lot 1; and 7 8 WHEREAS, by letter dated September 28, 1999, the proposed site plan was approved as 9 contained in Zoning File 99-242; and 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 WHEREAS, on November 5, 1999, the Commission, approved the recommendation of the Zoning Committee and granted the District 2 appeal based upon the following reasons set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-74: On September 28, 1999, the Office of License, Inspecrions and Council File # 00 � � y � Green Sheet # � � �3� � RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date Environmental Protection (LIEP) by letter issued approval of a site plan far a proposed addifion to Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Bear Avenue, subject to conditions including closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Beaz Avenue, re-striping the parking lot and new landscaping. The letter approving the site plan noted that the proposed addition was in conformance with City ordinances. 2. On September 28, 1999, District 2 Community Council filed an appeal of LIEP's decision, ciaiming LIEP erred in its interpretation of Sections 62.102 and 64300 of the zoning code and the requirements of the new pawn shop ordinance. Section 62.102 of the zoning code addresses nonconfornung lots, uses of land, structures, and uses of land and structures. Section 62.102(e) provides that a nonconfornung structure may . z - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 be enlazged or altered so long as such enlargement or alterarion does not 00 —l�k� increase its nonconformity. Section 64300 provides for plamuug coxnxnission and planning or zoning adtninistrator approvals. The applicable provisions of the new pawn shop ordinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) of the zoning staff report dated October 21, 1999. 3. LIEP erred in the interpretation of Section 62.102(e) that the expansion did not increase the nonconformity of the nonconfonning structure. The nonconformity of the structure was increased either by increasing the amount and azea of residentially zoned properry within one hundred fifty (150) feet impacted or affected by the increase in the size of the nonconforming structure or by increasing the nonconforming square footage from 1339 square feet to1997 squaze feet and therefare is not allowed without a variance. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, on December 8, 1999, Lincoln Pawn duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a public hearing before the Saint Paul City Council for the purposes of considering the action taken by the Commission; and 22 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64.206 -§ 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, 23 a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council [Council] on January 5, 24 2000, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and of the Planning Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council affirms the decision of the Commission in this matter based and adopts as its own the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Plamzing Commission as contained in Planning Commision Resolution No. 99-74. The Council finds that the proposed expansion further encroaches into an azea intended to separate a commercial use from residential uses and that such an expansion violates the legislatiave intent behind seperation requirements, a problem not solved by application of linear distance measurements; and be it ORI�INAL 1. . 00 �t�4\ z 3 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Lincoln Pawn be and is hereby denied; and 4 be it 5 6 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Mr. 7 Chuck Wedemeyer (Lincoln Pawn), the Zoning Admiiustrator, the Plamziug Commission and the 8 District 2 Community Council. ORlG1NAL Aequested by Department of: By: Form Appro}� d by City Attorney By: �l.�i�� "'WVL`ct— 't.� �VO Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY � �c'-'� �'\��, �o By: Approved by Mayor� Date c�Z/�€fC�� B �.�✓.s� G�G�i'� � Adopted by Council: Date ,�j .��p_� D�C Adoption Certified by Council Secretary ***�**�**�**+ -COMM.JOURNRL- *�*�**�x��orox�*w�* DRTE FEB-11-2909 �** TIME 10=46 �� P.01 MODE = MEMORY 7RRNSTiISSI�I FILE NO.= 167 N0. COM RBHR/NTLAC STfiTION tJRMEi TEL.FPHONE N0. STRRT=FEB-11 10�42 ENI�FEB-11 10�46 PRGES PRG.M7. PROC+RF'd1 NRFIE 001 OK . 69099 �2i002 -City oi Saint Pau1 - �� {ity Councii - � - 651 266 8574- �� 7 . 5 6 7 8 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 be enlazged or altered so long as such enlargement or a]teration dces not O o-l4� inciease its nonconfoimity. Section 64300 provides for planning commission and planning or zoning administrator approvals. The applicable pro�isioas of ihe new pawn shop oxdinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) of the zoning staff report dated October 21,1999. 3. LIEP eaed in the inteipretation of Section 62.102(e) that the expansion did not increase the nonconfomuty of the nonconforming shucture. The nonconformity of the strucnue was increased either by increasing the amount and azea of tesidentially wned propexty within one hundred fifty (150) feet impacted or affected by the increase in the size of thc nonconfozming structure or by increasing the nonconforming squaze footage from 1339 squsre feet to1997 square feet and thereforc is not allowed without a vaziance. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Yaul Legislative Code § 64206, on December 8, 1999, Lincoln Pawn duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and xequested a public heazing before the Saint Paul City Council for the pu�poses of considering the action taken by the Commission; aad WT�EEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64.206 -§ 64Z08, aad upon notice to affected parties, a public heazing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council (Council] on January 5, 2000, where all imerested pazties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREA3, the Council, having heazd the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the 7.oning Committee and of the PU nnino Commissioq docs hereby; I2ESOLVE, that the Council a�rms the decision of the Commission in this matter based and adopu as its own the fmdings, coaelusions and recommmdations of the Planning Commission as comained in Pl annin Commision Resolution No. 99J4. The Council finds that the proposed expansion fiuther eneroaches inW an area intended to separate a commercial use fmm residential uses and fliat such an expansion violates The legislariave intent behind seperation requirements, a pmblem not sotved by application of lineaz distance me-asurements; and be it ORIGINAL Ob..� �{� ci GREEN SHEET I �'�� No �� Peter Warner TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES ooui�rowcerae antoiasi ❑ rnrwTroucr ❑ arcaituc ❑n�14xu�LtElku�cESOR ❑RIIWew.aFR1nACCro ❑ WYORIORAfLfTMR) ❑ (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memorializing the decision of the City Council on January 5, 2000, denying the appeal of I.incoln Pawn to a decision of the Planning Commission granting the appeal of the Distric[ 2 Community Council of the Zoning Administrator`s approval of a site plan for expansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue. PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITfEE CIViI SERVICE COMMISSION When. ties this ae�� everwuked uMer a mMract ra mie departmem? VES NO Hae this P�mt fl�er been a aty empbyee9 YES NO Does tMS P�� P� a sldll nd iwnna�yP�d bY anY wrreM city emPbYee? YES NO IS Nit peraoNfirm a tergetetl vendoYt VES � etlach to arem sheH C i°JLa?s,p,�y �452�:?,,°df � !s�?1�9C �� Q OF TRANSACTION eosrmEVaue suots�o (c�aaF onel YES NO SOURCE ACTIVRY NUMBER INFORMATON (EJfPWl� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nasm Coleman, Mayor February 7, 2000 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal by Lincoln Pawn Shop Zoning Resolufion 99-242 City Council Motion of Intent: January 5, 2000 Dear Nancy: OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY Q O _,�' Clayton M Robinsan, Jr., City Attorney CivilDivirion 40D City Ha1[ TeZephone: 651 266-8710 ISWestKelloggBlvd Facsimile:651298-5619 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Attached please find a signed Resolution memorializing the City Council's Motion of Intent to deny the appeal by Lincoln Pawn of a planning commission decision to deny Lincoln Pawn's site plan application for properiy located at 1675 White Beaz Avenue. Please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Peter W.�a e�� Assistant City Attomey t� +• ^�k��p^�'��"°� ;i':�: , �, s,. PWW/rmb Enclosure � �' � :v�v�� DEPAR"I'MENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT oa-t�E( 3( _ CI'TY OF SAII�IT PAUL Norm Colem¢n, Mayo> December 14, 1999 Division of Plarming 25 West Fourth Street SamtPaul, MN55701 Telephone: 612-266-6565 Facsimi7e 612-228-3314 Ms. Nancy Anderson �� "��'"=`' �'°'� CiTy Council Reseazch Office xoom s io c�ri xan �EC �, �#�99 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: �o�� I would like to c nfirm that a public heazing before the CiTy Council is scheduled for Wednesday, January 5, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision granting an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan. -.. Appellant: LINCOLN PAWN File Number: #99-178-640 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision granting the appeal of District 2 Community Council of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop. Address: 1675 White Beaz Avenue; (west side between Larpenteur and Califomia) f Legal Description of Property: Kerwin's Outlots to the City of St. Paul, Minn. Subj to Rd in Doc No. 2708457; the Fol N 133 ft of E 125 ft of Lot 1 Previous Actian Planning Commission Recommendation: approvat of appeal; vote: 14-2, November 5, 1999 Zoning Committee Recommendation: approval of appeal ; vote: 3-2, October 28, 1999 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the December 22, 1999 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6554 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �a,�c,cc�.,'�i Nancy Frick City Planner cc: File #99-178-640 Paul Dubruiel Carol Martineau Wendy Lane, LIEP •�srmm• NOTICE OF PFtBLIC HEARING The Saint Paul City Counclj wAt condnct apublic hearing on Wednesday, January�5. 2000, at 5:30 p.m.3n the City Council Ch�mbers, Thiid Floor, City Ha11- Courthouse,to consider the appeaI of Llncoln Pawn to a decision of the Planning Commission granting the appeal of the District 2 Community Council of the Zo nina Admuustrator's approval of a site plan for the eicpansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White BeazAvenue. Dated: December 14, 1999 NANCYANDERSON ��" � Assist'ant Ciiy Cuundt Seczetary _ . . . (Dec..16) . � - =�ST, �PAiU.7 E(iAL I.�G88 �-=_ DEPARTMENT OF PLA�IING & ECONOM[C DEVELOPMENT Briarz Sweeney, Director • crrY oF sa�rr pauL, Norm Co[eman, Mayar December 29. 1999 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 Ciry Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 25 West Fourth Street Saint Pau[. M,ti 5� 102 RE: Zoning File #99-178-64Q: LINCOLN PAWN (Chuck Wedemeyer) City Council Hearing: January 5, 2000, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers p0-1�S � Telephone: 6�1-266-66?6 Facsim ile: 65l-228-339 / PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision granting the appeal of the District 2 Community Council of a Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVAL OF APPEAL; vote: 14-2 ZONRQG COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL OF APPEAL; vote: 3-2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION DEIVIAL � SUPPORT: Two (2) persons spoke. One letter. The District 2 Community Council was the appellant to the site plan approval. , OPPOSITION: Two (2) persons spoke. Dear Ms. Anderson: �J LINCOLN PAWN has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to grant the appeal by the District 2 Community Council of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue. Tlle Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on October 28, 1999. The appellanYs representatives addressed the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 3-2 to recommend granting of the appeal. The Planning Commission upheld the Zonin� Committee's recommendation to grant the appeal on a 14-2 vote on November 5, 1999. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 5, 2000. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. The appeal packet is attached. Sincerely, `� �� Nancy Frick Ciry Planner Attachments cc CiTy Council Members Chuck Wedemeyer, LincoVn Pawn Tom Fabel, Lindquist and Vennum Peter Warner Wendy Lane District 2 Community Council File #99-178-640 ao-��i � • � city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 99-74 date November 5, 1999 WT�EREAS, DISTI2ICT 2 COMMLTNITY COLTNCIL, file #� 99-275, has, under the provisions of Section 64300(j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, appealed the approval of a site plan by the Zoning Administrator for the expansion of a pawn shop on properry at 1675 White Bear Avenue, legally described as follows: Kerwin's Outlots to the City of St. Paul, Minn. Subj to Rd in Doc No. 2708457; the Fol N 133 ft of E 125 ft of Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, held a public hearing on 10/28/1999 at which all persons present were given an opporhinity to be heazd pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public heazing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: On September 28, 1999, Tom Beach, Zoning Specialist with the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) by letter issued approval of a site plan for a proposed addition to Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Beaz Avenue, subject to a set of conditions including closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Beaz Avenue, restriping the pazking lot and new landscaping. In the letter approving the site plan, Mr. Beach noted that the proposal was in conformance with City ordinances. This letter is attached to the zoning staff report, dated October 21, 1999. 2. On September 28, 1999, the District 2 Community Council filed an appeal of this decision, stating as grounds for their appeal an error by staff in its interpretation of Sections 62.102 and 64300 of the zoning code and in requirements of the new pawn shop ordinance. 5ection 62.102 of the zoning code provides for nonconforming lots, nonconforming uses of land, nonconforming structures, and nonconforming uses of moved by Gervais seconded by in favor 14 (Nowlin Abstained) against 2 (Duarte, Faricy) �o-t�� • Z.F.#99-275 Page 2 of Resotution structures and land. Section 64.300 provides for planning commission and planning or zoning administrator approvals. The applicable provisions of the ne�� pawn shop ordinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) of the zoning staff report dated October 21, 1999. 3. The Zoning Administrator erred in the interpretation of Section 62.102(e) that the expansion did not increase the nonconformity of the nonconforming structure at 1675 White Beaz Avenue. By increasing the azea of the structure within the nonconforming setback from the neazest residentially-zoned property line, the nonconformity of the structure is increased and therefore is not allowed without a variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Cade, the appeal by the District 2 Community Council is hereby granted. C� � 80-1�{� • Saint PauI Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 5, 1999, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, McCall, Morton and Nordin Present: and Messrs. Corbey, Dandrea, Fotsch, Gervais, Gordon; Johnson, Kramer, Nowlin and Shakir. Commissioners Mmes. M and Messrs. *Field, *Kong, *Mardell and *Margulies Absent: *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Donna Drummond, Amy Filice, Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Nancy Homans, Allen Lovejoy, Larry Soderholm, Joel Spoonheim, Brian Sweeney, Lucy Thompson, Altan Torstenson, James Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; and Wendy Lane, Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection. • I. Approval of Minutes of October 22, 1999 MOTION: Commissioner Kramer moved approval oJthe minutes of October 22, I999; Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements Mc Ford announced that just before the Planning Commission's last meeting, the City Council adopted two additionat special sign districts which they have referred to the Planning Commission: 1) Hamline Midway; and 2) Merriam Park. Also, the City had just lost one case concerning billboards to Scenic Minnesota. The couR decided that billboards on Grand Avenue and Highland Village that the City had said cou(d be replaced because of storm damage to the sign surface themselves, shoutd not have been allowed. This week the City Council adopted the 1994 Large STAR Loans and Grants. There were a few modifications, but Mr. Ford �vas not sure of what they were. They will be reported later. _ Last week Mr. Ford gave a report to the Csty Council, following on cases involving trucking facilities and zonina for trucking facilities, and also following discussion at the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan related to the use of industrial land for trucking faci{ities. The City Council had requested that PED prepare a report on possible amendments to the Zoning Code that woutd do a better job of protecting residential neighborhoods from the adverse impact of • trucking facilities on adjacent properiy, and that subsequent to that report they would ask the Planning Commission to complete the study and recommend amendments to them. This last C9�—I't\ � week, the City Council started the process of instituting a moratorium on additional permitting for trucking faci(ities unti( that study is done. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Chair Morton had no announcements. IV. Recognition of Ken Ford's Retirement Mr. Tom Harren announced that Mr. Ken Ford's official last day in the office will be Thursday, November 18, 1999. Consequently, this is the last Planning Commission meeting where Ken wi{i be serving as the Planning Administrator. Tom shared with the Commission some thoughts and reflections on Ken's work in PED, and indicate some of the appreciation the PED staff has for the great work that he has done. In the past three years that Tom has worked very closely with Ken. In addition to it being a very enjoyable experience, it has also been very much a learning experience for Tom. Ken has made Tom aware of some things in planning and development that have been very valuable. Ken has become a very important part of PED, and his leaving will be a great loss. PED has benefitted from Ken in many ways. First, he brings a tremendous amount of knowledge to the job. He has been able to provide some insight into things simply because he is very knowledgeable. This has come about because Ken has taken continued extra steps to keep . himself educated. Secondly, his experience in workin� in planning and development issues has set the foundation for planning for many of the last years. Finally, and probably the most important thing and the most significant contribution that Ken has made to PED is how he has shared his knowledge and his experience �vith the other staff: AII of the planners and other PED staff have come to depend on Ken for the knowledge and experience that he has. Ken has always been witling to share that knowtedge and experience with the other staf£ He has served as a mentor and advisor to many of the planners, and he has served as a mentor and advisor to Tom over the tast three years, and Tom is very appreciative. While Ken's leaving will be a tremendous Ioss to both PED and the Planning Commission, Tom is sure that Yhe Commission shares with his wishing Ken the very best as he takes an opportunity to start a new venture in his Iife. Other events that will take place within the next couple of weeks to continue to show Ken PED's and the Ciry's appreciation for the work he has done include: 1) a presentation at 3:3� p.m. at the City Counci! on November 17; 2) a party on November 19 at the Town and Country Club beginning at 530 p.m; and 3) a reception to be held Wednesday, November 17, from 9:30 - 11 a.m. at the Saint Paul City Ha(1 Conference Center, Room 40B. Tom extended his appreciation, personally, to Ken for the help he has given him in the last three " years, and on behalf of PED, for the work that he has given over the many years that he has been with PED and with the Planning Commission. Chair Morton read the Planning Commission resolution honoring Mr. Ford, and she added her own personal thanks to someone has been a pleasure to worS: with, has ahvays been helpful, has , �o -t�l • . a(�vays been cheerful, and ahvays been there to help. Mr. Ford noted that he has attended 425+ Planning Commission meetings. The Commission has worked through policy issues: 1) trudged through them with community groups; and 2) trudged throu�h them in committees. There's been Land Use, two major Comprehensive Plan Chapters, and many more studies of special issues, five major studies in housing, plus low income housing strate�ies, the various evolutions of neighborhood improvement pro�rams, at least three studies in transportation, library services, fire and emergency services, parks and recreation major studies, community service centers, swimming pools, child care, etc. The Commission has provided the forum and done the work to think through policy that ought to guide development of this city. Week and week and month afrer month, the Planning Commission has provided the forum where the ofren competing interests in the city come together over the issues that have to be resolved if those policies and directions that have been set are goin� to be realized in �vhat happens on the ground in our neighborhoods. Over and over again, people have found here a fornm where they are listened to that is fair and open and where there is a possibility of resolving issues based on some carefully thought out policy. Metal shredders, shops for guns or pawning, or sex, roads here and roads there, parking lots, building setbacks, more or ]ess historic structures and districts worthy of preservation, and the garage next door. Over and over a�ain, it's very difficult for this city and even for members ofthe Commission to realize the significance of the forum provided by the Planning Commission. Has it made a difference? Ken noted that last year he had an opportunity to take a group of Japanese city officials on a tour. As they were driving down Grand Avenue, a Japanese woman who's very familiar with cities in the United States because she lives in San Francisco (their tour guide), commented on how extraordinary lovely Grand Avenue was. She mentioned the apartment buildings, the consistent setbacks, the mixture of residential and commercial uses, etc. Ken couldn't help think, looking down Grand Avenue, that virtually every block has been touched by decisions of the Planning Commission. From Grand Avenue to Concord to Barge Channel Road to the riverfront, downtown, Payne Avenue, Phalen Village, South St. Anthony Park, University and Raymond, Raymond and Energy Park Drive, West Seventh Street, etc. You'd be hard put to find a corner in this city where the decisions the Planning Commission has worked through with citizens have not made a difference for the better in the quality of the fabric that were have in our community. Ken expressed that iYs 6een a tcemendous privilege to be a part of that for all this time. It has been an extraordinary privilege beyond what anyone has a right to expect for his career to have worked all this time with the colleagues he has had all this time in PED. It has been a great privilege to work with the leadership this city has had. It has been a very special privilege to work with generous citizens who have put so much effort and so much of their time and thought into the work of this Commission. Ken mentioned one commissioner, Anne Geisser, whose imprint is so many things he has mentioned, and who has been with the Commission so long, and has given extraordinary dedication and talent to many things. He congratulated her in advance on her departure from the Commission, since he �vil! not be here at that time. Mr. Ford stated that it has been a tremendous privilege to �vork with the leadership of the Planning Commission. iVo one has brought moze wilGn�ness to keep in touch on a week]y basis to keep the business of the Commission moving, more political savvy that s useful for this work, and a better combination of firmness and fairness in conductin� meetings than Gladys . �-,�� • Morton. Ken thanked the Commission for al1 the time they have had together, for a(t their hazd work and for being fun people to work with. MOTION: Con:nzissionzer Geisser moved approvat of the resolution l:onoring Mr. %n Ford; tJ:e resl of the P[anning Commission seconded t{ze motion which carried unanimously on a voice vate. V. Zoning Committee #99-236 US West Wireless - Special condition use permit to allow a cellular telephone antenna to be installed in the Oxford Street right-of-way, west side between Concordia and Carroll (Allan Torstenson, 266-6579). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was laid ovec to November 9, 1999. #99-247 Nationwide Groun-Acorn Mini Stora�e - Site plan revieiv for a proposed mini- storage facility located east of Case between A�ate and 35E (Tom Beach, 266-3086). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was Iaid over to November 4, 1999. #99-268 Pong Yun Kim - Special condition use permit with a modification of the required • setback from residential uses and a variance of required parking to allow a billiard hall at 681 Snelling Avenue North beriveen Van Buren and Blair (7ames Zdon, 266-6559). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was also laid over. #99-270 Esperanza Duarte - Rezoning from RM-2 to OS-1 to aliow a mixed use, residential and office services (one residentia] and two office units) at 550 Concord Street between Pa�e Street East and Curtice (dames Zdon, 266-6559). MOTION: Commissiofter Gervais moved to recommend approval of ihe rezoning from RM- 2 to O&I to nllow a mixed use, residential and office services (one residential ttnd two ojfice undts) at S50 Concord Street between Page Street Bast and Curtice wltich carried on a voice vote (Duarte abstnined). #99-272 Metro Airoort Commission - Special condition use permit to construct a dike to maintain access to businesses located off of Eaton Street during high water events at the south side of Eaton Street west of Highway 52 (Nancy Homans, 266-6557). Commissioner Gervais repoRed that Ulis case was laid over for six months. #99-273 Sonathan L. Faraci - Special condition use permit for the erection of a 90-foot telecommunications tower at 1296 Hudson Road (Nancy Frick, 266-6554). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was ]aid over to November 9 for more . 4 oa � � �E 1 � information. #99-275 District 2 Communitv Council Aoneal of an administrative decision approving Lincoln Pawn Site Plan at 1675 �Vhite Bear Avenue -(Nancy Frick, 266-6554). MOTION: Commissioner Gervais moverl to grant tl:e appeal of t1:e Aistrict 2 Community Council of trr: adn:inisirative decisiort approving Lincoltz Pawi: $'ite Plan at 167.i White Bear Avenue. Commissioner Faricy reported that she and Commissioner Field �vere the only two Zoning Committee members who disagreed with the findin�. Their first preference for this case was to lay it over for two weeks in order to give Mc Warner an opportunity to review it. Commissioner Faricy's ob}ection to the Committee decision was: Lincoln Pa�vn existed la�vfully prior to the effective date of the Pawn Shop Ordinance which went into effect on April 27, 1999. The code does not apply to this site plan. Staff found earlier that Lincoln Pawn does not fit the zoning definition of nonconforming use. A lawful use existing on the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code, but that is not now permitted in the district in which it is located. Pawn shops are permitted subject to special conditions in the B-3 zoning district. The spacing requirement which was added to the code in 1999 results in the structure being nonconforming, not the use. Therefore, staff found that the zoning code requirements for enlarging of a nonconforming use do not appfy to Lincoln Pawn. A(so, as long as the expansion is less than 50°/n, the code requires site plan approval, not a special condition use permit. In your packets this morning there's a letter from Mr. Fabel from Lindquist and Vennum in which � he specifies that the owner of the pawn shop is willing to make a commitment to the City that he wilt never allow the sale of firearms to occur at his business. Commissioner Gervais announced that in front of all commissioners today there is a substitute resolution different from the one in the packet that �vas mailed. Commissioner Kramer explained that the substitute reso{ution has the same conclusion, but was actually written by City Attorney, Peter Wamer. He added that the argument has been brought forward that if this pawn shop were to expand 1 inch to the west, it would not be allowed, but if it wants to expand 60 feet to the south, it's O.K. That does not seem to be consistent with the Planning Commission or the City Council when the 150 foot separation �vas instituted. The other thing that disturbs Commissioner Kramer is that in addition to increasing not only the amount of volame of the building within the 150 foot setback, that we have also, if we allow that expansion to occur, increased the number of properties that are no longer protected by the ' 1 SO foot buffer. Because the expansion travels further south, additional property is impacted. Another thing is that not only is the addition within the I50 foot area, but it is parallei to the existing residential property, so you've actually added volume of pawn shop directly parallel to the residential property. Previously, there was 40 or 50 feet of pawn shop that was parallel �vithin the 150 foot area. The addition, interestingly enough is 49.