The URL can be used to link to this page

97-1473(`; r. ! �-�.. t , p n � i e �-...� ' ' , s �. • � - . . .m Presented By Referred To Council File # �� Green Sheet # 62178 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date 1 VJHEREAS, Universal Outdoor, Inc. [Universal], in Zoning File No. 97-049, pursuant to 2 Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.408, appealed from a decision of the Zoning Aduiinistrator to 3 deny Universal's application to construct an outdoor advertising sign on properry commonly 4 laiown as 2100 Gilbert Street (south side, east of Vandalia), Saint Paul, MN; and 6 WHEREAS, on Apri117, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning 7 Commission [Zoning Committee] held a public hearing on Universal's appeal at which a11 8 persons present were given an opporiunity to be heard pursuant to the requirements of Saint Paul 9 Legislarive Code §64300(j); 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 39 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public testimony, the Zoning Committee iuianimously voted to lay the matter over until May 1, 1997 for the purpose of obtainnig additional information concerning Universal's sign application from Office of Licenses, Inspections and Environmental Protection staff ; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 1997, the Zoning Coxnxnittee reopened the public heazing on the matter of Universal's sign application and appeal and moved, based upon all the information and testimony received and with the understanding of Universal, that the matter of Universal's appeal be temporarily suspended pending the receipt of a sign variance application which Universal expressed a desire to submit in lieu of the Zoning Committee taking final action on this appeal. It was filrther understood by the Zoning Committee, based upon the testimony, that other sign companies purporting to have an interest in locating signs in the immediate surrounding azea may also submit variance applications; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 1997, in Zoning File No. 97-169, Midwest Outdoor Advertising, Inc. [Midwest] made applicafion for a sign height variance and a sign sepazation variance for property commonly known as X�� Vandalia Street (northeasterly corner of I-94 and Vandalia Street) so that Midwest could construct an advertising sign 68 feet above grade and within 510 feet of the site upon which Universal proposed to erect a sign; and WFIEREAS, on June 30, 1997, in Zoning File No. 97-170, Universal made application for a sign height variance, a sign separation variance from a proposed sign to be located to the west (Midwest's proposed sign, see above), and a sign separation variance from another sign to the east, all for the same properry on Gilbert Avenue described above in Zoning File No. 97-049; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 1997, the Zoning Committee, having deternuned to heaz the matters simultaueously, conducted a public hearing on the variance applications of Midwest and Universal, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.409 at which all persons present were �- . 40 given an opportunity to be heard; and �� — �— � 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3Q 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 WHEREAS, on August 8, 1997, the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Plamung Commission], based upon the evidence presented to the Zoning Committee at the July 31, 1997, public hearing and as substautially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact with respect to Universal's and Midwest sign variance applications: Plamiing Commission: Findings of Fact: Zoning File No. 97-169 (Midwest� q ,� - 1493 1. The applicant proposes to move an existing outdoor advertising sign appro�mately fifty