—% of the size of the property ' tl�at is immediately parallet. While he appreciates the applicanYs offer to not sell guns, he noted that this property has never sold guns. They only pa�vn guns; they sell them elsewhere. The Planning Commission cannot put conditions on building permits. If the o�vner of the property wants to do that, it's great, and Commissioner Kramer applauds him. Withottt a specia! condition use permit to amend, the Planning Commission cannot make that requirement. The . �� _+� � • City Attorney has also informed us that if we do put such a requirement on a permit, it is, unfortunately, only voluntary. State law prec{udes the Plannina Commission's ability to regulate gun sales above and beyond what state iaw altows the Planning Commission to do. Commissioner Gordon stated that he will be the firsf to acknowled�e that there are arguments on both sides, and that both sides have been well represented. He voted in favor of the appeal at Zoning Commirtee. It came down to the interpretation of the words, "increase its nonconforming," because Section 62.102(e) provides that a nonconformin� structure may be - enlarged or altered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. Is there an increase in the nonconformity as a result of the enlargement or • alteration? Commissioner Gordon asked commissioners to consider, hypothetically, a city street. On one side of the city street is a pawn sl�op; on the other side of the city street, say fifty feet away, you have a residential zoned area and residences. Norv, you expand the pawn shop one more block to the south. The residential area originally impacted by the pawn shop has now been expanded by one block. As originally built, iYs affecting the residents on the other side of the street. Once iYs expanded to take another city block to the south, you have impacted an additional residential area and if there are residences on that block, you have impacted additional residences. That's what happening here. IYs not going a block, but it is extending, and to the extent that it extends, it does impact on an additional area of residentially zoned property, and it does impact on additional residences all of which are within 150 feet. To Commissioner Gordon, that's one increase in the nonconformity. Also, they want to expand the size, square footage, from 1,339 sq. fr. to 1,997 sq. ft; that again, is an increase in the nonconformity. Because of these two nonconformities, there is a conflict with the provisions of • Section 62,1Q2(e). That is why Commissioner Gordon thinks the Zoning Committee's action was proper and he will vote for the motion to grant the appeal. Commissioner Nawlin noted that he is abstaining from the discussion and will not be voring on this matter. Chair Morton c]arified the motion by saying it is to support the Zoning Committee's decision to granT the appeal of District 2. Ms. Prick explained that she would not �vant to characterize that what Mr. Warner did was look at the lega( ramifications of this case, rather he tried to put the rationale of the Zoning Committee, as he understaod it, into better words in the resolution than staff had done, The motion on tke floor ta grant t/ie appeal of the District 2 Commurury Council of an administrative decision approving Lincoln Pawn site plan a11675 White Bear Avenue carried on a roll call vote nf I4 - 2(Duarfe, Faricy} wiil: I absiention (Nowlin). Reaort on Tobacco 5hons Zoning Studv -(Larry Soderholm, 266-6575). � Commissioner Gervais reported that this report was also laid over to November 9, 1999. Commissioner Gervais read the agenda for the next Zonin� Committee meeting to be held Tuesday, November 9, 1999: 1) U.S. Wireless, special condition use permit; 2) Nationwide Group-Acom Mini Stora�e, site plan review; 3) Pong Yun Kim, specia] condition use permit; 4) . oo-��t� • Jonathan L. Faraci, special condition use permit; 4) Herberger's, sign variance; 5) AT&T, special condition use permit; 6) AI-Arabi Hisham, nonconforming use permit; 7) Macalester College; and 8) the Tobacco Shops Zoning Study. VI. Comprehensir�e Pianning Committee Liaht Rail Transit in the Central Corridor - Study Findings and Recommendations, Adopt Resolution - (Ken Ford, Soel Spoonheim) MOTION: Co»:missioner Geisser movedfor approvnl ifte Liol:t Rail Transit Commit2ee's recomrrrendatio�: on Light Rail Trar:sit. Mr. Ford gave on short presentation on the committee recommendations. The committee has been on a very short time schedule and has done an efficient study. Mr. Ford walked through the conclusions and recommendations, beginning on page I 1 of the report. 1. A rivo-track light rail system connecting downtown Saint Paul and downtown Minneapolis can be accommodated well within the existing University Avenue right-of-way. 2. Properly designed and supported by related actions, a light rail transit line would likely make a very positive contribution to improvement and development goals for University Avenue and its adjacent communities, a contribution strongly supportive of key Comprehensive Plan policies. 3. �Vith careful planning and management, disruption of business on the Avenue can be kept to � a tolerable minimum during the period of construction. 4. It does not appear that light rail would likely make the same strong positive contributions to overall development on an Interstate-94 alignment that it can make on University Avenue. 5. If we proceed with steps toward the construction of light rail on University Avenue, or on other ali�nments, the City should play an active role and should ensure the following: a. The City should paRicipate sufficiently to complete work necessary for positioning Saint Paul high among the competitors for TEA-21 federal funding in 2003. This wouid include timely approval of an Environmental Impact Statement. b. Planning for station areas should begin as early as possible once the alignment question is answered. This is a strong recommendation from those in Minneapolis who are wrestling �vith the difficulty of simultaneous final engineering and station area plannin�. c. Cood design and quality for station areas and throughout the system is of the utmost importance. Comfort and pleasure for riders and ped�strians is one of the important attractions of liglit rail and readily perceived quality and comfort are important for the ' strongest contribution to transit and to the Avenue. d. Early and extensive communication with communities, properiy owners a�d interest groups along the route will be important for al1 design phases and broad participation will be needed in station area planning. e. In all decision and planning stages, attention should be given to the redevelopment ' resources, plans and tools that will provide for the greatest positive reinvestment impact at station areas. £ Lioht raii can contribute a great deal toward many city and neighborhood objectives, but to do that successfully it must be carefully designed wiih those objectives in mind. Alignment and station ]ocation choices are criticaL Throughout the planning process, . oa-«� • the focus should be on what we want to accompiish with light rail and how it can be designed to achieve that. Commissioner Geisser thanked the Light Rail Transit Committee for their di(igence in getting this done; they met every week. She shated her appreciation with the members of the Planning Commission who participated on the study. Commissioner Geisser tha�ked PED staff who worked double time to get this material to the Committee: I) Joel Spoonheim; 2) Allen Lovejoy; 3) Tom Harren; and 4) Ken Ford. She also thanked Commission members �vho attended one or both of the community meetings. The results are terrific; all are to be applauded. The Planning Commission has taken the initiative and has given the City's elected officials a document that they can go with. The Commission has given the opinion that this is where the it believes light rail should be and we better get on the train before it pulls out of station and we're not on it. Commissioner Geisser stated that the Planning Commission has done as instructed by the City Council; the Commission has examined what they asked and did all the reviews. Therefore, she resolved that the Saint Paul Pianning Commission adopts the report entitled Light Rail Transit on Universiry Avenue: A Review of the Potential dated November, 1999, and commends the information and conclusions and recommendations of this report to the Mayor and City Council. CommissionerNowlin added that in the end, the committee unanimous]y supported the document and recommendations that were produced. The repoct de(iberately does not get into the debate about University Avenue versus West 7`" Street The charge was to look at the Central Conidor. The report reaffirms what was done in the 80s about the planning for light rail • transit. The motion on tlzefloor approving U:e Comr�zittee's recommendations on LiglztRail Transit carried unanimously on a voice vote. VII. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee Commissioner Faricy reported that the l�ieighborhood and Current Planning Committee met on November 2, 1999. Eight commissioners were present. The Great Northern Corridor: A Communi Vision - Set public hearing (Dec. 3, 1999) MOTION. Commissioner Faricy moved to set a public hearing date ofDecember 3, I999, to review tlze public input regar�ting The Great Northern Corridor: A Community Vision, and refer the document and iestimony to the Neig/�borl:ood an�t Current Plannirxg Commdttee carried unanimously on a voice vofe. Chioolte Mexican Grill• Commerciai Development District -(James Zdon, 266-6559) �� Commissioner Faricy explained that the Grill has a beer and wine license at this time, but they want a liquor license in order to be able to serve margarita with their Mexican food. There's a cap on the number of Iiquor Iicenses that are awarded to each Ward in Saint Paul. The cap in Ward 3 where this restaurant is located is six. As a result, we are going to move this into a commercial development district. The City Charter provides for commercial development . �o-t�S • districts which are excepted from the cap on intoxicated liquor {icenses in each Ward. The Saint Paul Legislative Code provides an additional requirement that when the Ciry Council considers creating or expanding a district, the Planning Commission sha116e consulted for advice concernina the proposal_for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances. The proposed commercial development district is consistent with the recently adopted Land Use Plan, which states that fhe purpose of the plan is to promote a balance of land uses in the city to streno hen the city's tax base. The property is zoned B-2 where a restaurant and liquor license establishments are permitted. The Chipolte Mexican Grille is in the Highland Crossing building. The district counci! did approve and recommend this ]icense for the restaurant. They put one stipulation on it-that the license would be granted to the restaurant and not to the Highland Crossing company that owns the building. The chief manager of Highland Crossing LLC, Jim Stolpestad, has accepted that proposal. MOTION: Commissioner Faricy n:oved tkat the Planning Co»:mission report to the City Council tl:ai the proposed Commercinl Developn:ent Disirict is cot:sisient with tlte Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, and thaf the Planning Commission supports creation of the proposed dis[rict. Commissioner Kramer explained that he missed the meeting on this because he was in helping in the Ciry of Maplewood where they don't have a commercial development district, and they actually had to go before the voters to get permission to renew liquor licenses in the City of Maplewood. They had turned away three restaurants because they had run out of licenses. Commissioner Kramer noted that this is a very positive provision that Saint Paul has that allows • the City to do the right thing when it makes sense. He asked Commissioner Faricy if this proposed commercial development district is for the premises (physical area) of the restaurant orjust that particular restaurant. Commissioner Gordon asked if this commercial deveiopment district is just for the site iY is located at. Commissioner Faricy replied that it was. Commissioner Gordon asked if the Grille intends to serve other hard liquors in addition to margarita. Chair Morton responded that it would be lawful for them to serve any other liquors. Mr. Zdon added that it is his understanding that the only liquor they wi(l 6e serving wilt be pre-mixed margarita. Commissioner Gordon wondered whether there was another way to accomp]ish this without creating a special district. Mr. Ford replied that it would be extraordinary, at least, to put a special condition on requiring your favorite drink. He thinks that it's clear that the permission goes �vith the facility. If Chipolte moved out, someone else could come in and take advantage of it. Chair Morton asked Mr. Zdon to clarify that since this is a liquor license they could serve any liquor they wanted to serve. Mr. Zdon concurred. Commissioner Kramer asked if the commercial development district applied just to the premises of the restaurani or to the entire Highland Crossin�, Mc Zdon answered that it applies only to the premises of the restaurant. Commissioner Kramer asked if �vhoever leases the premises of ' the restaurant can apply for a separate liquor license. Mr. Zdon responded that was correct. Commissioner Nordin asked how it was possible to make part of a huilding a district. Commissioner Geisser replied that the Commission has done it before. At Sibley Ptaza, when Champs wanted to open a new Mexican Restaurant, the City gave that site permission to open . 00 -�� . Tlze n:otion on t/te floor carried unntzimous[y on a voice vote. West Side Flats Development Stratew - Presentation -(Lucy Thompson, 266-6578) Commissioner Faricy introduced Ms. Thompson, who introduced Brian Sweeney, Director of PED, �vho made the presentation. He stated that one of PEDs char�es over the past nine months has been to change the culture for development in the"City of Saint Paul. Mr. Sweeney feels that today we can celebrate a tremendous victory for the City of Saint Paul around the development strategy for the West Side Flats. This strategy is a result of a 12-month process in which PED worked with the community on the West Side as welf as the development partners within the city, most specifically, the Saint Paul RiverFront Corporation, who took the 3ead on this. Late spring, early summer there was an engaged conversation with the West Side community, specifically, with WSCO. It was our mutual goal that all parties involved in this process �vould be able to sign on to the West Side Flats Development Strategy, which has been developed with the help of Ellerbe Becket and later, with the help of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. The consufting firm worked cooperatively with all parties to put together this final document. This strategy is not prescriptive, per se, for every block and for every use. It allows flexibility and a true mixed-use, urban village concept to be developed. Developers around the country are looking at this site as one of the most exciting developments in the Upper Midwest. Jerry Trooien has also been very much a part of this discussion. Mr. Sweeney introduced Patrick Seeb. Mr. Seeb, Executive Director of the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, addressed the � Commission. Dave Engfer, chair of the West Side Citizens Organization joined him. Mr. Engfer and Mr. Seeb both expressed the difigent work of many people to help to bring this together. For the first time in many decades, there's a plan on the table that everyone seems to support. It is an excellent first step. Mr. Engfer hopes to be visiting the Pianning Commission many more times in the future proposing additional steps to this development process. Mr. Seeb introduced Kim Way, an urban planner from Ellerbe Becket. Mr. Way feels that the interactive process so far has come up with a framework that can guide this very important part of the city for the future. Mc Way showed s(ides of a variety of mixed- use development guides for this site that can be done over the short-term and lona term. One of the things that was learned in the process �vas the importance of connections, so a lot of attention was paid to how this area is the joining element between downtown, the river and the West Side community, and how we can strengthen and reinforce connections. There was a lot of discussion about what types of uses should be in this area. Everything from an office park to - an urban mixed use residentiai village. Many different types of uses were overlayed on this azea to sugaest how those uses might happen. The second part of the process �vas a technical charette to which engineers, architects and planners were invited to look at some of the detailed aspects of the Flats area and to define what things need to be paid attention to. The railroad and the utiliTy lines need to be considered. What could �ve do if these remained? What might be the � possibilities if these were moved? All the thin�s that came out of the public process drove the strategy. The first phase of the strategy is devoted to development along the riverfront. The second phase is suggesting that there is active discussion with ]andowners along �Vabasha about expansion or • 10 �o -ti�� • redevelopment. There should be development along both Robert and �Vabasha Streets that encourages pedestrian activity. The third phase in the process wouid be extending the idea of ihe urban grid throughout the forty-five acres, and creating a truly mixed-use development. Logically, this area would develop as a three-four story development area so that the views are not blocked from the bluff or the downtown. Commissioner Gordon asked if the report describes or defines what types of uses would come under the heading "entertainment?" Mr. Way responded that the JLT Group has some very distinct ideas of what they'd Iike to see in this area. They have ta]ked about an urban mixed-use business oriented theme park. The report talks about specific entertainment uses. Commissioner Gordon asked how the land was currentVy zoned. Mr•. Way replied that it is currently zoned Industrial. Commissioner Engh asked if the DNR was present during the discussion about the flood wall and the levee. Mr. Way responded that the DNR did participate with tlie Army Corps of Engineers to talk through some these opportunities. Commissioner Nowlin asked how �ve get good commercial te�ants into the development. Mr. Way replied that part of the purpose for the strategy is to give pmspective developers an idea of the City's broader vision for the area. Up until now, there hasn't been one. This strategy provides a framework with which the City can have constructive discussions with developers. Mr. Seeb added that there were approximateiy six developers that were involved in all the various sta�es of creating this strategy. • Commissioner Nordin asked if this area, since it is zoned industrial, is contaminated. Mr. Way replied that there are stifl some contamination issues. Some ofthe soils may need to be removed, which provides the opportunity for the possibility of putting parking underneath each block. Commissionec Nowlin informed Commissioners that most of acea is very old landfilL The biggest cost factor there has been piling. Because it's riverene soil, the rock is 90 feet down. IYs going to be expensive to deveio�, and apparently this plan has taken that into consideration with its density. Mr. Way responded that when a developer comes in with a proposal, he's going to have to take those costs into consideration, which wi11 drive his plan. Here, we have a strategy that deals with these issues. Commissioner Dandrea asked if there is a city across the country that has had a comparable � opportunity that Saint Paul could look at; a city that has done a project of this scope successfully. Mr. Way replied that he can't imagine any city in the United States that doesn't have this opportunity. He said that he has worked on approsimately sixty different riverfront communities across the United States. Most of them were industrial; a lot of them have rail Sines. Chattanooga's a good exampie. Patrick Seeb, Ken Greenberg and others have visited � some of these cities, and tl7ere has been discussions on models. Commissioner Corbey asked ho�v the determination was made to put housing in this area versus industrial when there's a rail line running right throu�h the center of it. Mr. Way nofed that this strategy is not requiring any specific use. It's sayin� that there should be a mix of uses. . 11 Ot�-i`tl . Industrial is probably one of the (east favorable uses because it doesn't support the urban village concept. The housing may not come along until later in the process, but there are a number of housing developers who are not afraid of the railroad being there. Rail lines run through cities evetywhere, and people tive right next to them. Developers don't really see the rail line as a challen�e. There are things they can do, architecturally, with buildings (sound proofing and vibration proofina, etc.) to soften the effect of the rai] line. At some point, the rail line might actually relocate, and if and when they do relocate, it wouid be a spectacular place for housing. Ms. Thompson clarified what tlie Planning Commission is asked to do. The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing in two weeks on November 19, 1999. At that point, it would be referred to committee. The idea is to get the Planning Commission, the City Council and HRA to endorse this document as the vision of what, generally, ought to happen in this portion of the West Side Flats. After that, the existing redevelopment p(an would be amended to include the relevant portions of this document incorporated into it. MOTION: Commissioner Fi�ricy moved that a public hearing date be set for November I9, ]999, to review the West Sirle F[ats Development Strategy, and that staffset up n time schedule for t/ie public hearings. Commissioner Geisser recommended that the Shepard Davern public hearing be first on the agenda for November 19, 1999, before the West Side Flats Development Strategy, as it could be a long public hearing. • TI:e nzotion on tlte floor carrietl unanimously on a voice vote. VIII. Communications Committee No report. TX. Task Force Reports Commissioner Kramer reported that the White Bear Avenue SmalV Area Plan Task Force met on Wednesday, November 3, at the Cedar Machine Shop at the corner of White Bear and Maryland, to talk about intersection improvements at White Bear and Maryland. Commissioner Dandrea was also present. The next meetiag of the task force will be held Wednesday, December 1, 1999, to discuss the intersection of White Bear Avenue and East Seventh Street. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held at Big Mike's Pizza on Seventh Street. He invited all commissioners to attend. Mr. Soderholm announced that the next Advertising Sign Committee meeting will be held at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, before the Zoning Committee meeting. Both meetin�s will be held in Room 30 (old County Board room) right next to the City Council � � Chambers. X. Old Business None. , 12 Do -��i l � XI. New Business Mr. Ford said that in his earlier comments he overlooked two or three things he had intended to say. The presentation today on the West Side Flats reminded him of one of those comments. Tt was very inspiring to him and he thinks that the Commission has a number of opportunities in this city �vhen he sees the trend of things underway. There are some exciting years ahead for the Planning Commission. Mr. Ford is extremely pleased tivith the personnel decisions that have been made since he announced his retirement. There is no planner for whose professional skill and commitment and insight into what makes neighborhoods and cities work that he has higher regard for than Larry Soderholm who has been a good friend and colleague of his since he came to city planning in Saint Paul. Mr. Ford is very happy to leave the planning administrator seat for Larry. XII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 a.m. Recorded and prepared by • Jean Birkholz, Planning Commission Secretary Planning and Economic Development Deparhnent, City of Saint Pau] Respectfully submitted, Kenneth Fard Planning Administrator Approved /��P� / � �/ �� (Date) 7 if r Engh Secretary of the Planning Commission • \planninglminutes.frm 13 MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE 7hursday, October 28, 1999- 3:30 p.m. ` J City Council Chambers, 3` Fioor City Hall and Court House 15 West Keilogg Boulevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: OTHERS PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, and Morton Engh Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, and Nancy Frick of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. �� — ��1� District 2 Community Council Appeal (99-275) Appeaf of an administrative decision approving Lincoln Pawn site plan. Nancy Frick showed slides and presented the staff report. Ms. Frick stated the District Two Community Council (the appellant) submitted an appeal based upon its position that the Zoning Staff erred in interpreting the code when the site pfan was approved on September 28, 1999. Staff recommends denial of the appeal. � At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Frick stated the new construction of the Lincoln Pawn site is approximately 50 feet from the closest residential�y zoned lot line. The nonconformance of the structure has to do with the distance between the �ot line and the structure. The appeal poses the question in regards to the need for a Special Condition Use Permit to enlarge the structure regardless of its distance from the fot line. . Chuck Repke, Community Organizer for District Two, appeared and read a statement and expiained the handouts which were entered into the record. He made three points 1) Section 62,102(e) of the zoning code provides that a nonconforming structure may be eniarged or aitered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. The buiiding existed fawfully prior to the efFective date of the pawn shop ordinance, April 27, 1999, but it does not now comp(y with the spacing requirement which went into efFect on that date. 2) The proposed enlargement of 1675 White Bear increases the nonconformity associated with the structure. The enlargement of the structure at 1675 White Bear builds additionaf building wal{s that would be well within the (150) feet of the residentiafiy zoned property. 3) She zoning code requires that pawn shops be separated from residentially zoned property either by a pubfic street or a distance oP one hundred fifty (150) feet measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot Iine of the residentially zoned property. The structure at 1675 White Bear is 57 feet from one residentiaily zo�ed property at 1760 l.arpenteur. The District 2 Community Council is concerned with fhe issue of the use of the proposed expansion at 1675 White Bear. It is the District 2 Community Council's position that the structure can not expand within the one hundred fifty (150) foot distance as long as any part ofi the use is for a pawn shop. The use of the expansion is not at issue, only that the structure is nonconforming and it is being proposed to be more nonconforming. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Repke stated the District Councii's position that they couid not expand the buiiding even if they wanted to put in a video rental operation. Had Pawn �o -t�t\ Zoning Committee Minutes 99-275 � Page:2 America existed on the Whiie Bear Avenue site, thaf blank space behind the proposed Pawn American Store is still part of the buiiding that houses a pawn shop. The b�ilding is nonconforming because it houses a pawn shop. Mr. Tom Fable, attorney representing the Capital City Investmenis (owner of the buiiding), appeared and stated the building and the pawn shop business were established at that location long before the City chose to regulate that particular form of business. The ordinances have to do with business uses that have been grandfathered-in because of changes in the ordinances at a later point of time. Ordinance 62.102 states that a nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered as long as such an enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. The nonconformity has nothing to do with the volume of the structure. The nonconformity is the violation of a new building of the 150 foot barrier. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Fa61e stated Section 64.300 addresses the expansion of the size of a business. If a business expands by more than 50 percent they must return to the Pla�ning Gommission for a new conditional use permit. A purpose of a setback provision is to have a specified distance between the beginning of the usage and whatever it is they're trying to set back. The nonconformity is the 150 feet distance, not the volume of the building. Ms. Wendy Lane, Offce of License and Inspection, stated they made the original decision to • approve the site plan and building permit. There are a number of nonconforming properties in the City that don't meet the required setback for the zoning district in which they are located, including a number of singie family homes. They are a conforming use but they have a nonconforming setback from the side property line. If they have a 100 square feet, four feet away from the side property line and the code requires a six foot setback, they could put an addition on the back of the house another 400 square feet at the four foot setback line. They don't have to go to six feet, as long as they don't go any closer to the existing building. They can continue to expand along that line. LIEP has used that provision more than any other use for single family homes. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Lane stated the application of this principle to the pawn shop business is consistent with the ordinance. The set back is being considered, not the volume. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Ms. Lane stated there has never been a case that is a continuation along an existing nonconforming set back line that LIEP has required an applicant to apply for a variance or a modification for a speciai condition use permit. Mr. Repke appeared and stated the key focus of this application is that the structure is nonconforming. Increasing the structure in the nonconforming area is what they are raising issue to. The public hearing was closed. • After further discussion Commissioner Morton moved to approve the appeal based on the fact that enlarging the structure does increase the nonconformity. Commissioner Kramer seconded it. do—��al • Zoning Committee Minutes 99-275 Page:3 Commissioner Kramer stated he had a problem with the defermination that this case is not a nonconforming use because it used the term "not now permitfed". The staff has interpreted that to mean "not now prohibited". This is not a permitted use because the lot is not 150 feet and so there are instances where it is not permitted in this zoning district. Also there is the issue fhat it is a special condition use permit and the zoning code makes a differentiation between "permitted uses" and "uses permitted subject to special conditions". The definition of nonconforming use does not use that term "sub}ect to special conditons" it only uses "permitted". Commissioner Gordon voted for the motion because it comes down fo the definition of increasing its nonconformity. The nonconformity was 1,339 square feet within 150 feet and now there is 1,997 square feet within 15� feet and that is an increase in the nonconformity. Afterfurtherdiscussion, the motion to approve the appeal of an administrative decision was passed by a 4 to 2 vote. C� Adopted Yeas - 4 Drafted by: (�� n,a� �"12.�n,��.v Caro{ Martineau Recording Secretary Nays - 2 (Field, Gervais) Submitted by: � � Nancy Fric Zoning Section Litton Field Chair / • • APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of P[anning and Economic Dwelopment Zoning Section II00 City Hal! Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT I Name Chuck Wedemeyer - n��t�A�� Lincoln Pawn, 7675 White Bear Avenue • PROPEf2TY LOCATION Gity St. Paul St. MN Zip 55106 Zoning File Address/Lo TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: C+ Board of Zon+ng Rppea4s � City Council Daytime phone under the provisions of Chapter 6�, Section , Paragraph of tfie Zoning Code, fo appeal a decision made by the St Paul Plannin4 Commission on November_5, 1999 (date ofi decision) }g . Fi1e number: P.C. File No. 99-74 Zoninq Fi1e No. 99-242 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error i� any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an adm+nistrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or inding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. The Plannin Commission erred in interpretation of Section 62.102(e)(2) of the Saint Paul City Code. The Planning Commission decision is contrary to the intended and logical interpretation of this zoning ordinance, and it also is contrary to long-standing City practice. If affirmed, the Planning Commission decision will be harmful to residential and business property owners throughout the City, and will result in a substantial increase in variance applications to the City Council. Please see attached letter from leqal counsel. • I Attach additional sheet if necessary) ApplicanYs �� t-��"w' 'l (2 /a City agent_�ac�.�_ � ` ` `Fsif �-Wl oo-t�t • LINDQUIST R VE��TNUM P.LL.P. ATioRNEYS A7 Uw lhomas L Fabel (651)312-9200 ffa6el�lindquistoom 444 CmM STREEr SURE5700 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA $5101 Tet�pNE:651J12-1300 FAX:657-7L35332 December 8, 1999 Ms. Nancy Frick City Planner City of St. Paul 25 West Fourth Street St. Paui, Minnesota 55102 amo ios caraz 805WTHE�GNiHSTREET ANNNEAPOIIS,MINNESOTA55402-2205 Te�Eatior+e: 6tt371-3217 FAX:612-371-3207 Re: Appea/ of Planning Commission Resolution 99-74, Denying Proposed En/argement ofLincoln Pawn Shop, 1675 White BearAvenue �� Dear Ms. Frick: Enclosed pfease find an Application for Appeal in the above matter, a filing fee of $300.00, and a fetter of support for the appeal from this office. Please distribute the letter with the Appeal to Counci{ Members prior to the date of consideration. Thank you very much for your advice and assistance. TLF:ims enclosures cc: Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer Very truly yours, LINDQUIST & �Nf�IUM P.�.�.P. � nau iisoaizu bo -1�� LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.�.�.P. ArrawErs Ar Uw Thomas L Fabel (651)312-9200 ffabel(o�JindquisGmm 444 CELtOR STREFf Surt�1700 ST. PAUL. �.MNNESOTA55101 TFiEVHOt+e 651312-1300 FAX:651-2215332 <�� eo SanH E� SrR�r MINNEPPOlIS.MYNNESI�TA55402 T¢�rot�E:612J7132N FAX:6'123713207 December 8, 1999 City Council President Dan Bostrom and Council Members City Hall 15 West Keilogg St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 99-74, Denying Proposed Enlargement of Lincoln Pawn Shop, 1675 White BearAvenue . Dear President Bostrom and Council Members: This firm represents Drs. Sohn and Frank Gaertner, property owners of the premises at 1675 White Bear Avenue which are leased and operated as the Lincoln Pawn Shop, along with Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer, the lessee of the property and the awner of Lincoln. This letter is written in support of Mr. Wedemeyer's appeal from a Planning Commission decision, dated November 5, 1999, which upheid an appeal on a proposed expansion of Lincoln Pawn. The efFect of the decision was to reverse an earlier site pian approval by the Department of Licensing, inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEPj for the expansion. Both LIEP and PED believe that the expansion is permissible under the City Zoning Code, which means that both also believe the Planning Commission decision to be erroneous. As legal counsei for the property and business owners, we join in the view that the Planning Commission decision is both an incorrect interpretation of the relevant ordinance and inconsistent with longstanding City practice. Hence, we urge the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission and to reaffirm the prior position asserted by two departments of City government, LIEP and PED, both supporting the issuance of a building permit. • Doc# 1171568\1 aa - i�\ LINDQUIST R' VENNUM P.LL.P. • Letter to Pianning Commission December 8, 1999 Page 2 The issue in this appeaf arises from the fiact that this buiiding housing Lincoln Pawn is located wifhin 150 feet of residentiaily zoned property, which is the setback requirement for new pawnshops adopted in April, 1999. The pawnshop ordinance, Section 60.544(3), provides that pawnshops are permissibie in Zone B-3, provided that the business is "conducted within completeiy enclosed buifdings and is separated from residentially zoned property either by a public street or by a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet measured from the buifdina waff of the oawnshop to the nearest lot {ine of their residentially zoned property." However, Lincoln Pawn has been in existence since 1994, at which time neither the setback requirement nor the special conditiona{ use permit requirement now applied to pawn shops were in existence. Hence, Lincoln Pawn now exists as a legal use in a non-conforming structure. Section 62.102(e)(2) of the St. Paul City Code psovides in celevant part as follows: A non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. • !n the case of a setback requirement, this Code provision always has been interp�eted by the City as meaning that a nonconforming structure may be enlarged so long as the new construction comes no closer to the relevant line of ineasurement. This interpretation is entirely consistent with the pawnshop set-back ordinance, which defines the condition of conformity as a distance "measured from the building wall." The Planning Commission rejected this longstanding interpretation of Section 62.102(c)(2), which for years has enabled building owners (mainly homeowners) to expand their usage without going through the costly, time-consuming and often tortuous process of obtaining a variance. Under the Planning Commission's new interpretation of this zoning ordinance, an "increase in nonconformity" would include any expanded volume of usage within the area defined by the setback requirement. Hence, since the proposed expansion of Lincoln Pawn would place more pawn shop area within 150 feet of a residentialiy zoned property (although no closer than before), the Commission concluded that expansion was not authorized by Section 62.102(e)(2). That the Pianning Commission's interpretation is, shall we say, strained goes without saying. So aiso is the fact that this interpretation contradicts past City practice in analogous situations, as is evidenced by the zoning staff positions asserted by both City departments responsibie for such interpretations, LIEP and PED. What may be less self evident is the mischief that this interpretation will cause if consistentiy applied • Docd 1171568\1 ao—��c� LINDQLTIST R' VENNUM P.LL.P. • Letter to Planning Commission December 8, 1999 Page 3 to analogous zoning questions. For example, homes which do not comply with curcent setback requirements would be incapable of straight-line expansion without complying with the costly variance requirements. Similariy, no home on a lot smailer than a current minimum lot size could be expanded without a variance. The oider neighborhoods of St. Paul have many homes in both of these circumstances, and for many years homeowners have been ailowed to obtain building permits for expansions without the necessity of a variance, through the City's application of Section 62.102(e)(2). Quite obviously, the only reason for both District Council opposition to the proposed expansion and for the Planning Commission's decision is the nature of the business conducted at Lincoln Pawn. While it is true that some pawn shops have become neighborhood concerns and a source of increasing regulation in recent years, it is not true that ali pawn shops are bad neighbors. Indeed, the proposed construction at issue in this appeaf would be a significant improvement to the appearance of this property, which should be regarded as a benefit to the neighborhood. Moreover, the owner of • Lincoln Pawn, Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer, has made a commitment to the City that he will never allow the sale of firearms to occur at his business. While such sales may be perfectfy Iegal, Mr. Wedemeyer has made this commitment to demonstrate his desire to be a good neighbor and to avoid a major complaint which often is voiced over this line of business. Thus, Council reversal of the Planning Commission decision with the condition that no firearms sales ever occur at Lincoln Pawn is a very acceptabie resofution to both the business and the property owners. It is a weil known adage among lawyers and judges that "hard cases make bad faw." This means that difficuit facts sometimes cause decision makers to bend the law in a way which ultimaiely leads io bad results in other circumstances. The Planning Commission's decision illustrates this adage. Moreover, the Commission's decision to deny site approval in this case is a direct violation of the constitutional requirement that similarly situated land use appiicants must be treated the same. Northwestern Colleae v. Citv of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1979); Hav v. Township of Grow, 206 N.W.2d (Minn. 1973). For both of these reasons, the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed. Any effort to change the regulatory standards for the operation ofi pawn shops should be accomplished through legislation, not through a novel interpretation of the zoning ordinance. Especially is this true where the consequences of the novel interpretation will be adverse and unfair to many property owners in many circumstances totally unrelated to pawn shops. • Doc# 117156%\I da -�`�\ LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.L.L.P. • Letter to Planning Commission December 8, 1999 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration. TLF:Ims enclosure cc: Phillip Byrne, Esq. Peter Warner, Esq. Dr. John R. Gaertner ` Dr. Frank M. Gaertner, Jr. Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer Mr. David Schwartz Very truly yours, LINDQU c NUM P.L.L.P. /�.� �2it / C��C�'`'� Thomas L. Fabel • Doc# 1i715b8�1 � ZiiO4i1999 16:22 651 223 5332 � 2283341 LTNDQUIST 8L VENNUM P.L.L.P. A� roRxers As tww lTmu�s L pah.i (651}317-93D0 ff.bciQl"vdquisicom 4G Cmi.R STqEEf SuRE 1� Sr, p�u4 MM+£�A�197 TftEPa�el31312-1300 FNC 86Y?216332 Plovember 4, 1999 St. Paui Pianning Commissior� 1100 Ciry Hali Annex 25 F❑urth Street Wesi St. Paui, Minnesota 55102 hu.o�r � � —��` ��00 �S CE1+tER ea sovn, ec�m� s��r AtK+EM']Lt9. F!N ME90T4 �i02-2205 Tom+or�e 812�715211 FAY012S7]3YJ] Re: Proposed £ntargement ofl.�ncaln Pawn Shop, l876 {M�ite Besr Arenue � Dear Cammissioners: This firm represents Drs. John and Frank Gaertner, property o�rrners of #he premises at 1675 White Bear Avenue which is leased and operated as the Lincoln Pawn 5hop. The owner of Lincoin is Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer. On the Commission's agenda for Friday, November 5 is an appeal from a site plan approval for an expansion to Lincoln Pawn. By a vote four to two, the Zoning Committee sustained the appea! on Octobe� 28, We respectfully suggest to the Commission fhat #his action was both an incorrect intefpretation of the relevant ordinance and inconsistent with iongstanding Gity ptactice, which means that 1he decision cannot withstand judicial review. Accordingly, we urge the Commission tc rsject tha Committee action and to sustain the prior position asserted by two depaRments of City government, LIEP and PED, both supporting the issuance of e buikding pefmit. The issus arisas from the fact that this building is iocated within 150 feet of residentially zoned property, which is the setback requirement for new pawn shops adopted in April, 1999. Howaver, this shop has 6een in existence since 1994, at which time neithef the setback requirement nor the special conditionai use permit requirement now appiied to pawn shops were in existence. Hence, Lincoln Pawn now exists as a legal use in a non-conforming structure. • ��_ t)oc�f 117079TI � ili�4i1999 16�22 651 223 5332 � 2283341 I.INDQIIIST & '�ENNC�M P.L.L.P. Letter to Planning Commission November 4, 1999 PBge Z NO. 63'I dc-trt Section 62.102{s)(2) of the St. Paul Gity Code provides in relevant paR as foilows: A non-corNorming structure may be enlarged or alterad so long as such enlargament or alterati�n does not increase its noncor�formity. In the case of a setback requirement, this Code provisfon always has been interpreted by ihe City as meaning that a noncarrforming strucWre mey be eniarged so long as the naw construction comes no closer to the relevant line of ineasurement. . The Zoning Committee accapted as an altemative interprefation for this provision that an "increase in nonconformit�' incfudes any expanded vofuma of usaga within the area defined by the setback requirement. Hence, since the proposed expansion would place mora pawn shop area within 15Q faet of a residentiai{y zoned pro¢srty {altfiough no closer than before), the Committse conciuded that expansion wae not authorizad by Sactfon 62.102{e)(2). That the Zoning Committee's interpretation is, shall we say, strained goes without saying. So aiso is ihe fact that this interpretatfon contradicts past City prectice in analogous situations, es is evidenced by the zoning staff positions asserted by baih City departments responsible for such interpretations, LIEP and PED. What may be less seff evidant is the mischief that this interpretation will cause if consistent(y appiied to analogous zoning questions. For example, homes which do not comply with cuRent setback requirements wauld be incapab�e of straight-line expansion without complying with the costiy variance requirements. Similariy, no home on a lot smailer then a current minimum lot size cauld be expended without a variaRCe. Tha older neighborhoods of St. Raul have many homes in both of thase circumstances, and for many years homeowners have been allowed to obtain building permits for expansions wiihaut the necesaity of a variance, through the City�s appfication af 5ection 62.102(ej(2j. • Quite obviously, the only reason for both the appeai and the Zoning Committee's decision in ihis case is the nature of the business conducted at Lincofn Pawn. Whife it is true that some pawn shops have become neighborhood cnncerns and a source of increasing regulation in recent years, i1 is nat true that aVl pawn shops are bad neighbors. Indeed, the proposed construction at issue in this appeai would be a significant imp�ovement to the appearance of this property, which should be regarded as a benefit to the neighborhood. Moreover, the owner of Lincoln Pawn, Mr. Chuck '✓G4 DocB 11 J079T1 � _ lli�4i1999 16�22 651 223 533Z � 2283341 LTNDQUIST 8L V�NNUM P.L.L.P. Letterto Planning Commission Novam6er 4, 1999 Page 3 N0.637 80-1y� Wademeyer, is vary willing to maka a cammitment to the City that he wiA never aliow the sele of firearms to occur at his business. While such sales may be parfectly legal, Mr. Wedemeyer is willing to make this commitment to demonstrate his desire to be a good neighbor and tQ avoid a major compiaint which often is v�iced conceming lhis line of trusiness. l"o repeat, appraval of this buiiding permft with the condition that no firearms sales ever occur at Linco�n Pawn is a very acceptable resolution to both the business and the property owner. n LJ It is a well known adage among lawyers and judges that "harq cases make bad law.° This means thei di�cult facts sometimes causa dacision makers to bend the {aw in a way which uitimateiy cannot be sustained. The Zoning Committee dacision iilustrates this adaga. A decision to deny a building permit in this case wouid bs a d'srect vio4atian of the constitutional requirement that similariy situated land use applicants must be treatsd the same. NoLj{�,westem Col�eqe v. Citv of Arden Hiils, 2&1 N.W.2d 865 {Minn. 1979}; }�av v. Township of Grow, 206 N.W.2d (Minn. 1973). The longstanding practice of City offciais in providing a straightforward interpretation of Section 62.1 b2(e}(2) requires lhat the permit for Lincoln Pawn be granted. Any desire for a change in the regulatory standards for ihe operation of pawn shaps should ba accomplished through legislation, not through a creative application of the zoning ordinance. Thank you for yaur consideration. Very truly yours, LINDQU4S7 & VE UM P.�.L.P. / Thomas L. Fabel TLF:Ims enclosure L� cc: Peter Warner, �sq. Dr. John R. Gaertner pr. Frank M. Gaertner, .fr. Mtr. Chuck Wedemeyef Mr. David Schvrattz G2� Tuck 1)7079TI �.r— K� —a �s `�?1I� 1TRIcCT � ��011�.�1�'1�T1�1I � �' (��17i��IL �o-a�—�5 ao-1� SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOI7S OF \ORTHEASTERN SAI�T PAL L i PARKW AY(GREENBRIER • BEAV ER LAKE HE[GHTS PROSPERITY HEIGHTS • HAYDEN HEIGHTS P7iALEN VILLAGE • Ltisco�t� P.��uc EAST PHALEN � FL�,ZEL P.�2�C FROST LAKE • HIL[.CRFS? Appeal of an administrative decision to approve a site plan for the expansion of a pawnshop at 167� White Beaz Avenue. The District 2 Community Council urges the zonin� committee to grant our appeal of the administrative decision to approve the site plan for the expansion of a Nonconformin� Structure at 1675 White Bear Avenue. Further, we would recommend that the zoning committee pass a recommendation that would adapt the staff report by deleting Findings 3 and 4 and inserting as follows: 3. The zonin� committee disagrees with the interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator, with regard to the site plan for 1675 White Bear Avenue, for the followin� it:�T.Y�fii•Y a. Section 62. 102 (e) of the zoning code provides that a nonconforming strncture may be eniarged or altered so long as such enlazgement or alteration does not . increase its nonconformitv. The building at 1675 White Beaz, that houses Lincoln Pawn, is a nonconfomung structure in accordance with the zonins code definition of a nonconforming buildin�: "A lawful building existin� on the effective date of the adoption (October 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that does not now comply with the area, width height, yard, percent of lot coverage, or other re�ulations concem bulk or location on the lot, or spacing requirement from another use, off-street parking or loading requirements, or other regulations of the district in which it is located." The building existed lawfully prior to the effective date of the pawn shop ordinance, April 27, 1999, but it does not now comply with the spacing requirement which went into effect on that date. The oroposed enlarQement of 167� White Bear increases the nonconformitv associated with the structure The zoning code requires that a pawn shop "is separated from residentialty zoned property either by a pub?ic street or by a. distance of one hundred ffty (1 SO) feet meast�red from.lhe building wall qf the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of the residentially zoned property; ' All four walls of 1675 White Bear are within one hundred fifty feet of the nearest lot line of the residentially zoned property at 1760 Larpenteur. The proposed enlargement of the structure at 1675 White Beaz builds additional building walls that would be well within the one hundred fifty (150) feet of the residentially . zoned property. 1961 SHER�ti oo� AvE`�� • S,a[�r P�cL • MN • 55 1 1 9-3230 • PxovE: (651) 7?-'-2220 • F.ax: (651) 774-21: � oe -�� Section 60.534.6 attempts to create a buffer of one hundred fifty (150) feet from buildin�s that house pawn shops and residentially zoned property. To build anywhere within the one hundred fifty (150) feet is increasing the nonconformity of the structure. The proposed expansion of the structure to the south incrzases the number of properties that are within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the structure that houses a pawn shop and thereby increases the nonconformity of the structure. The zoning code requires that pawn shops be separated from residentially zoned property either by a public street or a distance of one hundred fifty (I50) feet measured from the building �vall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of the residentiallv zoned propertv. The structure at 1675 WYute Bear is 57 feet from one residentiallv zoned progerty at 1760 Larpenteur. If the proposed expansion is approved the structure will be one hundred forty-eight (148) feet from the residentiallv zoned �ropertv at 1749 Califomia that, currently, is one hundred fifty-two and a one half (152.5) feet from the neazest buiidin� wail. The building at 1675 White Beaz is nonconforming because of its set back from residentially zoned property. To increase the number of properties that the nonconformin� structure is nonconformin� to is increasing its nonconformity and clearly not within the spirit of Section 62.102 (a). � The District 2 Community Council is concemed that staff has raised the issue of what would be the use of the proposed eYpansion at 1675 White Bear. Tt is the District 2 Community Council's position that the shveture can not expand at all �vithin the one hundred fifty (150) feet distance as long as any part of the use is for a pawn shop. The use of the expansion is not at issue, only that the structure is nanconforming and it is being proposed to be more nonconforming. Staff also states that there aze other situations where the code was interpreted in the manor they have proposed, but no evidence was offered. Disfict 2 would contend that anytime a buildina was nonconformin� do to a set back of a set distance ?hat any le_gal, espansion of the nonconforming structure should occur outside of the set back area. Few nonconforming structures in the City of Saint Paul azeIocated on 125 by 130 foot lots. We would contend that most set back issues would be in situations where one wall violated a distance requirement not an entire structure, or where the use has become nonconformin� not the structuze. Again, the District 2 Community Council believes that the proposed expans±on of the building at 167� White Bear violates the spirit and intent of Section 62102 concemin� nonconformin� structures by: increasing the structure's nonconformity by buildin� within thz 150 foot set back required from the residential properiy at 1760 Larpenteur. Further • it's nonconformity is increased by increasin� the number of properties within 150 feet of the structure (1749 California). � i J aa -1�t� � Proposed Expansion 1675 White Beaz Distances from residentially zoned property at 1760 Larpenteur RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY 1760 LARPENTEUR • I" W W ll� � N Proposed Existing Building 3xpansion 1675 White Bear � White Bear Avenue i 25 i 50 � � c � d �. � a� .� c � oa � a �-�Q 6,�.0,�.� a - i ,, -, � � � � �-i �i� 00-1�� CJ .,��Q b�, Q.�-�,� a- - a /o -�P-9S dc7-��1� • (cP�th Rogers 1739 E Ca(ifornia cr.pw�,��, Sn�! F�'�ng_13n3 T0: St.Pa�il Pi�lrtnjn� C:nlprplSS!O!l Znnin� Cnmmittee, 1(�0 [tOt f921 1f12 I188� fQ @XPdlld thB LI!!COlft P2Wll 3!tA. ThB C! �� nf �t Pa� il hadQ enough pawn shops therefore fhis expansion wouid be unnecessary. I wouid prefer if the city had less pawr shops ov2rall so this expansian is �,2edless in my m�nd. Thank you, - � ! � �-� �r5 Keith p Rogers � • Do-l�� • Z023TNG COMMITTES STAFF' REPORT ___�_________________________ FILE # 99-275 C J • 1. APPL2CANT: DISTRICT 2 COMMCJNITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 10/28/99 2. CLASSIFICATION: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Decision 3. LOCATION: 1675 h'AITE HEAR AVENUE (between Larpenteur and California) 4 PLANNING DISTRICT: � 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTZON: See file 6. PRESENT 20NING: B-3 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 60.214, 60.544(3), 62.102, 64.300 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT SY: Nancy Frick DATE: 10/21/99 8. DATE RECEIVED: 9/28/99 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 11/27/99 A. PIIRPOSE: Appeal of an administrative decision to approve a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop located at 1675 White Bear Avenue. B. PARCEL SIZE: 16,575 SquaTE feet. C. EXISTING LAND IISE: A pawn shop. D. SIIRROIINDING LAND IISE: North: Restaurant. (COmmercial zoning; Maplewood.) - East: Commercial. (B-2) South: Restaurant. (B-3) West: Single family residential (R-3) E. ZONING CODE CITATIONS: Sec. 64.300(j) provides that "the grant or denial of approval by the planning or zoning administrator is subject to appeal to the planning commission by any person, firm or corporation, or by any office, department, board or bureau affected by a decision of the planning or zoning administrator with thirty (30) days ... Sec. 60.214 provides definitions o£ nonconfoxming building and nonconforming use. Sec. 60.544(3) identifies pawn shops as principal uses permitted subject to special conditions in the B-3 Zoning DistYict. Sec. 62.102(e) states provisions for nonconforming structures with conforming uses. F. HZSTORY/DISCIISSION. Lincoln Pawn had a building permit application pending at the time that the City Council established a moratorium on pawn shop permits and licenses pending a zoning study and possible amendment of the zoning ordinance (NOVember 9, 1998). On January 22, Z.F. �99-275 Page 2 1999, th= Saint Paul PZanning Commission recommended a zoning code • amendment which provided that pawn shops continue to require a special condition use permit in B-2, B-2C, and B-3 zoning districts with a new condition that pawn shons must be separated from residential zoning dzstricts by either a public street or a distance of ZSO feet, measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of residentially zoned property. The recommended pawn shops amendments were adopted by the City Council on March 10, 1999 and went into effect on April 27, 1999. A March 2, 1999 memo to City Councilmembers and various staff inembers prepared by Larry Soderholm discussed how pawn shops existing and proposed at that time compared to the separation requirement being proposed by the Planning Commission, The memo included a statement that "the new standard would not apply directly to existing businesses that don't meet it; such businesses would become legally nonconforming with regard to the separation from residential. Legal nonconforming pawn shops would not be allowed to expand, however, without a public hearing and a Planning Commission permit." This statement did not draw a distinction between nonconforming uses and nonconformir.g structures, which the code tteats differently, however, and as such was in error. See Findings 3 and 4 below. G. DSSTRICT COIINCIL RECO2IlKENDATION: The District 2 Community Council is the appellant. H FINDINGS: . 1. On September 26, 1999, Tom Beach, Zoning Specialist with the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LSEP) by letter issued approval of a site plan for a proposed addition ' to Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Bear Avenue, subject to a set of conditions including closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Bear Avenue, restriping the parking lot and new landscaping. In the letter approving the site plan, Mr, Beach noted that the proposal was in conformance with City ordinances. This letter is attached to this staf£ report. 2. On September 28, 1999, the District 2 Community Council filed an appeal of this decision, stating as grounds for their appeal an error by sta£f in its interpretation of Sections 62.102 and 64.300 of the zoning code and in requirements of the new pawn shop ordinance. Section 62.102 of the zoning code provides for nonconforming lots, nonconforming uses of land, nonconforming structures, and nonconforming uses of structures and Iand. Section 64.300 provides for planning commission and planning or zoning administrator approvals. The applicable provision of the new pawn shop ordinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) above. 3. Staff concurs with the code intexpretation made by the Zoning Administrator, with regard to the site plan for 1675 White Bear Avenue, for the following reasons. • Z.F. #99-275 Page 3 c`3� —\ti\ • a. Section 62.102(e) of the zoning code orovides that a nonconformina structure may be enlarcod or altered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. iZt should be noted that "noaconforming building" is the term used in the definition section of the zoniag code, but that "nonconforming structure" is tne term used elsewhere in the code; terms are intercnangeable.) Staff concurs that it is this section of the code which applies to the Lincoln Pawn site plan. Staff finds that Lincoln Pawn is a nonconforming structure in accordance with the zoning code definition of noncon:orming building: "A lawful building existing on the effective date of adoption (OcCOber 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that does not now comply with the area, width, height, yard, percent of lot coverage, or other regulations concern bulk or location on the lot, or spacing requirement from another use, off-street parking and loading requirements, or other regulations of the district in which it is located." Lincoln Pawn existed lawfully prior to the effective date of the pawn shop ordinance, April 27, 1599, but it does not now comply with the spacing requirement which went into effect on that date. Sta£f also concurs that the enlargement of Lincoln Pawn does not increase the nonconformity associated with the • structure. The zoning code directs that distance between pawn shop and residential property be measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of the residentially zoned property. The building wall of the existing Lincoln Pawn building is approximately 50 feet from the nearest lot line of residentially zoned property, directly to the west, 1760 Larpenteur. The proposed enlargement of Lincoln Pawn extends directly to the south; the building wall of the extension would not be any closer to the nearest residentially-zoned property line. b. Section 62.102(f) provides that a noncon£orminq use shall not be enlarged unless the planning commission approves a permit for an enlargement as set forth in a subsequent clause of the code. Staff finds that this section of the code does not apply to this site plan. Staff finds that Lincoln Pawn does not £it the zoning code definition of noncon£ormina use: "A lawful use existing on the effective date of adoption (October 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that is not now permitted in the district in which it is located". Pawn shops are permitted subject to special conditions in the B- 3. The spacing requirement which was added to the code in 1999 results in the structure being nonconforming, not the � use. Therefore, staff finds that the zoaing code requirements for enlargement of a nonconforming use do not apply to Lincoln Pawn. Z.P. �99-275 Page 4 c. Section 64.300(m)(2) provides that a new special condition . use permit is needed when the floor area of a special condition use expands by fifty (50) percent or more, and, conversely, Section 64.300(n)(1) provides that site plan approval but no new special condition use permit is required when the floor area of a special condition use expands by less than fifty (50) percent. Staff concurs that the proposed expansion of 658 square feet is 49.14& of the 1339 square foot floor area of the existing pawn shop, and therefore may be expanded without obtaining a new special condition use permit, although a site approval is required, in accordance with Section 64.300(n)(1). 4. Finally, staff also finds that the interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator in this case is consistent with how the City has treated expansions of other SCUP uses, many of which occur within nonconforming structures. Examples cited by LIEP staff include college expansions within campus boundaries, recreation centers, hospitals, gas stations, and a host of other uses permitted subject to conditions. As noted, as long as the expansion is less than fifty percent, the code requires site plan approval but no new special condition permit, and that is how the Zoning Administrator has proceeded. • I. STAFF RECO2�AfENDATION: Based on Findings 3 and 4, staff recommends denial of the appeal. • �- � • APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of Plannixg and Economic Development Zoning Sectiori 1100 Cin' Hal1 Annex 25 West Fourth Srreet Saint Paul, hf.\' S5101 266-6589 APPELLANT I N PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATION Address/Lc u File, na, � St�ti Zip 5S!! `-'7 , �/�E ��ti q9- a 3 � �/ic,C.ol.t/��Lc.N /�ci� S do - �� Ffi e cue.anEy�; ��—' � �'�,.,._: fiea�in `date�`;> s��.��. : = by �rr.v�u.� ...:iG,:. oh � e �774��ZZZA TYPE OF APPEAL Appiication is hereby made for an appeal to the: ��i?n„�� -v�-�+SS r�,-c� �� Board of Zoning Appeals ❑ City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �� , Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to �,�,ti�� 5� appeal a decision made by the � on �f%�T �� !�' , 195?. File number: c�a, � �1� ' (date of decision) GROUNDS FOFt APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has bean an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative offcial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeafs or the Planning Commission. = i.v i.✓TE�,�°�iv�g-�'im(; o-F la a. io ��✓� �`� .3o"U /�.c,/� i�c. �c�LC.c�cO-�-c�..7.i vF /LcZcJ � �� os2n�,cf2,�.c:e RECEIVED SEP 2 31999 ZONiNG � Atfach add�tiona/ sheet if Applicant's signatu �Y City agent OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIOYS A�"D E:v'VIRO.�'�tE\7AL pROTECfiOY Roben Kessler. Director SAINT I MU2 �, AAAA CITY OF SAR�tT PAUL No�m Coleman, Mayor September 30, 1999 David Schwarc Schwarz Construction 10961 32nd Street N LaI:e E(mq MN SSQ42 LOVYRY PROFESSIOh:lLBUfLDI.VG Te(ephone: 65l-266-90� 3505[PeterStreet,Suife300 Faarimile.•651•166-9099 SainiPaul,bT�nesota SSIO2-I510 651-266-9I2� Re: Building permit for Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Beaz Avenue is suspended Site plan file 99-242 Deaz Mr. Schwaa: On September 28, 1999 I approved the site plan for an expansion of ihe Lincoln Pawn Shop and shortly afrer that our o�ce issued a buildina permit for this work. As we had previously discussed, Section 64300(j) of the Zoning Code states Yhat any person or organization can fcie an appeal within 30 days filing of any decision made by staff to approve or deny a site pfan. On September 28, 1999, the District 2 Planning Council filed an appeai of our decision to approve the site pian. They contend that Lincoln Pawn is a nonconforming use and therefore it cannot expand without approval from the Planning Commission. Appeals are heard at a public hearing at the the Planning Commission. You wili be notified of the heazing date and will be sent a copy of the staff report prior to the hearin�. Nancy Frick (651-266-6554) is the staff person who has been assigned to the case. The Zoning Code says that if permiis have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction must stop untii the Ylannin� Commission nas made a deYerminaYion of the appeal. Therefore, the permit issued for the espansion of Lincoln Pawn Shop is hereby suspended and construction must cease. If the Planning Commission denies the appeal, yoar permit wouid be reactivated. If the Pianning Commission approves the appeal, you could request a refund of your permit fee. Whatever decision the Planning Commission makes, an appeal coutd be fiied within 15 days to the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom Beach Zoning Specialist cc: Chuck Wiedemeyer Nancy Frick G:\L'SERSgEACHTO�f9T_J:api • . \ I • C� SAINT PAOL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL hbrm Colemar., bfayor September 28, 1999 David Schwarz Schwarz Construction 10961 32n Street N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 OFFICE OF LICEtiSE, ItiSPECT70: tS A.��D E�"VIROti`fE�?ALPROTECTtOV � O _ 'i, ` Roberl Kessle�. Diretlor 1 � LOWRY PROFFSS10N.1L Telephone: 651-?65-9090 BUILDING Facsimile: 612-266-9099 Suire 300 612-26b-91?: 3S0 St. Pete� St�eet SaintPaul,dlinnesara 55f0?-I510 RE: Approval of site plan 99-242 Addition to Lincola Pawn Shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue Deaz Mr. Schwarz: City staff have reviewed the site pian for the proposed addition to Lincoln Pawn and found it to be in conformance with City ordinances: — When Lincoln Pawn was established on this property, pawn shops did not require Special Condition Use Permit. The zonin� code was amended in November 1996 to require Special Condition Use Permiu for pawn shops and amended again in Apri1 1999 to add a condition that pawn shops must be at least 150 feet from residentially zoned property. The use of this property as a pawn shop is conforming since pawn shops are sti11 allowed under the B-3 zoning for the property. However, the structure is nonconforming because it does not met the recently adopted setback requirement. But accordin� to Section 62.1 Q2(e)(2) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, nonconfomiing structures with conforming uses may be enlazged so long as such enlargement does not increase its nonconformity. Construction of this addition _ meets the requirement because it is not built closer to the residential properiy line than the existing building. — Section 64.300.m.2 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code says that when a use that requires a Special Condition Use Permit expands its floor area by 50% or more it must obtain a new Special Condition Use Permit. "Ihe existing pawn shop building covers 1339 squaze feet. The proposed expansion covers 658 squaze feet which is 49.14% of the floor area of the existing building. Therefore the expansion does not require a Special Condition Use Permit_ Please note that the 50% expansion provision is cumulative. Therefore the floor area of any future expansion proposal would be added to the 658 square feet of the current expansion and the total of these areas �vould be compared to the 1339 square feet of the existing structure. Therefore, site plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Site impro�•emenfs Ttie proposed addition and aII other site improvements must be installed as shown on the approved site pian. This includes closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Beaz Avenue, restriping the parkin� lot and new landscaping. 2. Sanitary setirer The exisYing sanitary sewer will go under the new addition. It �nust therefore conform to the standards of the Plunnbing Code. Call Tom LeClaire at 651-266- 9051 if you have questions. 3. Roof drains The roof of the addition must drain to the south side of the building. 4. Oufside storage No outside storage is permitted. 5. Permits The City permits listed below are required for the work shown on the approved site plan. - Building permit A permit from Building Inspections (6S 1-266-9007) is required. - Sidewalk permit Remot•in� ttte existing drtveway in the Larpenteur pub2ic right-of- way must be done by a licensed contractor under a pennit from Public Works Sidewalk Section {651-266-6120). • 6. Time limit and inspection �Vork covered by this site plan must be completed no later than • 9/24/00. A site inspection will be scheduled based on this date. 7. Appeals The approval of this site plan by staff is subj ect to approval to the Planning Commission. An appeal may be filed any time within 30 days of the date of this letter. If an appeal is filed, a public hearing wiIl be scheduled at the Planning Commission. If pemuts for this project have been approved prior to an appeal being filed, all work on the project must stop until the Planning Commission rules on the appea2. If you have any questians, you can reach me at 651-266-9086 (phone), 651-266-9099 (fax) or tom,beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us (e-mail). Sincerely, Tom Beach Zoning Specialist cc: Sewer Division, PIanning Division, Traffic Division, District 2 Planning Councii G.\[:SERSBEACHTO?i�99_t:app.wpd . �• APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW � OFFICE OFLICE�ti'CE, I.�SPECj'I��.S'�,4�� ENY7RO.�ibfE:�'TAL PROTECTIbti� 3.i 0 SI. Peter Street, Srrite 300 Saint Paul, tbT.�'S.i102-I.i10 266-9086 APPLICANT/ Name, CONTACT PERSON ;.' :�, 1 . • - �,�� ' Name of owner (if diffe '�' ,, Address 1 - i' • • ; ,._-.. - PROJECT INFORMATION ApplicanYs signature ��1.1 12 t5 cz ir a Project name/descriptio u1 Address/Location f� �G, �"! -r ��•/! ,��•—P Legal description: Sec l', Le, c (attach additional sheet if necessary) Estimate� cost ��°� SFAF.F USE ONLY � . . . . _ _ . : ': P{anning LJistrici' Z Zoning �-3 Land lise g FE�story �S - Revizwed by Comrtients: '. � ` - G - ,°daXSt�' f �.rr esy j�.f'' G"✓i✓ _ •: � ,�s{ ,�� '� P,�S � �� °: €39l�1!S9oeaaot? s4F� i�: .. �ct�Ck�I�c fL�l. �� ,: - _ ,. s. c ,_. . . ; . ... ,,, . , >. . (a(tachaddrionsFsheefsifnseessary} -- :-:--:<,--_..;: Bondfle#ter of credit/escrow 5 FaFe '?' '� SiEe pfan epproved by Date :°'` , .;, ;.. , > .: _ . _ _ :. Wark ab�roved bv " _ _ Date ::;:: . . _ o�-��\ Zoning office use only SPRr - Z`� Fee 7�Z-5 J`.�` Steff ineef'� da:e: ° `� Z Z City age � G'ff =- � Daytime phone� S'og -�G�� Fax ��"' 7'�7- o��Q G➢.1JSC O-1�- � D��n.. .-� , � G �, �I , M � � � a � A � M � b Rl Q �m �x " G� m,� �. �X. S4h��t7 SOWe.e SeYV'.�a. � ��'�. CJi{� Yu� / Vl�� 6�.IM. 'Sah•tsrr icWa" IMNSf W+.t� p�uM,6�� o�t. $'�o�S W{O.rc i� W�l/ jse. Uh�W G.�.�v�. �° . _.'_.':'_ .�'t25 -•-' . _ _ _. � .! � n �� ; __ i � , 4D r � ll 0 .� �k �� s �� 0 ` �� " c ��. � � �. �� n s � � . � a-�� L. b ~ fi r � � � -� � - .... _.. ... � ._..:..�-.• _ . . . . _ ='��.-��. ..w �! r � � i P � � r� U �c -l�l • � �. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. SUNRAY•BA'ITLECREEK-HIGHW OOD HA�EL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTIY HILLCREST WEST SIDE llAYTON'S BLUFF PAYNE-PHALEN I�IORTH END THOMAS-DAT.E SUMMIT-UTIIVERSITY WEST SEVENI�I COMO HAMLINE-MIDWAY ST. ANTHONY PARK MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAhiLINE-SNELLING HAA1L�.�L MACALESTER GROVELAriD HIGHLAND SUMMIT HILL DOWN"I�OWN � Q�'-2�5' CrfIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS �. J � ��}��3� ��.� '?� • DISTRIC7 2 aN � '� �' �� •� � ;REATER EAST SIDE ::.� �H �ER �-i�t i a'�' o�� , ,; ; '; � � '� �� -- ��c;o'oja`;o:o�c o.o 0 CA�(FvRN1A � 'O i0'�!a`�:O � „ —i _, . __ � o a : �o�o;o � �.4,0 00000000000 � 0000c.000acoo 0000000000 o'o o�o � c `o o O.U;G�� }O � � .. ee ��3 a � n o ,o o,o' , � , � v_� , �� o � � � u ._ � `i , � a � i � . J �i0 a O O G O O O O U O O O ; Of010C� OOOt> � O � � �IQ';OiOIG! „�'� [ O,Gj�;0�0 O'O!O O O'O O(O�O•Q;Oj01 {2 � i_ � . . . : . : . _� __ , ' � ;� � + �� P�uc�,r�r is �i • ,2� Gh��tct,K� ��=N��ti t -�— � ,�� ' � zonu�g d�sirict t�undary • ,'.: �� DA7E �r� suSjzclpro?'-•�Y '�NG. DiST � h.1A° ;: o one Sa,;,ily � t� ... Y h.•;o (d:�ily . � �-_:._ k¢� multi�l?lamit� `f � �� l� � n Y \ � } c Z � _ _ � �� L nor,r;� • � ^ comm=:dz' � i 0 �.c iC7'JUS!.'i:' i �' vzca�: ; �o� �o;o�oio� o �ao�o�o; d I Q I plflloiol o I q i� I 4' I—"—I 1 t�l � I�l �la�°�� o 0 0� o 23-29-2 2 — } � t i � � � -- �� rr... 'o .� � ..� � 60 ' i 6p � --•• 93.�f5••-.._ , 60 + (4J 2 9. 67 7 /2 zD --• C 8 � � � � � � (S) �X ITSO {y � �� '�o � � . � �. �""' ° � I �� r.l !ro �I o° �M a ° Im ° � '~ °� ��i � (0= m �I +� Ni I� fv � � �' (�so) � x � �1 .+�I I + � �� I , ry _ _ I � _C_ /33�1 _ � J� � --� 78 � /_3.25 � 133_2� I � /33.� � � � �} T 1,, � 1 et -/soJ��.�5 �—`_. �� t '� 090 �� I � +`" I '� � � ' �' N X � . � f o x 0/ � O 23n y , � y ta � 28o I. ? ZOD I� Z!0 ` 0/ o I,b 4i � �' a� �c� (Q!/ ' � �N 3 D '� f`' ( 2 p�� m �I l,, {� . (�) ' �°) � �� i �z) � �u) ; i74 k) I � � �� '•� T SC „ 0 C ��) �Z� (�) � $ I 4 3 �� So so.tz s� ry O J ; (>> Cz6� . A Z � /�� v • r Zz, � D �� 9� i� lBO � 0 37c �N oj a� �:2 I � ° j� �g1 ; � �9o;_L----c9o�---- 4 (,P � ' C 28 � �29� �- py 2 f �'�°) �3i� t48� N � ._--- zae. Fs -.._, � — _ Ct/2o� '; 1� _"'� _� _ _ n; � ,�; � . i �rsr� (i5z� �� `-1 j33 � 33 � x � h �:f a�•ti c�1 �N �b G � ��i'�!��:.�I ��t� "t5 �(4 1�$ � I� 11 � ID � 9 i 9! 7 j 6 � 5 I 4 I 3 2� J Q� � • � l".9CRTE0 /Z !'« # /32 6.' 9 n� � I �1' ! ? �✓ r r � �'� ' Pi� y � � � �35} ••• •-� �n �n OA O/ 94 9Z . "JL I ^C , „L 7T 7Q ?Q �1 � � • • �- 31 Prr�posed Expansion 1675 VVhite Bear o�-i�t \ I�istances from residentially zoned property ,. < , ; . - . �Nhite Beax Avenue -� 3 1 RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY 'I760 LARPENTEUR I"" W W � � � Proposed Expansion 1675 White Bear �'O -�``� Distances from residentially zoned praperty at 1760 Larpenteur Proposed Expansion Existing Building 1675 White �ear � � � � � � � � � � � i 25 �� '��TI V�hite Bear Avenue ��1 �o -1v` Proposed expansions should not increase the nonconformity of the nonconforming structure RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY � �� -�`�� g�7CI��7C � �(.�I�J[��JI�T��Y (��J�T��, SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF NORTHEASTERN SAINT PAUL PARKWAY/GREENBRIER � BEAVER LAKE HEIGHTS PROSPERITY HEIGHTS � HAYDEN HEIGHTS PHALEN VILLAGE � LINCOLN PARK Ens7 P�i� • HazeL Pnizx FROSi LeucE • Hi[.LCxPSr January 3, 2000 Council President Bostrom 320 C City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: Lincoln Pawn's appeal of the Plaxuung Commission's Resolution 99-74, denying the proposed enlargement of the building at 1675 White Bear, which houses Lincoln Pawn Dear Councii President Bostrom and members of the Council, The District 2 Community Council urges you to support the decision of the Zoning Committee and the Planning Commission by denying the appeal of Lincoln Pawn to expand the structure at 1675 White Beas Avenue. In the December 8, 14491etter that accompanies the appeai, Mr. Fabel, the attorney from Linquist and Vennum, does a very good job of confusing a relatively simple issue. The issue in front of the Council is the interpretation of Section 62.102 (e) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code: Section 62.102 (e) of the zoning code provides that a nonconforming sh may be enlarged or aitered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformitv. a. The building at 1675 White Bear, that houses Lincoln Pawn, is a nonconforming structure in accordance with the zoning code definition of a nonconforming building: "A lawfui building existing on the effective date of the adoption (October 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that does not now comply with the area, width height, yazd, percent of lot coverage, or other regulations concern bulk or location on the lot, or spacing requirement from another use, off-street parking ar loading requirements, or other regulations of the district in which it is located." The building existed lawfully prior to the effective date of the pawn shop ordinance, Apri127, 1999, but it does not now compiy with the spacing requirement which went into effect on that date. The nroposed enlar�ement of 1675 White Bear increases the nonconfornuty associated with the shucture. The zoning code requires that a pawn shop "is separated, fi�om residentially zoned property either by a public street or by a distance of one hundred fifty (1 SO) feet measured from the building wall of the 1961 SHExwooD AVENUF • Snn.T PAUL • MN • 55119-3230 • PHONE: (651) 774-2220 • FaY: (651) 774-2135 �,0-1�{� pawn shop to the nearest lot Zine of the residentially zoned property; " All four walls of 1675 White Bear aze within one hundred fifty feet of the neazest lot line of the residentially zoned property at 1760 Larpenteur. The proposed enlazgement of the structure at 1675 White Bear is entirely within the one hundred fifty (150) feet required buffer of the residenfially zoned properiy. Section 60.534.6 attempts to create a buffer of one hundred fifty (150) feet from buildings that house pawn shops and residentially zoned properiy. To build anyrvhere within the one hnndred fifty (150) feet buffer is increasing the nonconformity of the structure and violates the intent of 62.102(e). b. The proposed expansion of the siructure to the south increases the number of properkies within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the struchxre that houses a pawnshop and thereby increases the nonconformity of the structure. The zoning code requires that pawn shops be sepazated from residentially zoned properiy either by a public street or a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the neazest lot line of the residentially zoned property. The structure at 1675 VJhite Bear is 57 feet from one residentia� zoned pro�ertXat 1760 Larpenteur If the proposed expansion is approved the shucture will be one hundred fo ,-eight (148�feet from the residentially zoned properta at 1749 Califomia that, currently, is one hundred fifty-rivo and one half (152.5) feet from the nearest building wall. The building at 1675 White Bear is nonconforming because of its setback from residentially zoned property. To increase the number of properties that the nonconforming structure is nonconforming to is increasing its nonconformity and clearly not within the spirit of Section 62.102 (a). Lincoln Pawn's Counsel would have you believe a structure has not increased its nonconformity unless it violates its worst encroachment to its neazest neighbor's properiy. In his letter he proposes that "straight line expansion" should be allowed, so that if your neighbor's attached three-season porch is within two feet of your attached garage then your neighbor has the right to build his new recreation room within two feet of your bedroom window. Worse, he contends, and staffls initial approval of the site plan would indicate, that is how staff has been interprering the code! In Lincoln Pawn's case it would appear that this inteipretation of the code is being taken to also mean that if you violate the setback requirements toward one neighbor, you have the right to violate the setback requirements to all of your neighbors. Clearly the code is there to protect the adversely affected neaghbor and the Board of Zoning Appeals exists to mediate these situations. �o - (�-E ` Ttiroughout this process, Counsel for Lincoln Pawn has not offered one case of precedent where the City Council has determined that a nonconforming structure can expand in the required set back azea without a variance from the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. He implies that somehow some undocumented staff decision has taken away your ability to create precedent on the interpretarion of the code. There is no precedent on this issue, or Counsel for Lincoln Pawn would site it. Both the Zoning Committee and the Plauuing Commission have detemiiued that anyone who wants to build in a required setback azea should be required to seek a variance from the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. The District 2 Community Council would a�ee that is the proper interpretation of the code and where this case belongs. Finally, Counsel for Lincoln Pawn suggests that they aze being treated unfairly because of the nature of their business. We grow tired of attomeys who argue that because the business or clientele are less then popular they deserve special treatment. Or, that logic should be thrown out the window because it is coming from mere neighbors. The use of the expansion is not at issue, only that the structure is nonconforming and it is being proposed to be more nonconforming. Lincoln Pawn's proposal that they should be allowed to encroach on their neighbors' properiy rights in exchange for an agreement that they not sell guns is among the most insulting that we haue heard. To use the threat o£ gun sales as a way of enticing the Council to set poor public policy is beneath contempt. We accept that Lincoln Pawn is a lawful use and that they have for years bought weapons over the counter. We have no desire to allow these kinds of property rights infringements to become accepted public policy in exchange for this kind of blaclanail. Again, the District 2 Community Council urges you to support the only clear, concise and logical interpretation of the code by supporting the decision of the Planning Commission and denying the appeal of Lincoln Pawn. Sincere , � Chuck Repke Community Organizer Disirict 2 Community Councii CC Council Members ORIG�NA[. WHEREAS, on September 28, 1999, the District 2 Community Council duly filed an appeal from the Zoning Administrator's site plan approval pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64300(j); and �1 Presented By Refened To WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Commission] conducted a public hearing concerning the District 2 Community Council's appeal on October 28, 1999, after having provided notice to affected property owners and at the conclusion of the public hearing moved to recommend to the full Commission that the appeal of Aistrict 2 be gzanted; and 2 WFIEREAS, on September 1, 1999, pursuant to the provisions of the Saint Paul Zoning 3 Code, David Schwarz, d/b/a Schwazz Construction, made application to the Saint Paul Zoning 4 Administrator for approval of a site plan for a proposed addition to the Lincoln Pawn Shop 5 located at 1675 White Beaz Avenue, legally described as follows: Kerwin's Outlots to the City 6 of St. Paul, Minn. Subj to Rd in Doc No. 2708457; the Fol N 133 ft of E 125 ft of Lot 1; and 7 8 WHEREAS, by letter dated September 28, 1999, the proposed site plan was approved as 9 contained in Zoning File 99-242; and 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 WHEREAS, on November 5, 1999, the Commission, approved the recommendation of the Zoning Committee and granted the District 2 appeal based upon the following reasons set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-74: On September 28, 1999, the Office of License, Inspecrions and Council File # 00 � � y � Green Sheet # � � �3� � RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date Environmental Protection (LIEP) by letter issued approval of a site plan far a proposed addifion to Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Bear Avenue, subject to conditions including closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Beaz Avenue, re-striping the parking lot and new landscaping. The letter approving the site plan noted that the proposed addition was in conformance with City ordinances. 2. On September 28, 1999, District 2 Community Council filed an appeal of LIEP's decision, ciaiming LIEP erred in its interpretation of Sections 62.102 and 64300 of the zoning code and the requirements of the new pawn shop ordinance. Section 62.102 of the zoning code addresses nonconfornung lots, uses of land, structures, and uses of land and structures. Section 62.102(e) provides that a nonconfornung structure may . z - 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 be enlazged or altered so long as such enlargement or alterarion does not 00 —l�k� increase its nonconformity. Section 64300 provides for plamuug coxnxnission and planning or zoning adtninistrator approvals. The applicable provisions of the new pawn shop ordinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) of the zoning staff report dated October 21, 1999. 3. LIEP erred in the interpretation of Section 62.102(e) that the expansion did not increase the nonconformity of the nonconfonning structure. The nonconformity of the structure was increased either by increasing the amount and azea of residentially zoned properry within one hundred fifty (150) feet impacted or affected by the increase in the size of the nonconforming structure or by increasing the nonconforming square footage from 1339 square feet to1997 squaze feet and therefare is not allowed without a variance. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, on December 8, 1999, Lincoln Pawn duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a public hearing before the Saint Paul City Council for the purposes of considering the action taken by the Commission; and 22 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64.206 -§ 64.208, and upon notice to affected parties, 23 a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council [Council] on January 5, 24 2000, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and of the Planning Commission, does hereby; RESOLVE, that the Council affirms the decision of the Commission in this matter based and adopts as its own the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Plamzing Commission as contained in Planning Commision Resolution No. 99-74. The Council finds that the proposed expansion further encroaches into an azea intended to separate a commercial use from residential uses and that such an expansion violates the legislatiave intent behind seperation requirements, a problem not solved by application of linear distance measurements; and be it ORI�INAL 1. . 00 �t�4\ z 3 FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Lincoln Pawn be and is hereby denied; and 4 be it 5 6 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Mr. 7 Chuck Wedemeyer (Lincoln Pawn), the Zoning Admiiustrator, the Plamziug Commission and the 8 District 2 Community Council. ORlG1NAL Aequested by Department of: By: Form Appro}� d by City Attorney By: �l.�i�� "'WVL`ct— 't.� �VO Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY � �c'-'� �'\��, �o By: Approved by Mayor� Date c�Z/�€fC�� B �.�✓.s� G�G�i'� � Adopted by Council: Date ,�j .��p_� D�C Adoption Certified by Council Secretary ***�**�**�**+ -COMM.JOURNRL- *�*�**�x��orox�*w�* DRTE FEB-11-2909 �** TIME 10=46 �� P.01 MODE = MEMORY 7RRNSTiISSI�I FILE NO.= 167 N0. COM RBHR/NTLAC STfiTION tJRMEi TEL.FPHONE N0. STRRT=FEB-11 10�42 ENI�FEB-11 10�46 PRGES PRG.M7. PROC+RF'd1 NRFIE 001 OK . 69099 �2i002 -City oi Saint Pau1 - �� {ity Councii - � - 651 266 8574- �� 7 . 5 6 7 8 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 be enlazged or altered so long as such enlargement or a]teration dces not O o-l4� inciease its nonconfoimity. Section 64300 provides for planning commission and planning or zoning administrator approvals. The applicable pro�isioas of ihe new pawn shop oxdinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) of the zoning staff report dated October 21,1999. 3. LIEP eaed in the inteipretation of Section 62.102(e) that the expansion did not increase the nonconfomuty of the nonconforming shucture. The nonconformity of the strucnue was increased either by increasing the amount and azea of tesidentially wned propexty within one hundred fifty (150) feet impacted or affected by the increase in the size of thc nonconfozming structure or by increasing the nonconforming squaze footage from 1339 squsre feet to1997 square feet and thereforc is not allowed without a vaziance. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Yaul Legislative Code § 64206, on December 8, 1999, Lincoln Pawn duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and xequested a public heazing before the Saint Paul City Council for the pu�poses of considering the action taken by the Commission; aad WT�EEREAS, acting pursuant to § 64.206 -§ 64Z08, aad upon notice to affected parties, a public heazing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council (Council] on January 5, 2000, where all imerested pazties were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREA3, the Council, having heazd the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the 7.oning Committee and of the PU nnino Commissioq docs hereby; I2ESOLVE, that the Council a�rms the decision of the Commission in this matter based and adopu as its own the fmdings, coaelusions and recommmdations of the Planning Commission as comained in Pl annin Commision Resolution No. 99J4. The Council finds that the proposed expansion fiuther eneroaches inW an area intended to separate a commercial use fmm residential uses and fliat such an expansion violates The legislariave intent behind seperation requirements, a pmblem not sotved by application of lineaz distance me-asurements; and be it ORIGINAL Ob..� �{� ci GREEN SHEET I �'�� No �� Peter Warner TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES ooui�rowcerae antoiasi ❑ rnrwTroucr ❑ arcaituc ❑n�14xu�LtElku�cESOR ❑RIIWew.aFR1nACCro ❑ WYORIORAfLfTMR) ❑ (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memorializing the decision of the City Council on January 5, 2000, denying the appeal of I.incoln Pawn to a decision of the Planning Commission granting the appeal of the Distric[ 2 Community Council of the Zoning Administrator`s approval of a site plan for expansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue. PLANNING CAMMISSION CIB COMMITfEE CIViI SERVICE COMMISSION When. ties this ae�� everwuked uMer a mMract ra mie departmem? VES NO Hae this P�mt fl�er been a aty empbyee9 YES NO Does tMS P�� P� a sldll nd iwnna�yP�d bY anY wrreM city emPbYee? YES NO IS Nit peraoNfirm a tergetetl vendoYt VES � etlach to arem sheH C i°JLa?s,p,�y �452�:?,,°df � !s�?1�9C �� Q OF TRANSACTION eosrmEVaue suots�o (c�aaF onel YES NO SOURCE ACTIVRY NUMBER INFORMATON (EJfPWl� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Nasm Coleman, Mayor February 7, 2000 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Ha11 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appeal by Lincoln Pawn Shop Zoning Resolufion 99-242 City Council Motion of Intent: January 5, 2000 Dear Nancy: OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY Q O _,�' Clayton M Robinsan, Jr., City Attorney CivilDivirion 40D City Ha1[ TeZephone: 651 266-8710 ISWestKelloggBlvd Facsimile:651298-5619 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Attached please find a signed Resolution memorializing the City Council's Motion of Intent to deny the appeal by Lincoln Pawn of a planning commission decision to deny Lincoln Pawn's site plan application for properiy located at 1675 White Beaz Avenue. Please place this matter on the Council Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Peter W.�a e�� Assistant City Attomey t� +• ^�k��p^�'��"°� ;i':�: , �, s,. PWW/rmb Enclosure � �' � :v�v�� DEPAR"I'MENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT oa-t�E( 3( _ CI'TY OF SAII�IT PAUL Norm Colem¢n, Mayo> December 14, 1999 Division of Plarming 25 West Fourth Street SamtPaul, MN55701 Telephone: 612-266-6565 Facsimi7e 612-228-3314 Ms. Nancy Anderson �� "��'"=`' �'°'� CiTy Council Reseazch Office xoom s io c�ri xan �EC �, �#�99 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Deaz Ms. Anderson: �o�� I would like to c nfirm that a public heazing before the CiTy Council is scheduled for Wednesday, January 5, for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision granting an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan. -.. Appellant: LINCOLN PAWN File Number: #99-178-640 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision granting the appeal of District 2 Community Council of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop. Address: 1675 White Beaz Avenue; (west side between Larpenteur and Califomia) f Legal Description of Property: Kerwin's Outlots to the City of St. Paul, Minn. Subj to Rd in Doc No. 2708457; the Fol N 133 ft of E 125 ft of Lot 1 Previous Actian Planning Commission Recommendation: approvat of appeal; vote: 14-2, November 5, 1999 Zoning Committee Recommendation: approval of appeal ; vote: 3-2, October 28, 1999 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the December 22, 1999 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the heazing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6554 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �a,�c,cc�.,'�i Nancy Frick City Planner cc: File #99-178-640 Paul Dubruiel Carol Martineau Wendy Lane, LIEP •�srmm• NOTICE OF PFtBLIC HEARING The Saint Paul City Counclj wAt condnct apublic hearing on Wednesday, January�5. 2000, at 5:30 p.m.3n the City Council Ch�mbers, Thiid Floor, City Ha11- Courthouse,to consider the appeaI of Llncoln Pawn to a decision of the Planning Commission granting the appeal of the District 2 Community Council of the Zo nina Admuustrator's approval of a site plan for the eicpansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White BeazAvenue. Dated: December 14, 1999 NANCYANDERSON ��" � Assist'ant Ciiy Cuundt Seczetary _ . . . (Dec..16) . � - =�ST, �PAiU.7 E(iAL I.�G88 �-=_ DEPARTMENT OF PLA�IING & ECONOM[C DEVELOPMENT Briarz Sweeney, Director • crrY oF sa�rr pauL, Norm Co[eman, Mayar December 29. 1999 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 Ciry Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 25 West Fourth Street Saint Pau[. M,ti 5� 102 RE: Zoning File #99-178-64Q: LINCOLN PAWN (Chuck Wedemeyer) City Council Hearing: January 5, 2000, 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers p0-1�S � Telephone: 6�1-266-66?6 Facsim ile: 65l-228-339 / PURPOSE: Appeal a planning commission decision granting the appeal of the District 2 Community Council of a Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: APPROVAL OF APPEAL; vote: 14-2 ZONRQG COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: APPROVAL OF APPEAL; vote: 3-2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION DEIVIAL � SUPPORT: Two (2) persons spoke. One letter. The District 2 Community Council was the appellant to the site plan approval. , OPPOSITION: Two (2) persons spoke. Dear Ms. Anderson: �J LINCOLN PAWN has appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Planning Commission to grant the appeal by the District 2 Community Council of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue. Tlle Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on October 28, 1999. The appellanYs representatives addressed the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 3-2 to recommend granting of the appeal. The Planning Commission upheld the Zonin� Committee's recommendation to grant the appeal on a 14-2 vote on November 5, 1999. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on January 5, 2000. Please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. The appeal packet is attached. Sincerely, `� �� Nancy Frick Ciry Planner Attachments cc CiTy Council Members Chuck Wedemeyer, LincoVn Pawn Tom Fabel, Lindquist and Vennum Peter Warner Wendy Lane District 2 Community Council File #99-178-640 ao-��i � • � city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 99-74 date November 5, 1999 WT�EREAS, DISTI2ICT 2 COMMLTNITY COLTNCIL, file #� 99-275, has, under the provisions of Section 64300(j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, appealed the approval of a site plan by the Zoning Administrator for the expansion of a pawn shop on properry at 1675 White Bear Avenue, legally described as follows: Kerwin's Outlots to the City of St. Paul, Minn. Subj to Rd in Doc No. 2708457; the Fol N 133 ft of E 125 ft of Lot 1; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, held a public hearing on 10/28/1999 at which all persons present were given an opporhinity to be heazd pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public heazing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: On September 28, 1999, Tom Beach, Zoning Specialist with the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) by letter issued approval of a site plan for a proposed addition to Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Beaz Avenue, subject to a set of conditions including closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Beaz Avenue, restriping the pazking lot and new landscaping. In the letter approving the site plan, Mr. Beach noted that the proposal was in conformance with City ordinances. This letter is attached to the zoning staff report, dated October 21, 1999. 2. On September 28, 1999, the District 2 Community Council filed an appeal of this decision, stating as grounds for their appeal an error by staff in its interpretation of Sections 62.102 and 64300 of the zoning code and in requirements of the new pawn shop ordinance. 5ection 62.102 of the zoning code provides for nonconforming lots, nonconforming uses of land, nonconforming structures, and nonconforming uses of moved by Gervais seconded by in favor 14 (Nowlin Abstained) against 2 (Duarte, Faricy) �o-t�� • Z.F.#99-275 Page 2 of Resotution structures and land. Section 64.300 provides for planning commission and planning or zoning administrator approvals. The applicable provisions of the ne�� pawn shop ordinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) of the zoning staff report dated October 21, 1999. 3. The Zoning Administrator erred in the interpretation of Section 62.102(e) that the expansion did not increase the nonconformity of the nonconforming structure at 1675 White Beaz Avenue. By increasing the azea of the structure within the nonconforming setback from the neazest residentially-zoned property line, the nonconformity of the structure is increased and therefore is not allowed without a variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Cade, the appeal by the District 2 Community Council is hereby granted. C� � 80-1�{� • Saint PauI Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, November 5, 1999, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Duarte, Engh, Faricy, Geisser, McCall, Morton and Nordin Present: and Messrs. Corbey, Dandrea, Fotsch, Gervais, Gordon; Johnson, Kramer, Nowlin and Shakir. Commissioners Mmes. M and Messrs. *Field, *Kong, *Mardell and *Margulies Absent: *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Planning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Donna Drummond, Amy Filice, Nancy Frick, Tom Harren, Nancy Homans, Allen Lovejoy, Larry Soderholm, Joel Spoonheim, Brian Sweeney, Lucy Thompson, Altan Torstenson, James Zdon, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; and Wendy Lane, Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection. • I. Approval of Minutes of October 22, 1999 MOTION: Commissioner Kramer moved approval oJthe minutes of October 22, I999; Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements Mc Ford announced that just before the Planning Commission's last meeting, the City Council adopted two additionat special sign districts which they have referred to the Planning Commission: 1) Hamline Midway; and 2) Merriam Park. Also, the City had just lost one case concerning billboards to Scenic Minnesota. The couR decided that billboards on Grand Avenue and Highland Village that the City had said cou(d be replaced because of storm damage to the sign surface themselves, shoutd not have been allowed. This week the City Council adopted the 1994 Large STAR Loans and Grants. There were a few modifications, but Mr. Ford �vas not sure of what they were. They will be reported later. _ Last week Mr. Ford gave a report to the Csty Council, following on cases involving trucking facilities and zonina for trucking facilities, and also following discussion at the City Council on the Comprehensive Plan related to the use of industrial land for trucking faci{ities. The City Council had requested that PED prepare a report on possible amendments to the Zoning Code that woutd do a better job of protecting residential neighborhoods from the adverse impact of • trucking facilities on adjacent properiy, and that subsequent to that report they would ask the Planning Commission to complete the study and recommend amendments to them. This last C9�—I't\ � week, the City Council started the process of instituting a moratorium on additional permitting for trucking faci(ities unti( that study is done. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Chair Morton had no announcements. IV. Recognition of Ken Ford's Retirement Mr. Tom Harren announced that Mr. Ken Ford's official last day in the office will be Thursday, November 18, 1999. Consequently, this is the last Planning Commission meeting where Ken wi{i be serving as the Planning Administrator. Tom shared with the Commission some thoughts and reflections on Ken's work in PED, and indicate some of the appreciation the PED staff has for the great work that he has done. In the past three years that Tom has worked very closely with Ken. In addition to it being a very enjoyable experience, it has also been very much a learning experience for Tom. Ken has made Tom aware of some things in planning and development that have been very valuable. Ken has become a very important part of PED, and his leaving will be a great loss. PED has benefitted from Ken in many ways. First, he brings a tremendous amount of knowledge to the job. He has been able to provide some insight into things simply because he is very knowledgeable. This has come about because Ken has taken continued extra steps to keep . himself educated. Secondly, his experience in workin� in planning and development issues has set the foundation for planning for many of the last years. Finally, and probably the most important thing and the most significant contribution that Ken has made to PED is how he has shared his knowledge and his experience �vith the other staff: AII of the planners and other PED staff have come to depend on Ken for the knowledge and experience that he has. Ken has always been witling to share that knowtedge and experience with the other staf£ He has served as a mentor and advisor to many of the planners, and he has served as a mentor and advisor to Tom over the tast three years, and Tom is very appreciative. While Ken's leaving will be a tremendous Ioss to both PED and the Planning Commission, Tom is sure that Yhe Commission shares with his wishing Ken the very best as he takes an opportunity to start a new venture in his Iife. Other events that will take place within the next couple of weeks to continue to show Ken PED's and the Ciry's appreciation for the work he has done include: 1) a presentation at 3:3� p.m. at the City Counci! on November 17; 2) a party on November 19 at the Town and Country Club beginning at 530 p.m; and 3) a reception to be held Wednesday, November 17, from 9:30 - 11 a.m. at the Saint Paul City Ha(1 Conference Center, Room 40B. Tom extended his appreciation, personally, to Ken for the help he has given him in the last three " years, and on behalf of PED, for the work that he has given over the many years that he has been with PED and with the Planning Commission. Chair Morton read the Planning Commission resolution honoring Mr. Ford, and she added her own personal thanks to someone has been a pleasure to worS: with, has ahvays been helpful, has , �o -t�l • . a(�vays been cheerful, and ahvays been there to help. Mr. Ford noted that he has attended 425+ Planning Commission meetings. The Commission has worked through policy issues: 1) trudged through them with community groups; and 2) trudged throu�h them in committees. There's been Land Use, two major Comprehensive Plan Chapters, and many more studies of special issues, five major studies in housing, plus low income housing strate�ies, the various evolutions of neighborhood improvement pro�rams, at least three studies in transportation, library services, fire and emergency services, parks and recreation major studies, community service centers, swimming pools, child care, etc. The Commission has provided the forum and done the work to think through policy that ought to guide development of this city. Week and week and month afrer month, the Planning Commission has provided the forum where the ofren competing interests in the city come together over the issues that have to be resolved if those policies and directions that have been set are goin� to be realized in �vhat happens on the ground in our neighborhoods. Over and over again, people have found here a fornm where they are listened to that is fair and open and where there is a possibility of resolving issues based on some carefully thought out policy. Metal shredders, shops for guns or pawning, or sex, roads here and roads there, parking lots, building setbacks, more or ]ess historic structures and districts worthy of preservation, and the garage next door. Over and over a�ain, it's very difficult for this city and even for members ofthe Commission to realize the significance of the forum provided by the Planning Commission. Has it made a difference? Ken noted that last year he had an opportunity to take a group of Japanese city officials on a tour. As they were driving down Grand Avenue, a Japanese woman who's very familiar with cities in the United States because she lives in San Francisco (their tour guide), commented on how extraordinary lovely Grand Avenue was. She mentioned the apartment buildings, the consistent setbacks, the mixture of residential and commercial uses, etc. Ken couldn't help think, looking down Grand Avenue, that virtually every block has been touched by decisions of the Planning Commission. From Grand Avenue to Concord to Barge Channel Road to the riverfront, downtown, Payne Avenue, Phalen Village, South St. Anthony Park, University and Raymond, Raymond and Energy Park Drive, West Seventh Street, etc. You'd be hard put to find a corner in this city where the decisions the Planning Commission has worked through with citizens have not made a difference for the better in the quality of the fabric that were have in our community. Ken expressed that iYs 6een a tcemendous privilege to be a part of that for all this time. It has been an extraordinary privilege beyond what anyone has a right to expect for his career to have worked all this time with the colleagues he has had all this time in PED. It has been a great privilege to work with the leadership this city has had. It has been a very special privilege to work with generous citizens who have put so much effort and so much of their time and thought into the work of this Commission. Ken mentioned one commissioner, Anne Geisser, whose imprint is so many things he has mentioned, and who has been with the Commission so long, and has given extraordinary dedication and talent to many things. He congratulated her in advance on her departure from the Commission, since he �vil! not be here at that time. Mr. Ford stated that it has been a tremendous privilege to �vork with the leadership of the Planning Commission. iVo one has brought moze wilGn�ness to keep in touch on a week]y basis to keep the business of the Commission moving, more political savvy that s useful for this work, and a better combination of firmness and fairness in conductin� meetings than Gladys . �-,�� • Morton. Ken thanked the Commission for al1 the time they have had together, for a(t their hazd work and for being fun people to work with. MOTION: Con:nzissionzer Geisser moved approvat of the resolution l:onoring Mr. %n Ford; tJ:e resl of the P[anning Commission seconded t{ze motion which carried unanimously on a voice vate. V. Zoning Committee #99-236 US West Wireless - Special condition use permit to allow a cellular telephone antenna to be installed in the Oxford Street right-of-way, west side between Concordia and Carroll (Allan Torstenson, 266-6579). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was laid ovec to November 9, 1999. #99-247 Nationwide Groun-Acorn Mini Stora�e - Site plan revieiv for a proposed mini- storage facility located east of Case between A�ate and 35E (Tom Beach, 266-3086). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was Iaid over to November 4, 1999. #99-268 Pong Yun Kim - Special condition use permit with a modification of the required • setback from residential uses and a variance of required parking to allow a billiard hall at 681 Snelling Avenue North beriveen Van Buren and Blair (7ames Zdon, 266-6559). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was also laid over. #99-270 Esperanza Duarte - Rezoning from RM-2 to OS-1 to aliow a mixed use, residential and office services (one residentia] and two office units) at 550 Concord Street between Pa�e Street East and Curtice (dames Zdon, 266-6559). MOTION: Commissiofter Gervais moved to recommend approval of ihe rezoning from RM- 2 to O&I to nllow a mixed use, residential and office services (one residential ttnd two ojfice undts) at S50 Concord Street between Page Street Bast and Curtice wltich carried on a voice vote (Duarte abstnined). #99-272 Metro Airoort Commission - Special condition use permit to construct a dike to maintain access to businesses located off of Eaton Street during high water events at the south side of Eaton Street west of Highway 52 (Nancy Homans, 266-6557). Commissioner Gervais repoRed that Ulis case was laid over for six months. #99-273 Sonathan L. Faraci - Special condition use permit for the erection of a 90-foot telecommunications tower at 1296 Hudson Road (Nancy Frick, 266-6554). Commissioner Gervais reported that this case was ]aid over to November 9 for more . 4 oa � � �E 1 � information. #99-275 District 2 Communitv Council Aoneal of an administrative decision approving Lincoln Pawn Site Plan at 1675 �Vhite Bear Avenue -(Nancy Frick, 266-6554). MOTION: Commissioner Gervais moverl to grant tl:e appeal of t1:e Aistrict 2 Community Council of trr: adn:inisirative decisiort approving Lincoltz Pawi: $'ite Plan at 167.i White Bear Avenue. Commissioner Faricy reported that she and Commissioner Field �vere the only two Zoning Committee members who disagreed with the findin�. Their first preference for this case was to lay it over for two weeks in order to give Mc Warner an opportunity to review it. Commissioner Faricy's ob}ection to the Committee decision was: Lincoln Pa�vn existed la�vfully prior to the effective date of the Pawn Shop Ordinance which went into effect on April 27, 1999. The code does not apply to this site plan. Staff found earlier that Lincoln Pawn does not fit the zoning definition of nonconforming use. A lawful use existing on the effective date of adoption or amendment of this code, but that is not now permitted in the district in which it is located. Pawn shops are permitted subject to special conditions in the B-3 zoning district. The spacing requirement which was added to the code in 1999 results in the structure being nonconforming, not the use. Therefore, staff found that the zoning code requirements for enlarging of a nonconforming use do not appfy to Lincoln Pawn. A(so, as long as the expansion is less than 50°/n, the code requires site plan approval, not a special condition use permit. In your packets this morning there's a letter from Mr. Fabel from Lindquist and Vennum in which � he specifies that the owner of the pawn shop is willing to make a commitment to the City that he wilt never allow the sale of firearms to occur at his business. Commissioner Gervais announced that in front of all commissioners today there is a substitute resolution different from the one in the packet that �vas mailed. Commissioner Kramer explained that the substitute reso{ution has the same conclusion, but was actually written by City Attorney, Peter Wamer. He added that the argument has been brought forward that if this pawn shop were to expand 1 inch to the west, it would not be allowed, but if it wants to expand 60 feet to the south, it's O.K. That does not seem to be consistent with the Planning Commission or the City Council when the 150 foot separation �vas instituted. The other thing that disturbs Commissioner Kramer is that in addition to increasing not only the amount of volame of the building within the 150 foot setback, that we have also, if we allow that expansion to occur, increased the number of properties that are no longer protected by the ' 1 SO foot buffer. Because the expansion travels further south, additional property is impacted. Another thing is that not only is the addition within the I50 foot area, but it is parallei to the existing residential property, so you've actually added volume of pawn shop directly parallel to the residential property. Previously, there was 40 or 50 feet of pawn shop that was parallel �vithin the 150 foot area. The addition, interestingly enough is 49.—% of the size of the property ' tl�at is immediately parallet. While he appreciates the applicanYs offer to not sell guns, he noted that this property has never sold guns. They only pa�vn guns; they sell them elsewhere. The Planning Commission cannot put conditions on building permits. If the o�vner of the property wants to do that, it's great, and Commissioner Kramer applauds him. Withottt a specia! condition use permit to amend, the Planning Commission cannot make that requirement. The . �� _+� � • City Attorney has also informed us that if we do put such a requirement on a permit, it is, unfortunately, only voluntary. State law prec{udes the Plannina Commission's ability to regulate gun sales above and beyond what state iaw altows the Planning Commission to do. Commissioner Gordon stated that he will be the firsf to acknowled�e that there are arguments on both sides, and that both sides have been well represented. He voted in favor of the appeal at Zoning Commirtee. It came down to the interpretation of the words, "increase its nonconforming," because Section 62.102(e) provides that a nonconformin� structure may be - enlarged or altered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. Is there an increase in the nonconformity as a result of the enlargement or • alteration? Commissioner Gordon asked commissioners to consider, hypothetically, a city street. On one side of the city street is a pawn sl�op; on the other side of the city street, say fifty feet away, you have a residential zoned area and residences. Norv, you expand the pawn shop one more block to the south. The residential area originally impacted by the pawn shop has now been expanded by one block. As originally built, iYs affecting the residents on the other side of the street. Once iYs expanded to take another city block to the south, you have impacted an additional residential area and if there are residences on that block, you have impacted additional residences. That's what happening here. IYs not going a block, but it is extending, and to the extent that it extends, it does impact on an additional area of residentially zoned property, and it does impact on additional residences all of which are within 150 feet. To Commissioner Gordon, that's one increase in the nonconformity. Also, they want to expand the size, square footage, from 1,339 sq. fr. to 1,997 sq. ft; that again, is an increase in the nonconformity. Because of these two nonconformities, there is a conflict with the provisions of • Section 62,1Q2(e). That is why Commissioner Gordon thinks the Zoning Committee's action was proper and he will vote for the motion to grant the appeal. Commissioner Nawlin noted that he is abstaining from the discussion and will not be voring on this matter. Chair Morton c]arified the motion by saying it is to support the Zoning Committee's decision to granT the appeal of District 2. Ms. Prick explained that she would not �vant to characterize that what Mr. Warner did was look at the lega( ramifications of this case, rather he tried to put the rationale of the Zoning Committee, as he understaod it, into better words in the resolution than staff had done, The motion on tke floor ta grant t/ie appeal of the District 2 Commurury Council of an administrative decision approving Lincoln Pawn site plan a11675 White Bear Avenue carried on a roll call vote nf I4 - 2(Duarfe, Faricy} wiil: I absiention (Nowlin). Reaort on Tobacco 5hons Zoning Studv -(Larry Soderholm, 266-6575). � Commissioner Gervais reported that this report was also laid over to November 9, 1999. Commissioner Gervais read the agenda for the next Zonin� Committee meeting to be held Tuesday, November 9, 1999: 1) U.S. Wireless, special condition use permit; 2) Nationwide Group-Acom Mini Stora�e, site plan review; 3) Pong Yun Kim, specia] condition use permit; 4) . oo-��t� • Jonathan L. Faraci, special condition use permit; 4) Herberger's, sign variance; 5) AT&T, special condition use permit; 6) AI-Arabi Hisham, nonconforming use permit; 7) Macalester College; and 8) the Tobacco Shops Zoning Study. VI. Comprehensir�e Pianning Committee Liaht Rail Transit in the Central Corridor - Study Findings and Recommendations, Adopt Resolution - (Ken Ford, Soel Spoonheim) MOTION: Co»:missioner Geisser movedfor approvnl ifte Liol:t Rail Transit Commit2ee's recomrrrendatio�: on Light Rail Trar:sit. Mr. Ford gave on short presentation on the committee recommendations. The committee has been on a very short time schedule and has done an efficient study. Mr. Ford walked through the conclusions and recommendations, beginning on page I 1 of the report. 1. A rivo-track light rail system connecting downtown Saint Paul and downtown Minneapolis can be accommodated well within the existing University Avenue right-of-way. 2. Properly designed and supported by related actions, a light rail transit line would likely make a very positive contribution to improvement and development goals for University Avenue and its adjacent communities, a contribution strongly supportive of key Comprehensive Plan policies. 3. �Vith careful planning and management, disruption of business on the Avenue can be kept to � a tolerable minimum during the period of construction. 4. It does not appear that light rail would likely make the same strong positive contributions to overall development on an Interstate-94 alignment that it can make on University Avenue. 5. If we proceed with steps toward the construction of light rail on University Avenue, or on other ali�nments, the City should play an active role and should ensure the following: a. The City should paRicipate sufficiently to complete work necessary for positioning Saint Paul high among the competitors for TEA-21 federal funding in 2003. This wouid include timely approval of an Environmental Impact Statement. b. Planning for station areas should begin as early as possible once the alignment question is answered. This is a strong recommendation from those in Minneapolis who are wrestling �vith the difficulty of simultaneous final engineering and station area plannin�. c. Cood design and quality for station areas and throughout the system is of the utmost importance. Comfort and pleasure for riders and ped�strians is one of the important attractions of liglit rail and readily perceived quality and comfort are important for the ' strongest contribution to transit and to the Avenue. d. Early and extensive communication with communities, properiy owners a�d interest groups along the route will be important for al1 design phases and broad participation will be needed in station area planning. e. In all decision and planning stages, attention should be given to the redevelopment ' resources, plans and tools that will provide for the greatest positive reinvestment impact at station areas. £ Lioht raii can contribute a great deal toward many city and neighborhood objectives, but to do that successfully it must be carefully designed wiih those objectives in mind. Alignment and station ]ocation choices are criticaL Throughout the planning process, . oa-«� • the focus should be on what we want to accompiish with light rail and how it can be designed to achieve that. Commissioner Geisser thanked the Light Rail Transit Committee for their di(igence in getting this done; they met every week. She shated her appreciation with the members of the Planning Commission who participated on the study. Commissioner Geisser tha�ked PED staff who worked double time to get this material to the Committee: I) Joel Spoonheim; 2) Allen Lovejoy; 3) Tom Harren; and 4) Ken Ford. She also thanked Commission members �vho attended one or both of the community meetings. The results are terrific; all are to be applauded. The Planning Commission has taken the initiative and has given the City's elected officials a document that they can go with. The Commission has given the opinion that this is where the it believes light rail should be and we better get on the train before it pulls out of station and we're not on it. Commissioner Geisser stated that the Planning Commission has done as instructed by the City Council; the Commission has examined what they asked and did all the reviews. Therefore, she resolved that the Saint Paul Pianning Commission adopts the report entitled Light Rail Transit on Universiry Avenue: A Review of the Potential dated November, 1999, and commends the information and conclusions and recommendations of this report to the Mayor and City Council. CommissionerNowlin added that in the end, the committee unanimous]y supported the document and recommendations that were produced. The repoct de(iberately does not get into the debate about University Avenue versus West 7`" Street The charge was to look at the Central Conidor. The report reaffirms what was done in the 80s about the planning for light rail • transit. The motion on tlzefloor approving U:e Comr�zittee's recommendations on LiglztRail Transit carried unanimously on a voice vote. VII. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee Commissioner Faricy reported that the l�ieighborhood and Current Planning Committee met on November 2, 1999. Eight commissioners were present. The Great Northern Corridor: A Communi Vision - Set public hearing (Dec. 3, 1999) MOTION. Commissioner Faricy moved to set a public hearing date ofDecember 3, I999, to review tlze public input regar�ting The Great Northern Corridor: A Community Vision, and refer the document and iestimony to the Neig/�borl:ood an�t Current Plannirxg Commdttee carried unanimously on a voice vofe. Chioolte Mexican Grill• Commerciai Development District -(James Zdon, 266-6559) �� Commissioner Faricy explained that the Grill has a beer and wine license at this time, but they want a liquor license in order to be able to serve margarita with their Mexican food. There's a cap on the number of Iiquor Iicenses that are awarded to each Ward in Saint Paul. The cap in Ward 3 where this restaurant is located is six. As a result, we are going to move this into a commercial development district. The City Charter provides for commercial development . �o-t�S • districts which are excepted from the cap on intoxicated liquor {icenses in each Ward. The Saint Paul Legislative Code provides an additional requirement that when the Ciry Council considers creating or expanding a district, the Planning Commission sha116e consulted for advice concernina the proposal_for consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances. The proposed commercial development district is consistent with the recently adopted Land Use Plan, which states that fhe purpose of the plan is to promote a balance of land uses in the city to streno hen the city's tax base. The property is zoned B-2 where a restaurant and liquor license establishments are permitted. The Chipolte Mexican Grille is in the Highland Crossing building. The district counci! did approve and recommend this ]icense for the restaurant. They put one stipulation on it-that the license would be granted to the restaurant and not to the Highland Crossing company that owns the building. The chief manager of Highland Crossing LLC, Jim Stolpestad, has accepted that proposal. MOTION: Commissioner Faricy n:oved tkat the Planning Co»:mission report to the City Council tl:ai the proposed Commercinl Developn:ent Disirict is cot:sisient with tlte Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code, and thaf the Planning Commission supports creation of the proposed dis[rict. Commissioner Kramer explained that he missed the meeting on this because he was in helping in the Ciry of Maplewood where they don't have a commercial development district, and they actually had to go before the voters to get permission to renew liquor licenses in the City of Maplewood. They had turned away three restaurants because they had run out of licenses. Commissioner Kramer noted that this is a very positive provision that Saint Paul has that allows • the City to do the right thing when it makes sense. He asked Commissioner Faricy if this proposed commercial development district is for the premises (physical area) of the restaurant orjust that particular restaurant. Commissioner Gordon asked if this commercial deveiopment district is just for the site iY is located at. Commissioner Faricy replied that it was. Commissioner Gordon asked if the Grille intends to serve other hard liquors in addition to margarita. Chair Morton responded that it would be lawful for them to serve any other liquors. Mr. Zdon added that it is his understanding that the only liquor they wi(l 6e serving wilt be pre-mixed margarita. Commissioner Gordon wondered whether there was another way to accomp]ish this without creating a special district. Mr. Ford replied that it would be extraordinary, at least, to put a special condition on requiring your favorite drink. He thinks that it's clear that the permission goes �vith the facility. If Chipolte moved out, someone else could come in and take advantage of it. Chair Morton asked Mr. Zdon to clarify that since this is a liquor license they could serve any liquor they wanted to serve. Mr. Zdon concurred. Commissioner Kramer asked if the commercial development district applied just to the premises of the restaurani or to the entire Highland Crossin�, Mc Zdon answered that it applies only to the premises of the restaurant. Commissioner Kramer asked if �vhoever leases the premises of ' the restaurant can apply for a separate liquor license. Mr. Zdon responded that was correct. Commissioner Nordin asked how it was possible to make part of a huilding a district. Commissioner Geisser replied that the Commission has done it before. At Sibley Ptaza, when Champs wanted to open a new Mexican Restaurant, the City gave that site permission to open . 00 -�� . Tlze n:otion on t/te floor carried unntzimous[y on a voice vote. West Side Flats Development Stratew - Presentation -(Lucy Thompson, 266-6578) Commissioner Faricy introduced Ms. Thompson, who introduced Brian Sweeney, Director of PED, �vho made the presentation. He stated that one of PEDs char�es over the past nine months has been to change the culture for development in the"City of Saint Paul. Mr. Sweeney feels that today we can celebrate a tremendous victory for the City of Saint Paul around the development strategy for the West Side Flats. This strategy is a result of a 12-month process in which PED worked with the community on the West Side as welf as the development partners within the city, most specifically, the Saint Paul RiverFront Corporation, who took the 3ead on this. Late spring, early summer there was an engaged conversation with the West Side community, specifically, with WSCO. It was our mutual goal that all parties involved in this process �vould be able to sign on to the West Side Flats Development Strategy, which has been developed with the help of Ellerbe Becket and later, with the help of Dahlgren, Shardlow and Uban. The consufting firm worked cooperatively with all parties to put together this final document. This strategy is not prescriptive, per se, for every block and for every use. It allows flexibility and a true mixed-use, urban village concept to be developed. Developers around the country are looking at this site as one of the most exciting developments in the Upper Midwest. Jerry Trooien has also been very much a part of this discussion. Mr. Sweeney introduced Patrick Seeb. Mr. Seeb, Executive Director of the Saint Paul Riverfront Corporation, addressed the � Commission. Dave Engfer, chair of the West Side Citizens Organization joined him. Mr. Engfer and Mr. Seeb both expressed the difigent work of many people to help to bring this together. For the first time in many decades, there's a plan on the table that everyone seems to support. It is an excellent first step. Mr. Engfer hopes to be visiting the Pianning Commission many more times in the future proposing additional steps to this development process. Mr. Seeb introduced Kim Way, an urban planner from Ellerbe Becket. Mr. Way feels that the interactive process so far has come up with a framework that can guide this very important part of the city for the future. Mc Way showed s(ides of a variety of mixed- use development guides for this site that can be done over the short-term and lona term. One of the things that was learned in the process �vas the importance of connections, so a lot of attention was paid to how this area is the joining element between downtown, the river and the West Side community, and how we can strengthen and reinforce connections. There was a lot of discussion about what types of uses should be in this area. Everything from an office park to - an urban mixed use residentiai village. Many different types of uses were overlayed on this azea to sugaest how those uses might happen. The second part of the process �vas a technical charette to which engineers, architects and planners were invited to look at some of the detailed aspects of the Flats area and to define what things need to be paid attention to. The railroad and the utiliTy lines need to be considered. What could �ve do if these remained? What might be the � possibilities if these were moved? All the thin�s that came out of the public process drove the strategy. The first phase of the strategy is devoted to development along the riverfront. The second phase is suggesting that there is active discussion with ]andowners along �Vabasha about expansion or • 10 �o -ti�� • redevelopment. There should be development along both Robert and �Vabasha Streets that encourages pedestrian activity. The third phase in the process wouid be extending the idea of ihe urban grid throughout the forty-five acres, and creating a truly mixed-use development. Logically, this area would develop as a three-four story development area so that the views are not blocked from the bluff or the downtown. Commissioner Gordon asked if the report describes or defines what types of uses would come under the heading "entertainment?" Mr. Way responded that the JLT Group has some very distinct ideas of what they'd Iike to see in this area. They have ta]ked about an urban mixed-use business oriented theme park. The report talks about specific entertainment uses. Commissioner Gordon asked how the land was currentVy zoned. Mr•. Way replied that it is currently zoned Industrial. Commissioner Engh asked if the DNR was present during the discussion about the flood wall and the levee. Mr. Way responded that the DNR did participate with tlie Army Corps of Engineers to talk through some these opportunities. Commissioner Nowlin asked how �ve get good commercial te�ants into the development. Mr. Way replied that part of the purpose for the strategy is to give pmspective developers an idea of the City's broader vision for the area. Up until now, there hasn't been one. This strategy provides a framework with which the City can have constructive discussions with developers. Mr. Seeb added that there were approximateiy six developers that were involved in all the various sta�es of creating this strategy. • Commissioner Nordin asked if this area, since it is zoned industrial, is contaminated. Mr. Way replied that there are stifl some contamination issues. Some ofthe soils may need to be removed, which provides the opportunity for the possibility of putting parking underneath each block. Commissionec Nowlin informed Commissioners that most of acea is very old landfilL The biggest cost factor there has been piling. Because it's riverene soil, the rock is 90 feet down. IYs going to be expensive to deveio�, and apparently this plan has taken that into consideration with its density. Mr. Way responded that when a developer comes in with a proposal, he's going to have to take those costs into consideration, which wi11 drive his plan. Here, we have a strategy that deals with these issues. Commissioner Dandrea asked if there is a city across the country that has had a comparable � opportunity that Saint Paul could look at; a city that has done a project of this scope successfully. Mr. Way replied that he can't imagine any city in the United States that doesn't have this opportunity. He said that he has worked on approsimately sixty different riverfront communities across the United States. Most of them were industrial; a lot of them have rail Sines. Chattanooga's a good exampie. Patrick Seeb, Ken Greenberg and others have visited � some of these cities, and tl7ere has been discussions on models. Commissioner Corbey asked ho�v the determination was made to put housing in this area versus industrial when there's a rail line running right throu�h the center of it. Mr. Way nofed that this strategy is not requiring any specific use. It's sayin� that there should be a mix of uses. . 11 Ot�-i`tl . Industrial is probably one of the (east favorable uses because it doesn't support the urban village concept. The housing may not come along until later in the process, but there are a number of housing developers who are not afraid of the railroad being there. Rail lines run through cities evetywhere, and people tive right next to them. Developers don't really see the rail line as a challen�e. There are things they can do, architecturally, with buildings (sound proofing and vibration proofina, etc.) to soften the effect of the rai] line. At some point, the rail line might actually relocate, and if and when they do relocate, it wouid be a spectacular place for housing. Ms. Thompson clarified what tlie Planning Commission is asked to do. The Planning Commission is asked to hold a public hearing in two weeks on November 19, 1999. At that point, it would be referred to committee. The idea is to get the Planning Commission, the City Council and HRA to endorse this document as the vision of what, generally, ought to happen in this portion of the West Side Flats. After that, the existing redevelopment p(an would be amended to include the relevant portions of this document incorporated into it. MOTION: Commissioner Fi�ricy moved that a public hearing date be set for November I9, ]999, to review the West Sirle F[ats Development Strategy, and that staffset up n time schedule for t/ie public hearings. Commissioner Geisser recommended that the Shepard Davern public hearing be first on the agenda for November 19, 1999, before the West Side Flats Development Strategy, as it could be a long public hearing. • TI:e nzotion on tlte floor carrietl unanimously on a voice vote. VIII. Communications Committee No report. TX. Task Force Reports Commissioner Kramer reported that the White Bear Avenue SmalV Area Plan Task Force met on Wednesday, November 3, at the Cedar Machine Shop at the corner of White Bear and Maryland, to talk about intersection improvements at White Bear and Maryland. Commissioner Dandrea was also present. The next meetiag of the task force will be held Wednesday, December 1, 1999, to discuss the intersection of White Bear Avenue and East Seventh Street. The meeting is tentatively scheduled to be held at Big Mike's Pizza on Seventh Street. He invited all commissioners to attend. Mr. Soderholm announced that the next Advertising Sign Committee meeting will be held at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, before the Zoning Committee meeting. Both meetin�s will be held in Room 30 (old County Board room) right next to the City Council � � Chambers. X. Old Business None. , 12 Do -��i l � XI. New Business Mr. Ford said that in his earlier comments he overlooked two or three things he had intended to say. The presentation today on the West Side Flats reminded him of one of those comments. Tt was very inspiring to him and he thinks that the Commission has a number of opportunities in this city �vhen he sees the trend of things underway. There are some exciting years ahead for the Planning Commission. Mr. Ford is extremely pleased tivith the personnel decisions that have been made since he announced his retirement. There is no planner for whose professional skill and commitment and insight into what makes neighborhoods and cities work that he has higher regard for than Larry Soderholm who has been a good friend and colleague of his since he came to city planning in Saint Paul. Mr. Ford is very happy to leave the planning administrator seat for Larry. XII. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:12 a.m. Recorded and prepared by • Jean Birkholz, Planning Commission Secretary Planning and Economic Development Deparhnent, City of Saint Pau] Respectfully submitted, Kenneth Fard Planning Administrator Approved /��P� / � �/ �� (Date) 7 if r Engh Secretary of the Planning Commission • \planninglminutes.frm 13 MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE 7hursday, October 28, 1999- 3:30 p.m. ` J City Council Chambers, 3` Fioor City Hall and Court House 15 West Keilogg Boulevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: OTHERS PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Gervais, Gordon, Kramer, and Morton Engh Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, and Nancy Frick of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. �� — ��1� District 2 Community Council Appeal (99-275) Appeaf of an administrative decision approving Lincoln Pawn site plan. Nancy Frick showed slides and presented the staff report. Ms. Frick stated the District Two Community Council (the appellant) submitted an appeal based upon its position that the Zoning Staff erred in interpreting the code when the site pfan was approved on September 28, 1999. Staff recommends denial of the appeal. � At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Frick stated the new construction of the Lincoln Pawn site is approximately 50 feet from the closest residential�y zoned lot line. The nonconformance of the structure has to do with the distance between the �ot line and the structure. The appeal poses the question in regards to the need for a Special Condition Use Permit to enlarge the structure regardless of its distance from the fot line. . Chuck Repke, Community Organizer for District Two, appeared and read a statement and expiained the handouts which were entered into the record. He made three points 1) Section 62,102(e) of the zoning code provides that a nonconforming structure may be eniarged or aitered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. The buiiding existed fawfully prior to the efFective date of the pawn shop ordinance, April 27, 1999, but it does not now comp(y with the spacing requirement which went into efFect on that date. 2) The proposed enlargement of 1675 White Bear increases the nonconformity associated with the structure. The enlargement of the structure at 1675 White Bear builds additionaf building wal{s that would be well within the (150) feet of the residentiafiy zoned property. 3) She zoning code requires that pawn shops be separated from residentially zoned property either by a pubfic street or a distance oP one hundred fifty (150) feet measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot Iine of the residentially zoned property. The structure at 1675 White Bear is 57 feet from one residentiaily zo�ed property at 1760 l.arpenteur. The District 2 Community Council is concerned with fhe issue of the use of the proposed expansion at 1675 White Bear. It is the District 2 Community Council's position that the structure can not expand within the one hundred fifty (150) foot distance as long as any part ofi the use is for a pawn shop. The use of the expansion is not at issue, only that the structure is nonconforming and it is being proposed to be more nonconforming. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Repke stated the District Councii's position that they couid not expand the buiiding even if they wanted to put in a video rental operation. Had Pawn �o -t�t\ Zoning Committee Minutes 99-275 � Page:2 America existed on the Whiie Bear Avenue site, thaf blank space behind the proposed Pawn American Store is still part of the buiiding that houses a pawn shop. The b�ilding is nonconforming because it houses a pawn shop. Mr. Tom Fable, attorney representing the Capital City Investmenis (owner of the buiiding), appeared and stated the building and the pawn shop business were established at that location long before the City chose to regulate that particular form of business. The ordinances have to do with business uses that have been grandfathered-in because of changes in the ordinances at a later point of time. Ordinance 62.102 states that a nonconforming structure may be enlarged or altered as long as such an enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. The nonconformity has nothing to do with the volume of the structure. The nonconformity is the violation of a new building of the 150 foot barrier. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Fa61e stated Section 64.300 addresses the expansion of the size of a business. If a business expands by more than 50 percent they must return to the Pla�ning Gommission for a new conditional use permit. A purpose of a setback provision is to have a specified distance between the beginning of the usage and whatever it is they're trying to set back. The nonconformity is the 150 feet distance, not the volume of the building. Ms. Wendy Lane, Offce of License and Inspection, stated they made the original decision to • approve the site plan and building permit. There are a number of nonconforming properties in the City that don't meet the required setback for the zoning district in which they are located, including a number of singie family homes. They are a conforming use but they have a nonconforming setback from the side property line. If they have a 100 square feet, four feet away from the side property line and the code requires a six foot setback, they could put an addition on the back of the house another 400 square feet at the four foot setback line. They don't have to go to six feet, as long as they don't go any closer to the existing building. They can continue to expand along that line. LIEP has used that provision more than any other use for single family homes. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Ms. Lane stated the application of this principle to the pawn shop business is consistent with the ordinance. The set back is being considered, not the volume. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Ms. Lane stated there has never been a case that is a continuation along an existing nonconforming set back line that LIEP has required an applicant to apply for a variance or a modification for a speciai condition use permit. Mr. Repke appeared and stated the key focus of this application is that the structure is nonconforming. Increasing the structure in the nonconforming area is what they are raising issue to. The public hearing was closed. • After further discussion Commissioner Morton moved to approve the appeal based on the fact that enlarging the structure does increase the nonconformity. Commissioner Kramer seconded it. do—��al • Zoning Committee Minutes 99-275 Page:3 Commissioner Kramer stated he had a problem with the defermination that this case is not a nonconforming use because it used the term "not now permitfed". The staff has interpreted that to mean "not now prohibited". This is not a permitted use because the lot is not 150 feet and so there are instances where it is not permitted in this zoning district. Also there is the issue fhat it is a special condition use permit and the zoning code makes a differentiation between "permitted uses" and "uses permitted subject to special conditions". The definition of nonconforming use does not use that term "sub}ect to special conditons" it only uses "permitted". Commissioner Gordon voted for the motion because it comes down fo the definition of increasing its nonconformity. The nonconformity was 1,339 square feet within 150 feet and now there is 1,997 square feet within 15� feet and that is an increase in the nonconformity. Afterfurtherdiscussion, the motion to approve the appeal of an administrative decision was passed by a 4 to 2 vote. C� Adopted Yeas - 4 Drafted by: (�� n,a� �"12.�n,��.v Caro{ Martineau Recording Secretary Nays - 2 (Field, Gervais) Submitted by: � � Nancy Fric Zoning Section Litton Field Chair / • • APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of P[anning and Economic Dwelopment Zoning Section II00 City Hal! Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT I Name Chuck Wedemeyer - n��t�A�� Lincoln Pawn, 7675 White Bear Avenue • PROPEf2TY LOCATION Gity St. Paul St. MN Zip 55106 Zoning File Address/Lo TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: C+ Board of Zon+ng Rppea4s � City Council Daytime phone under the provisions of Chapter 6�, Section , Paragraph of tfie Zoning Code, fo appeal a decision made by the St Paul Plannin4 Commission on November_5, 1999 (date ofi decision) }g . Fi1e number: P.C. File No. 99-74 Zoninq Fi1e No. 99-242 GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error i� any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an adm+nistrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or inding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. The Plannin Commission erred in interpretation of Section 62.102(e)(2) of the Saint Paul City Code. The Planning Commission decision is contrary to the intended and logical interpretation of this zoning ordinance, and it also is contrary to long-standing City practice. If affirmed, the Planning Commission decision will be harmful to residential and business property owners throughout the City, and will result in a substantial increase in variance applications to the City Council. Please see attached letter from leqal counsel. • I Attach additional sheet if necessary) ApplicanYs �� t-��"w' 'l (2 /a City agent_�ac�.�_ � ` ` `Fsif �-Wl oo-t�t • LINDQUIST R VE��TNUM P.LL.P. ATioRNEYS A7 Uw lhomas L Fabel (651)312-9200 ffa6el�lindquistoom 444 CmM STREEr SURE5700 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA $5101 Tet�pNE:651J12-1300 FAX:657-7L35332 December 8, 1999 Ms. Nancy Frick City Planner City of St. Paul 25 West Fourth Street St. Paui, Minnesota 55102 amo ios caraz 805WTHE�GNiHSTREET ANNNEAPOIIS,MINNESOTA55402-2205 Te�Eatior+e: 6tt371-3217 FAX:612-371-3207 Re: Appea/ of Planning Commission Resolution 99-74, Denying Proposed En/argement ofLincoln Pawn Shop, 1675 White BearAvenue �� Dear Ms. Frick: Enclosed pfease find an Application for Appeal in the above matter, a filing fee of $300.00, and a fetter of support for the appeal from this office. Please distribute the letter with the Appeal to Counci{ Members prior to the date of consideration. Thank you very much for your advice and assistance. TLF:ims enclosures cc: Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer Very truly yours, LINDQUIST & �Nf�IUM P.�.�.P. � nau iisoaizu bo -1�� LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.�.�.P. ArrawErs Ar Uw Thomas L Fabel (651)312-9200 ffabel(o�JindquisGmm 444 CELtOR STREFf Surt�1700 ST. PAUL. �.MNNESOTA55101 TFiEVHOt+e 651312-1300 FAX:651-2215332 <�� eo SanH E� SrR�r MINNEPPOlIS.MYNNESI�TA55402 T¢�rot�E:612J7132N FAX:6'123713207 December 8, 1999 City Council President Dan Bostrom and Council Members City Hall 15 West Keilogg St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 99-74, Denying Proposed Enlargement of Lincoln Pawn Shop, 1675 White BearAvenue . Dear President Bostrom and Council Members: This firm represents Drs. Sohn and Frank Gaertner, property owners of the premises at 1675 White Bear Avenue which are leased and operated as the Lincoln Pawn Shop, along with Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer, the lessee of the property and the awner of Lincoln. This letter is written in support of Mr. Wedemeyer's appeal from a Planning Commission decision, dated November 5, 1999, which upheid an appeal on a proposed expansion of Lincoln Pawn. The efFect of the decision was to reverse an earlier site pian approval by the Department of Licensing, inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEPj for the expansion. Both LIEP and PED believe that the expansion is permissible under the City Zoning Code, which means that both also believe the Planning Commission decision to be erroneous. As legal counsei for the property and business owners, we join in the view that the Planning Commission decision is both an incorrect interpretation of the relevant ordinance and inconsistent with longstanding City practice. Hence, we urge the City Council to reverse the Planning Commission and to reaffirm the prior position asserted by two departments of City government, LIEP and PED, both supporting the issuance of a building permit. • Doc# 1171568\1 aa - i�\ LINDQUIST R' VENNUM P.LL.P. • Letter to Pianning Commission December 8, 1999 Page 2 The issue in this appeaf arises from the fiact that this buiiding housing Lincoln Pawn is located wifhin 150 feet of residentiaily zoned property, which is the setback requirement for new pawnshops adopted in April, 1999. The pawnshop ordinance, Section 60.544(3), provides that pawnshops are permissibie in Zone B-3, provided that the business is "conducted within completeiy enclosed buifdings and is separated from residentially zoned property either by a public street or by a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet measured from the buifdina waff of the oawnshop to the nearest lot {ine of their residentially zoned property." However, Lincoln Pawn has been in existence since 1994, at which time neither the setback requirement nor the special conditiona{ use permit requirement now applied to pawn shops were in existence. Hence, Lincoln Pawn now exists as a legal use in a non-conforming structure. Section 62.102(e)(2) of the St. Paul City Code psovides in celevant part as follows: A non-conforming structure may be enlarged or altered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. • !n the case of a setback requirement, this Code provision always has been interp�eted by the City as meaning that a nonconforming structure may be enlarged so long as the new construction comes no closer to the relevant line of ineasurement. This interpretation is entirely consistent with the pawnshop set-back ordinance, which defines the condition of conformity as a distance "measured from the building wall." The Planning Commission rejected this longstanding interpretation of Section 62.102(c)(2), which for years has enabled building owners (mainly homeowners) to expand their usage without going through the costly, time-consuming and often tortuous process of obtaining a variance. Under the Planning Commission's new interpretation of this zoning ordinance, an "increase in nonconformity" would include any expanded volume of usage within the area defined by the setback requirement. Hence, since the proposed expansion of Lincoln Pawn would place more pawn shop area within 150 feet of a residentialiy zoned property (although no closer than before), the Commission concluded that expansion was not authorized by Section 62.102(e)(2). That the Pianning Commission's interpretation is, shall we say, strained goes without saying. So aiso is the fact that this interpretation contradicts past City practice in analogous situations, as is evidenced by the zoning staff positions asserted by both City departments responsibie for such interpretations, LIEP and PED. What may be less self evident is the mischief that this interpretation will cause if consistentiy applied • Docd 1171568\1 ao—��c� LINDQLTIST R' VENNUM P.LL.P. • Letter to Planning Commission December 8, 1999 Page 3 to analogous zoning questions. For example, homes which do not comply with curcent setback requirements would be incapable of straight-line expansion without complying with the costly variance requirements. Similariy, no home on a lot smailer than a current minimum lot size could be expanded without a variance. The oider neighborhoods of St. Paul have many homes in both of these circumstances, and for many years homeowners have been ailowed to obtain building permits for expansions without the necessity of a variance, through the City's application of Section 62.102(e)(2). Quite obviously, the only reason for both District Council opposition to the proposed expansion and for the Planning Commission's decision is the nature of the business conducted at Lincoln Pawn. While it is true that some pawn shops have become neighborhood concerns and a source of increasing regulation in recent years, it is not true that ali pawn shops are bad neighbors. Indeed, the proposed construction at issue in this appeaf would be a significant improvement to the appearance of this property, which should be regarded as a benefit to the neighborhood. Moreover, the owner of • Lincoln Pawn, Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer, has made a commitment to the City that he will never allow the sale of firearms to occur at his business. While such sales may be perfectfy Iegal, Mr. Wedemeyer has made this commitment to demonstrate his desire to be a good neighbor and to avoid a major complaint which often is voiced over this line of business. Thus, Council reversal of the Planning Commission decision with the condition that no firearms sales ever occur at Lincoln Pawn is a very acceptabie resofution to both the business and the property owners. It is a weil known adage among lawyers and judges that "hard cases make bad faw." This means that difficuit facts sometimes cause decision makers to bend the law in a way which ultimaiely leads io bad results in other circumstances. The Planning Commission's decision illustrates this adage. Moreover, the Commission's decision to deny site approval in this case is a direct violation of the constitutional requirement that similarly situated land use appiicants must be treated the same. Northwestern Colleae v. Citv of Arden Hills, 281 N.W.2d 865 (Minn. 1979); Hav v. Township of Grow, 206 N.W.2d (Minn. 1973). For both of these reasons, the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed. Any effort to change the regulatory standards for the operation ofi pawn shops should be accomplished through legislation, not through a novel interpretation of the zoning ordinance. Especially is this true where the consequences of the novel interpretation will be adverse and unfair to many property owners in many circumstances totally unrelated to pawn shops. • Doc# 117156%\I da -�`�\ LINDQUIST & VENNUM P.L.L.P. • Letter to Planning Commission December 8, 1999 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration. TLF:Ims enclosure cc: Phillip Byrne, Esq. Peter Warner, Esq. Dr. John R. Gaertner ` Dr. Frank M. Gaertner, Jr. Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer Mr. David Schwartz Very truly yours, LINDQU c NUM P.L.L.P. /�.� �2it / C��C�'`'� Thomas L. Fabel • Doc# 1i715b8�1 � ZiiO4i1999 16:22 651 223 5332 � 2283341 LTNDQUIST 8L VENNUM P.L.L.P. A� roRxers As tww lTmu�s L pah.i (651}317-93D0 ff.bciQl"vdquisicom 4G Cmi.R STqEEf SuRE 1� Sr, p�u4 MM+£�A�197 TftEPa�el31312-1300 FNC 86Y?216332 Plovember 4, 1999 St. Paui Pianning Commissior� 1100 Ciry Hali Annex 25 F❑urth Street Wesi St. Paui, Minnesota 55102 hu.o�r � � —��` ��00 �S CE1+tER ea sovn, ec�m� s��r AtK+EM']Lt9. F!N ME90T4 �i02-2205 Tom+or�e 812�715211 FAY012S7]3YJ] Re: Proposed £ntargement ofl.�ncaln Pawn Shop, l876 {M�ite Besr Arenue � Dear Cammissioners: This firm represents Drs. John and Frank Gaertner, property o�rrners of #he premises at 1675 White Bear Avenue which is leased and operated as the Lincoln Pawn 5hop. The owner of Lincoin is Mr. Chuck Wedemeyer. On the Commission's agenda for Friday, November 5 is an appeal from a site plan approval for an expansion to Lincoln Pawn. By a vote four to two, the Zoning Committee sustained the appea! on Octobe� 28, We respectfully suggest to the Commission fhat #his action was both an incorrect intefpretation of the relevant ordinance and inconsistent with iongstanding Gity ptactice, which means that 1he decision cannot withstand judicial review. Accordingly, we urge the Commission tc rsject tha Committee action and to sustain the prior position asserted by two depaRments of City government, LIEP and PED, both supporting the issuance of e buikding pefmit. The issus arisas from the fact that this building is iocated within 150 feet of residentially zoned property, which is the setback requirement for new pawn shops adopted in April, 1999. Howaver, this shop has 6een in existence since 1994, at which time neithef the setback requirement nor the special conditionai use permit requirement now appiied to pawn shops were in existence. Hence, Lincoln Pawn now exists as a legal use in a non-conforming structure. • ��_ t)oc�f 117079TI � ili�4i1999 16�22 651 223 5332 � 2283341 I.INDQIIIST & '�ENNC�M P.L.L.P. Letter to Planning Commission November 4, 1999 PBge Z NO. 63'I dc-trt Section 62.102{s)(2) of the St. Paul Gity Code provides in relevant paR as foilows: A non-corNorming structure may be enlarged or alterad so long as such enlargament or alterati�n does not increase its noncor�formity. In the case of a setback requirement, this Code provisfon always has been interpreted by ihe City as meaning that a noncarrforming strucWre mey be eniarged so long as the naw construction comes no closer to the relevant line of ineasurement. . The Zoning Committee accapted as an altemative interprefation for this provision that an "increase in nonconformit�' incfudes any expanded vofuma of usaga within the area defined by the setback requirement. Hence, since the proposed expansion would place mora pawn shop area within 15Q faet of a residentiai{y zoned pro¢srty {altfiough no closer than before), the Committse conciuded that expansion wae not authorizad by Sactfon 62.102{e)(2). That the Zoning Committee's interpretation is, shall we say, strained goes without saying. So aiso is ihe fact that this interpretatfon contradicts past City prectice in analogous situations, es is evidenced by the zoning staff positions asserted by baih City departments responsible for such interpretations, LIEP and PED. What may be less seff evidant is the mischief that this interpretation will cause if consistent(y appiied to analogous zoning questions. For example, homes which do not comply with cuRent setback requirements wauld be incapab�e of straight-line expansion without complying with the costiy variance requirements. Similariy, no home on a lot smailer then a current minimum lot size cauld be expended without a variaRCe. Tha older neighborhoods of St. Raul have many homes in both of thase circumstances, and for many years homeowners have been allowed to obtain building permits for expansions wiihaut the necesaity of a variance, through the City�s appfication af 5ection 62.102(ej(2j. • Quite obviously, the only reason for both the appeai and the Zoning Committee's decision in ihis case is the nature of the business conducted at Lincofn Pawn. Whife it is true that some pawn shops have become neighborhood cnncerns and a source of increasing regulation in recent years, i1 is nat true that aVl pawn shops are bad neighbors. Indeed, the proposed construction at issue in this appeai would be a significant imp�ovement to the appearance of this property, which should be regarded as a benefit to the neighborhood. Moreover, the owner of Lincoln Pawn, Mr. Chuck '✓G4 DocB 11 J079T1 � _ lli�4i1999 16�22 651 223 533Z � 2283341 LTNDQUIST 8L V�NNUM P.L.L.P. Letterto Planning Commission Novam6er 4, 1999 Page 3 N0.637 80-1y� Wademeyer, is vary willing to maka a cammitment to the City that he wiA never aliow the sele of firearms to occur at his business. While such sales may be parfectly legal, Mr. Wedemeyer is willing to make this commitment to demonstrate his desire to be a good neighbor and tQ avoid a major compiaint which often is v�iced conceming lhis line of trusiness. l"o repeat, appraval of this buiiding permft with the condition that no firearms sales ever occur at Linco�n Pawn is a very acceptable resolution to both the business and the property owner. n LJ It is a well known adage among lawyers and judges that "harq cases make bad law.° This means thei di�cult facts sometimes causa dacision makers to bend the {aw in a way which uitimateiy cannot be sustained. The Zoning Committee dacision iilustrates this adaga. A decision to deny a building permit in this case wouid bs a d'srect vio4atian of the constitutional requirement that similariy situated land use applicants must be treatsd the same. NoLj{�,westem Col�eqe v. Citv of Arden Hiils, 2&1 N.W.2d 865 {Minn. 1979}; }�av v. Township of Grow, 206 N.W.2d (Minn. 1973). The longstanding practice of City offciais in providing a straightforward interpretation of Section 62.1 b2(e}(2) requires lhat the permit for Lincoln Pawn be granted. Any desire for a change in the regulatory standards for ihe operation of pawn shaps should ba accomplished through legislation, not through a creative application of the zoning ordinance. Thank you for yaur consideration. Very truly yours, LINDQU4S7 & VE UM P.�.L.P. / Thomas L. Fabel TLF:Ims enclosure L� cc: Peter Warner, �sq. Dr. John R. Gaertner pr. Frank M. Gaertner, .fr. Mtr. Chuck Wedemeyef Mr. David Schvrattz G2� Tuck 1)7079TI �.r— K� —a �s `�?1I� 1TRIcCT � ��011�.�1�'1�T1�1I � �' (��17i��IL �o-a�—�5 ao-1� SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOI7S OF \ORTHEASTERN SAI�T PAL L i PARKW AY(GREENBRIER • BEAV ER LAKE HE[GHTS PROSPERITY HEIGHTS • HAYDEN HEIGHTS P7iALEN VILLAGE • Ltisco�t� P.��uc EAST PHALEN � FL�,ZEL P.�2�C FROST LAKE • HIL[.CRFS? Appeal of an administrative decision to approve a site plan for the expansion of a pawnshop at 167� White Beaz Avenue. The District 2 Community Council urges the zonin� committee to grant our appeal of the administrative decision to approve the site plan for the expansion of a Nonconformin� Structure at 1675 White Bear Avenue. Further, we would recommend that the zoning committee pass a recommendation that would adapt the staff report by deleting Findings 3 and 4 and inserting as follows: 3. The zonin� committee disagrees with the interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator, with regard to the site plan for 1675 White Bear Avenue, for the followin� it:�T.Y�fii•Y a. Section 62. 102 (e) of the zoning code provides that a nonconforming strncture may be eniarged or altered so long as such enlazgement or alteration does not . increase its nonconformitv. The building at 1675 White Beaz, that houses Lincoln Pawn, is a nonconfomung structure in accordance with the zonins code definition of a nonconforming buildin�: "A lawful building existin� on the effective date of the adoption (October 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that does not now comply with the area, width height, yard, percent of lot coverage, or other re�ulations concem bulk or location on the lot, or spacing requirement from another use, off-street parking or loading requirements, or other regulations of the district in which it is located." The building existed lawfully prior to the effective date of the pawn shop ordinance, April 27, 1999, but it does not now comply with the spacing requirement which went into effect on that date. The oroposed enlarQement of 167� White Bear increases the nonconformitv associated with the structure The zoning code requires that a pawn shop "is separated from residentialty zoned property either by a pub?ic street or by a. distance of one hundred ffty (1 SO) feet meast�red from.lhe building wall qf the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of the residentially zoned property; ' All four walls of 1675 White Bear are within one hundred fifty feet of the nearest lot line of the residentially zoned property at 1760 Larpenteur. The proposed enlargement of the structure at 1675 White Beaz builds additional building walls that would be well within the one hundred fifty (150) feet of the residentially . zoned property. 1961 SHER�ti oo� AvE`�� • S,a[�r P�cL • MN • 55 1 1 9-3230 • PxovE: (651) 7?-'-2220 • F.ax: (651) 774-21: � oe -�� Section 60.534.6 attempts to create a buffer of one hundred fifty (150) feet from buildin�s that house pawn shops and residentially zoned property. To build anywhere within the one hundred fifty (150) feet is increasing the nonconformity of the structure. The proposed expansion of the structure to the south incrzases the number of properties that are within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the structure that houses a pawn shop and thereby increases the nonconformity of the structure. The zoning code requires that pawn shops be separated from residentially zoned property either by a public street or a distance of one hundred fifty (I50) feet measured from the building �vall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of the residentiallv zoned propertv. The structure at 1675 WYute Bear is 57 feet from one residentiallv zoned progerty at 1760 Larpenteur. If the proposed expansion is approved the structure will be one hundred forty-eight (148) feet from the residentiallv zoned �ropertv at 1749 Califomia that, currently, is one hundred fifty-two and a one half (152.5) feet from the neazest buiidin� wail. The building at 1675 White Beaz is nonconforming because of its set back from residentially zoned property. To increase the number of properties that the nonconformin� structure is nonconformin� to is increasing its nonconformity and clearly not within the spirit of Section 62.102 (a). � The District 2 Community Council is concemed that staff has raised the issue of what would be the use of the proposed eYpansion at 1675 White Bear. Tt is the District 2 Community Council's position that the shveture can not expand at all �vithin the one hundred fifty (150) feet distance as long as any part of the use is for a pawn shop. The use of the expansion is not at issue, only that the structure is nanconforming and it is being proposed to be more nonconforming. Staff also states that there aze other situations where the code was interpreted in the manor they have proposed, but no evidence was offered. Disfict 2 would contend that anytime a buildina was nonconformin� do to a set back of a set distance ?hat any le_gal, espansion of the nonconforming structure should occur outside of the set back area. Few nonconforming structures in the City of Saint Paul azeIocated on 125 by 130 foot lots. We would contend that most set back issues would be in situations where one wall violated a distance requirement not an entire structure, or where the use has become nonconformin� not the structuze. Again, the District 2 Community Council believes that the proposed expans±on of the building at 167� White Bear violates the spirit and intent of Section 62102 concemin� nonconformin� structures by: increasing the structure's nonconformity by buildin� within thz 150 foot set back required from the residential properiy at 1760 Larpenteur. Further • it's nonconformity is increased by increasin� the number of properties within 150 feet of the structure (1749 California). � i J aa -1�t� � Proposed Expansion 1675 White Beaz Distances from residentially zoned property at 1760 Larpenteur RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY 1760 LARPENTEUR • I" W W ll� � N Proposed Existing Building 3xpansion 1675 White Bear � White Bear Avenue i 25 i 50 � � c � d �. � a� .� c � oa � a �-�Q 6,�.0,�.� a - i ,, -, � � � � �-i �i� 00-1�� CJ .,��Q b�, Q.�-�,� a- - a /o -�P-9S dc7-��1� • (cP�th Rogers 1739 E Ca(ifornia cr.pw�,��, Sn�! F�'�ng_13n3 T0: St.Pa�il Pi�lrtnjn� C:nlprplSS!O!l Znnin� Cnmmittee, 1(�0 [tOt f921 1f12 I188� fQ @XPdlld thB LI!!COlft P2Wll 3!tA. ThB C! �� nf �t Pa� il hadQ enough pawn shops therefore fhis expansion wouid be unnecessary. I wouid prefer if the city had less pawr shops ov2rall so this expansian is �,2edless in my m�nd. Thank you, - � ! � �-� �r5 Keith p Rogers � • Do-l�� • Z023TNG COMMITTES STAFF' REPORT ___�_________________________ FILE # 99-275 C J • 1. APPL2CANT: DISTRICT 2 COMMCJNITY COUNCIL DATE OF HEARING: 10/28/99 2. CLASSIFICATION: Appeal of Zoning Administrator's Decision 3. LOCATION: 1675 h'AITE HEAR AVENUE (between Larpenteur and California) 4 PLANNING DISTRICT: � 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTZON: See file 6. PRESENT 20NING: B-3 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: 60.214, 60.544(3), 62.102, 64.300 7. STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT SY: Nancy Frick DATE: 10/21/99 8. DATE RECEIVED: 9/28/99 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 11/27/99 A. PIIRPOSE: Appeal of an administrative decision to approve a site plan for the expansion of a pawn shop located at 1675 White Bear Avenue. B. PARCEL SIZE: 16,575 SquaTE feet. C. EXISTING LAND IISE: A pawn shop. D. SIIRROIINDING LAND IISE: North: Restaurant. (COmmercial zoning; Maplewood.) - East: Commercial. (B-2) South: Restaurant. (B-3) West: Single family residential (R-3) E. ZONING CODE CITATIONS: Sec. 64.300(j) provides that "the grant or denial of approval by the planning or zoning administrator is subject to appeal to the planning commission by any person, firm or corporation, or by any office, department, board or bureau affected by a decision of the planning or zoning administrator with thirty (30) days ... Sec. 60.214 provides definitions o£ nonconfoxming building and nonconforming use. Sec. 60.544(3) identifies pawn shops as principal uses permitted subject to special conditions in the B-3 Zoning DistYict. Sec. 62.102(e) states provisions for nonconforming structures with conforming uses. F. HZSTORY/DISCIISSION. Lincoln Pawn had a building permit application pending at the time that the City Council established a moratorium on pawn shop permits and licenses pending a zoning study and possible amendment of the zoning ordinance (NOVember 9, 1998). On January 22, Z.F. �99-275 Page 2 1999, th= Saint Paul PZanning Commission recommended a zoning code • amendment which provided that pawn shops continue to require a special condition use permit in B-2, B-2C, and B-3 zoning districts with a new condition that pawn shons must be separated from residential zoning dzstricts by either a public street or a distance of ZSO feet, measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of residentially zoned property. The recommended pawn shops amendments were adopted by the City Council on March 10, 1999 and went into effect on April 27, 1999. A March 2, 1999 memo to City Councilmembers and various staff inembers prepared by Larry Soderholm discussed how pawn shops existing and proposed at that time compared to the separation requirement being proposed by the Planning Commission, The memo included a statement that "the new standard would not apply directly to existing businesses that don't meet it; such businesses would become legally nonconforming with regard to the separation from residential. Legal nonconforming pawn shops would not be allowed to expand, however, without a public hearing and a Planning Commission permit." This statement did not draw a distinction between nonconforming uses and nonconformir.g structures, which the code tteats differently, however, and as such was in error. See Findings 3 and 4 below. G. DSSTRICT COIINCIL RECO2IlKENDATION: The District 2 Community Council is the appellant. H FINDINGS: . 1. On September 26, 1999, Tom Beach, Zoning Specialist with the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LSEP) by letter issued approval of a site plan for a proposed addition ' to Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Bear Avenue, subject to a set of conditions including closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Bear Avenue, restriping the parking lot and new landscaping. In the letter approving the site plan, Mr, Beach noted that the proposal was in conformance with City ordinances. This letter is attached to this staf£ report. 2. On September 28, 1999, the District 2 Community Council filed an appeal of this decision, stating as grounds for their appeal an error by sta£f in its interpretation of Sections 62.102 and 64.300 of the zoning code and in requirements of the new pawn shop ordinance. Section 62.102 of the zoning code provides for nonconforming lots, nonconforming uses of land, nonconforming structures, and nonconforming uses of structures and Iand. Section 64.300 provides for planning commission and planning or zoning administrator approvals. The applicable provision of the new pawn shop ordinance is described in the History/Discussion (F) above. 3. Staff concurs with the code intexpretation made by the Zoning Administrator, with regard to the site plan for 1675 White Bear Avenue, for the following reasons. • Z.F. #99-275 Page 3 c`3� —\ti\ • a. Section 62.102(e) of the zoning code orovides that a nonconformina structure may be enlarcod or altered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformity. iZt should be noted that "noaconforming building" is the term used in the definition section of the zoniag code, but that "nonconforming structure" is tne term used elsewhere in the code; terms are intercnangeable.) Staff concurs that it is this section of the code which applies to the Lincoln Pawn site plan. Staff finds that Lincoln Pawn is a nonconforming structure in accordance with the zoning code definition of noncon:orming building: "A lawful building existing on the effective date of adoption (OcCOber 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that does not now comply with the area, width, height, yard, percent of lot coverage, or other regulations concern bulk or location on the lot, or spacing requirement from another use, off-street parking and loading requirements, or other regulations of the district in which it is located." Lincoln Pawn existed lawfully prior to the effective date of the pawn shop ordinance, April 27, 1599, but it does not now comply with the spacing requirement which went into effect on that date. Sta£f also concurs that the enlargement of Lincoln Pawn does not increase the nonconformity associated with the • structure. The zoning code directs that distance between pawn shop and residential property be measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the nearest lot line of the residentially zoned property. The building wall of the existing Lincoln Pawn building is approximately 50 feet from the nearest lot line of residentially zoned property, directly to the west, 1760 Larpenteur. The proposed enlargement of Lincoln Pawn extends directly to the south; the building wall of the extension would not be any closer to the nearest residentially-zoned property line. b. Section 62.102(f) provides that a noncon£orminq use shall not be enlarged unless the planning commission approves a permit for an enlargement as set forth in a subsequent clause of the code. Staff finds that this section of the code does not apply to this site plan. Staff finds that Lincoln Pawn does not £it the zoning code definition of noncon£ormina use: "A lawful use existing on the effective date of adoption (October 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that is not now permitted in the district in which it is located". Pawn shops are permitted subject to special conditions in the B- 3. The spacing requirement which was added to the code in 1999 results in the structure being nonconforming, not the � use. Therefore, staff finds that the zoaing code requirements for enlargement of a nonconforming use do not apply to Lincoln Pawn. Z.P. �99-275 Page 4 c. Section 64.300(m)(2) provides that a new special condition . use permit is needed when the floor area of a special condition use expands by fifty (50) percent or more, and, conversely, Section 64.300(n)(1) provides that site plan approval but no new special condition use permit is required when the floor area of a special condition use expands by less than fifty (50) percent. Staff concurs that the proposed expansion of 658 square feet is 49.14& of the 1339 square foot floor area of the existing pawn shop, and therefore may be expanded without obtaining a new special condition use permit, although a site approval is required, in accordance with Section 64.300(n)(1). 4. Finally, staff also finds that the interpretation made by the Zoning Administrator in this case is consistent with how the City has treated expansions of other SCUP uses, many of which occur within nonconforming structures. Examples cited by LIEP staff include college expansions within campus boundaries, recreation centers, hospitals, gas stations, and a host of other uses permitted subject to conditions. As noted, as long as the expansion is less than fifty percent, the code requires site plan approval but no new special condition permit, and that is how the Zoning Administrator has proceeded. • I. STAFF RECO2�AfENDATION: Based on Findings 3 and 4, staff recommends denial of the appeal. • �- � • APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Department of Plannixg and Economic Development Zoning Sectiori 1100 Cin' Hal1 Annex 25 West Fourth Srreet Saint Paul, hf.\' S5101 266-6589 APPELLANT I N PROPERTY Zoning File LOCATION Address/Lc u File, na, � St�ti Zip 5S!! `-'7 , �/�E ��ti q9- a 3 � �/ic,C.ol.t/��Lc.N /�ci� S do - �� Ffi e cue.anEy�; ��—' � �'�,.,._: fiea�in `date�`;> s��.��. : = by �rr.v�u.� ...:iG,:. oh � e �774��ZZZA TYPE OF APPEAL Appiication is hereby made for an appeal to the: ��i?n„�� -v�-�+SS r�,-c� �� Board of Zoning Appeals ❑ City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section �� , Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to �,�,ti�� 5� appeal a decision made by the � on �f%�T �� !�' , 195?. File number: c�a, � �1� ' (date of decision) GROUNDS FOFt APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has bean an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusai made by an administrative offcial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeafs or the Planning Commission. = i.v i.✓TE�,�°�iv�g-�'im(; o-F la a. io ��✓� �`� .3o"U /�.c,/� i�c. �c�LC.c�cO-�-c�..7.i vF /LcZcJ � �� os2n�,cf2,�.c:e RECEIVED SEP 2 31999 ZONiNG � Atfach add�tiona/ sheet if Applicant's signatu �Y City agent OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIOYS A�"D E:v'VIRO.�'�tE\7AL pROTECfiOY Roben Kessler. Director SAINT I MU2 �, AAAA CITY OF SAR�tT PAUL No�m Coleman, Mayor September 30, 1999 David Schwarc Schwarz Construction 10961 32nd Street N LaI:e E(mq MN SSQ42 LOVYRY PROFESSIOh:lLBUfLDI.VG Te(ephone: 65l-266-90� 3505[PeterStreet,Suife300 Faarimile.•651•166-9099 SainiPaul,bT�nesota SSIO2-I510 651-266-9I2� Re: Building permit for Lincoln Pawn at 1675 White Beaz Avenue is suspended Site plan file 99-242 Deaz Mr. Schwaa: On September 28, 1999 I approved the site plan for an expansion of ihe Lincoln Pawn Shop and shortly afrer that our o�ce issued a buildina permit for this work. As we had previously discussed, Section 64300(j) of the Zoning Code states Yhat any person or organization can fcie an appeal within 30 days filing of any decision made by staff to approve or deny a site pfan. On September 28, 1999, the District 2 Planning Council filed an appeai of our decision to approve the site pian. They contend that Lincoln Pawn is a nonconforming use and therefore it cannot expand without approval from the Planning Commission. Appeals are heard at a public hearing at the the Planning Commission. You wili be notified of the heazing date and will be sent a copy of the staff report prior to the hearin�. Nancy Frick (651-266-6554) is the staff person who has been assigned to the case. The Zoning Code says that if permiis have been issued before an appeal has been filed, then the permits are suspended and construction must stop untii the Ylannin� Commission nas made a deYerminaYion of the appeal. Therefore, the permit issued for the espansion of Lincoln Pawn Shop is hereby suspended and construction must cease. If the Planning Commission denies the appeal, yoar permit wouid be reactivated. If the Pianning Commission approves the appeal, you could request a refund of your permit fee. Whatever decision the Planning Commission makes, an appeal coutd be fiied within 15 days to the City Council. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Tom Beach Zoning Specialist cc: Chuck Wiedemeyer Nancy Frick G:\L'SERSgEACHTO�f9T_J:api • . \ I • C� SAINT PAOL � AAAA CITY OF SAINT PAUL hbrm Colemar., bfayor September 28, 1999 David Schwarz Schwarz Construction 10961 32n Street N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 OFFICE OF LICEtiSE, ItiSPECT70: tS A.��D E�"VIROti`fE�?ALPROTECTtOV � O _ 'i, ` Roberl Kessle�. Diretlor 1 � LOWRY PROFFSS10N.1L Telephone: 651-?65-9090 BUILDING Facsimile: 612-266-9099 Suire 300 612-26b-91?: 3S0 St. Pete� St�eet SaintPaul,dlinnesara 55f0?-I510 RE: Approval of site plan 99-242 Addition to Lincola Pawn Shop at 1675 White Bear Avenue Deaz Mr. Schwarz: City staff have reviewed the site pian for the proposed addition to Lincoln Pawn and found it to be in conformance with City ordinances: — When Lincoln Pawn was established on this property, pawn shops did not require Special Condition Use Permit. The zonin� code was amended in November 1996 to require Special Condition Use Permiu for pawn shops and amended again in Apri1 1999 to add a condition that pawn shops must be at least 150 feet from residentially zoned property. The use of this property as a pawn shop is conforming since pawn shops are sti11 allowed under the B-3 zoning for the property. However, the structure is nonconforming because it does not met the recently adopted setback requirement. But accordin� to Section 62.1 Q2(e)(2) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, nonconfomiing structures with conforming uses may be enlazged so long as such enlargement does not increase its nonconformity. Construction of this addition _ meets the requirement because it is not built closer to the residential properiy line than the existing building. — Section 64.300.m.2 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code says that when a use that requires a Special Condition Use Permit expands its floor area by 50% or more it must obtain a new Special Condition Use Permit. "Ihe existing pawn shop building covers 1339 squaze feet. The proposed expansion covers 658 squaze feet which is 49.14% of the floor area of the existing building. Therefore the expansion does not require a Special Condition Use Permit_ Please note that the 50% expansion provision is cumulative. Therefore the floor area of any future expansion proposal would be added to the 658 square feet of the current expansion and the total of these areas �vould be compared to the 1339 square feet of the existing structure. Therefore, site plan is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Site impro�•emenfs Ttie proposed addition and aII other site improvements must be installed as shown on the approved site pian. This includes closing the existing Larpenteur driveway closest to White Beaz Avenue, restriping the parkin� lot and new landscaping. 2. Sanitary setirer The exisYing sanitary sewer will go under the new addition. It �nust therefore conform to the standards of the Plunnbing Code. Call Tom LeClaire at 651-266- 9051 if you have questions. 3. Roof drains The roof of the addition must drain to the south side of the building. 4. Oufside storage No outside storage is permitted. 5. Permits The City permits listed below are required for the work shown on the approved site plan. - Building permit A permit from Building Inspections (6S 1-266-9007) is required. - Sidewalk permit Remot•in� ttte existing drtveway in the Larpenteur pub2ic right-of- way must be done by a licensed contractor under a pennit from Public Works Sidewalk Section {651-266-6120). • 6. Time limit and inspection �Vork covered by this site plan must be completed no later than • 9/24/00. A site inspection will be scheduled based on this date. 7. Appeals The approval of this site plan by staff is subj ect to approval to the Planning Commission. An appeal may be filed any time within 30 days of the date of this letter. If an appeal is filed, a public hearing wiIl be scheduled at the Planning Commission. If pemuts for this project have been approved prior to an appeal being filed, all work on the project must stop until the Planning Commission rules on the appea2. If you have any questians, you can reach me at 651-266-9086 (phone), 651-266-9099 (fax) or tom,beach@ci.stpaul.mn.us (e-mail). Sincerely, Tom Beach Zoning Specialist cc: Sewer Division, PIanning Division, Traffic Division, District 2 Planning Councii G.\[:SERSBEACHTO?i�99_t:app.wpd . �• APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW � OFFICE OFLICE�ti'CE, I.�SPECj'I��.S'�,4�� ENY7RO.�ibfE:�'TAL PROTECTIbti� 3.i 0 SI. Peter Street, Srrite 300 Saint Paul, tbT.�'S.i102-I.i10 266-9086 APPLICANT/ Name, CONTACT PERSON ;.' :�, 1 . • - �,�� ' Name of owner (if diffe '�' ,, Address 1 - i' • • ; ,._-.. - PROJECT INFORMATION ApplicanYs signature ��1.1 12 t5 cz ir a Project name/descriptio u1 Address/Location f� �G, �"! -r ��•/! ,��•—P Legal description: Sec l', Le, c (attach additional sheet if necessary) Estimate� cost ��°� SFAF.F USE ONLY � . . . . _ _ . : ': P{anning LJistrici' Z Zoning �-3 Land lise g FE�story �S - Revizwed by Comrtients: '. � ` - G - ,°daXSt�' f �.rr esy j�.f'' G"✓i✓ _ •: � ,�s{ ,�� '� P,�S � �� °: €39l�1!S9oeaaot? s4F� i�: .. �ct�Ck�I�c fL�l. �� ,: - _ ,. s. c ,_. . . ; . ... ,,, . , >. . (a(tachaddrionsFsheefsifnseessary} -- :-:--:<,--_..;: Bondfle#ter of credit/escrow 5 FaFe '?' '� SiEe pfan epproved by Date :°'` , .;, ;.. , > .: _ . _ _ :. Wark ab�roved bv " _ _ Date ::;:: . . _ o�-��\ Zoning office use only SPRr - Z`� Fee 7�Z-5 J`.�` Steff ineef'� da:e: ° `� Z Z City age � G'ff =- � Daytime phone� S'og -�G�� Fax ��"' 7'�7- o��Q G➢.1JSC O-1�- � D��n.. .-� , � G �, �I , M � � � a � A � M � b Rl Q �m �x " G� m,� �. �X. S4h��t7 SOWe.e SeYV'.�a. � ��'�. CJi{� Yu� / Vl�� 6�.IM. 'Sah•tsrr icWa" IMNSf W+.t� p�uM,6�� o�t. $'�o�S W{O.rc i� W�l/ jse. Uh�W G.�.�v�. �° . _.'_.':'_ .�'t25 -•-' . _ _ _. � .! � n �� ; __ i � , 4D r � ll 0 .� �k �� s �� 0 ` �� " c ��. � � �. �� n s � � . � a-�� L. b ~ fi r � � � -� � - .... _.. ... � ._..:..�-.• _ . . . . _ ='��.-��. ..w �! r � � i P � � r� U �c -l�l • � �. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. SUNRAY•BA'ITLECREEK-HIGHW OOD HA�EL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTIY HILLCREST WEST SIDE llAYTON'S BLUFF PAYNE-PHALEN I�IORTH END THOMAS-DAT.E SUMMIT-UTIIVERSITY WEST SEVENI�I COMO HAMLINE-MIDWAY ST. ANTHONY PARK MERRIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAhiLINE-SNELLING HAA1L�.�L MACALESTER GROVELAriD HIGHLAND SUMMIT HILL DOWN"I�OWN � Q�'-2�5' CrfIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS �. J � ��}��3� ��.� '?� • DISTRIC7 2 aN � '� �' �� •� � ;REATER EAST SIDE ::.� �H �ER �-i�t i a'�' o�� , ,; ; '; � � '� �� -- ��c;o'oja`;o:o�c o.o 0 CA�(FvRN1A � 'O i0'�!a`�:O � „ —i _, . __ � o a : �o�o;o � �.4,0 00000000000 � 0000c.000acoo 0000000000 o'o o�o � c `o o O.U;G�� }O � � .. ee ��3 a � n o ,o o,o' , � , � v_� , �� o � � � u ._ � `i , � a � i � . J �i0 a O O G O O O O U O O O ; Of010C� OOOt> � O � � �IQ';OiOIG! „�'� [ O,Gj�;0�0 O'O!O O O'O O(O�O•Q;Oj01 {2 � i_ � . . . : . : . _� __ , ' � ;� � + �� P�uc�,r�r is �i • ,2� Gh��tct,K� ��=N��ti t -�— � ,�� ' � zonu�g d�sirict t�undary • ,'.: �� DA7E �r� suSjzclpro?'-•�Y '�NG. DiST � h.1A° ;: o one Sa,;,ily � t� ... Y h.•;o (d:�ily . � �-_:._ k¢� multi�l?lamit� `f � �� l� � n Y \ � } c Z � _ _ � �� L nor,r;� • � ^ comm=:dz' � i 0 �.c iC7'JUS!.'i:' i �' vzca�: ; �o� �o;o�oio� o �ao�o�o; d I Q I plflloiol o I q i� I 4' I—"—I 1 t�l � I�l �la�°�� o 0 0� o 23-29-2 2 — } � t i � � � -- �� rr... 'o .� � ..� � 60 ' i 6p � --•• 93.�f5••-.._ , 60 + (4J 2 9. 67 7 /2 zD --• C 8 � � � � � � (S) �X ITSO {y � �� '�o � � . � �. �""' ° � I �� r.l !ro �I o° �M a ° Im ° � '~ °� ��i � (0= m �I +� Ni I� fv � � �' (�so) � x � �1 .+�I I + � �� I , ry _ _ I � _C_ /33�1 _ � J� � --� 78 � /_3.25 � 133_2� I � /33.� � � � �} T 1,, � 1 et -/soJ��.�5 �—`_. �� t '� 090 �� I � +`" I '� � � ' �' N X � . � f o x 0/ � O 23n y , � y ta � 28o I. ? ZOD I� Z!0 ` 0/ o I,b 4i � �' a� �c� (Q!/ ' � �N 3 D '� f`' ( 2 p�� m �I l,, {� . (�) ' �°) � �� i �z) � �u) ; i74 k) I � � �� '•� T SC „ 0 C ��) �Z� (�) � $ I 4 3 �� So so.tz s� ry O J ; (>> Cz6� . A Z � /�� v • r Zz, � D �� 9� i� lBO � 0 37c �N oj a� �:2 I � ° j� �g1 ; � �9o;_L----c9o�---- 4 (,P � ' C 28 � �29� �- py 2 f �'�°) �3i� t48� N � ._--- zae. Fs -.._, � — _ Ct/2o� '; 1� _"'� _� _ _ n; � ,�; � . i �rsr� (i5z� �� `-1 j33 � 33 � x � h �:f a�•ti c�1 �N �b G � ��i'�!��:.�I ��t� "t5 �(4 1�$ � I� 11 � ID � 9 i 9! 7 j 6 � 5 I 4 I 3 2� J Q� � • � l".9CRTE0 /Z !'« # /32 6.' 9 n� � I �1' ! ? �✓ r r � �'� ' Pi� y � � � �35} ••• •-� �n �n OA O/ 94 9Z . "JL I ^C , „L 7T 7Q ?Q �1 � � • • �- 31 Prr�posed Expansion 1675 VVhite Bear o�-i�t \ I�istances from residentially zoned property ,. < , ; . - . �Nhite Beax Avenue -� 3 1 RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY 'I760 LARPENTEUR I"" W W � � � Proposed Expansion 1675 White Bear �'O -�``� Distances from residentially zoned praperty at 1760 Larpenteur Proposed Expansion Existing Building 1675 White �ear � � � � � � � � � � � i 25 �� '��TI V�hite Bear Avenue ��1 �o -1v` Proposed expansions should not increase the nonconformity of the nonconforming structure RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY � �� -�`�� g�7CI��7C � �(.�I�J[��JI�T��Y (��J�T��, SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOODS OF NORTHEASTERN SAINT PAUL PARKWAY/GREENBRIER � BEAVER LAKE HEIGHTS PROSPERITY HEIGHTS � HAYDEN HEIGHTS PHALEN VILLAGE � LINCOLN PARK Ens7 P�i� • HazeL Pnizx FROSi LeucE • Hi[.LCxPSr January 3, 2000 Council President Bostrom 320 C City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: Lincoln Pawn's appeal of the Plaxuung Commission's Resolution 99-74, denying the proposed enlargement of the building at 1675 White Bear, which houses Lincoln Pawn Dear Councii President Bostrom and members of the Council, The District 2 Community Council urges you to support the decision of the Zoning Committee and the Planning Commission by denying the appeal of Lincoln Pawn to expand the structure at 1675 White Beas Avenue. In the December 8, 14491etter that accompanies the appeai, Mr. Fabel, the attorney from Linquist and Vennum, does a very good job of confusing a relatively simple issue. The issue in front of the Council is the interpretation of Section 62.102 (e) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code: Section 62.102 (e) of the zoning code provides that a nonconforming sh may be enlarged or aitered so long as such enlargement or alteration does not increase its nonconformitv. a. The building at 1675 White Bear, that houses Lincoln Pawn, is a nonconforming structure in accordance with the zoning code definition of a nonconforming building: "A lawfui building existing on the effective date of the adoption (October 24, 1975) or amendment of this code but that does not now comply with the area, width height, yazd, percent of lot coverage, or other regulations concern bulk or location on the lot, or spacing requirement from another use, off-street parking ar loading requirements, or other regulations of the district in which it is located." The building existed lawfully prior to the effective date of the pawn shop ordinance, Apri127, 1999, but it does not now compiy with the spacing requirement which went into effect on that date. The nroposed enlar�ement of 1675 White Bear increases the nonconfornuty associated with the shucture. The zoning code requires that a pawn shop "is separated, fi�om residentially zoned property either by a public street or by a distance of one hundred fifty (1 SO) feet measured from the building wall of the 1961 SHExwooD AVENUF • Snn.T PAUL • MN • 55119-3230 • PHONE: (651) 774-2220 • FaY: (651) 774-2135 �,0-1�{� pawn shop to the nearest lot Zine of the residentially zoned property; " All four walls of 1675 White Bear aze within one hundred fifty feet of the neazest lot line of the residentially zoned property at 1760 Larpenteur. The proposed enlazgement of the structure at 1675 White Bear is entirely within the one hundred fifty (150) feet required buffer of the residenfially zoned properiy. Section 60.534.6 attempts to create a buffer of one hundred fifty (150) feet from buildings that house pawn shops and residentially zoned properiy. To build anyrvhere within the one hnndred fifty (150) feet buffer is increasing the nonconformity of the structure and violates the intent of 62.102(e). b. The proposed expansion of the siructure to the south increases the number of properkies within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the struchxre that houses a pawnshop and thereby increases the nonconformity of the structure. The zoning code requires that pawn shops be sepazated from residentially zoned properiy either by a public street or a distance of one hundred fifty (150) feet measured from the building wall of the pawn shop to the neazest lot line of the residentially zoned property. The structure at 1675 VJhite Bear is 57 feet from one residentia� zoned pro�ertXat 1760 Larpenteur If the proposed expansion is approved the shucture will be one hundred fo ,-eight (148�feet from the residentially zoned properta at 1749 Califomia that, currently, is one hundred fifty-rivo and one half (152.5) feet from the nearest building wall. The building at 1675 White Bear is nonconforming because of its setback from residentially zoned property. To increase the number of properties that the nonconforming structure is nonconforming to is increasing its nonconformity and clearly not within the spirit of Section 62.102 (a). Lincoln Pawn's Counsel would have you believe a structure has not increased its nonconformity unless it violates its worst encroachment to its neazest neighbor's properiy. In his letter he proposes that "straight line expansion" should be allowed, so that if your neighbor's attached three-season porch is within two feet of your attached garage then your neighbor has the right to build his new recreation room within two feet of your bedroom window. Worse, he contends, and staffls initial approval of the site plan would indicate, that is how staff has been interprering the code! In Lincoln Pawn's case it would appear that this inteipretation of the code is being taken to also mean that if you violate the setback requirements toward one neighbor, you have the right to violate the setback requirements to all of your neighbors. Clearly the code is there to protect the adversely affected neaghbor and the Board of Zoning Appeals exists to mediate these situations. �o - (�-E ` Ttiroughout this process, Counsel for Lincoln Pawn has not offered one case of precedent where the City Council has determined that a nonconforming structure can expand in the required set back azea without a variance from the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. He implies that somehow some undocumented staff decision has taken away your ability to create precedent on the interpretarion of the code. There is no precedent on this issue, or Counsel for Lincoln Pawn would site it. Both the Zoning Committee and the Plauuing Commission have detemiiued that anyone who wants to build in a required setback azea should be required to seek a variance from the Boazd of Zoning Appeals. The District 2 Community Council would a�ee that is the proper interpretation of the code and where this case belongs. Finally, Counsel for Lincoln Pawn suggests that they aze being treated unfairly because of the nature of their business. We grow tired of attomeys who argue that because the business or clientele are less then popular they deserve special treatment. Or, that logic should be thrown out the window because it is coming from mere neighbors. The use of the expansion is not at issue, only that the structure is nonconforming and it is being proposed to be more nonconforming. Lincoln Pawn's proposal that they should be allowed to encroach on their neighbors' properiy rights in exchange for an agreement that they not sell guns is among the most insulting that we haue heard. To use the threat o£ gun sales as a way of enticing the Council to set poor public policy is beneath contempt. We accept that Lincoln Pawn is a lawful use and that they have for years bought weapons over the counter. We have no desire to allow these kinds of property rights infringements to become accepted public policy in exchange for this kind of blaclanail. Again, the District 2 Community Council urges you to support the only clear, concise and logical interpretation of the code by supporting the decision of the Planning Commission and denying the appeal of Lincoln Pawn. Sincere , � Chuck Repke Community Organizer Disirict 2 Community Councii CC Council Members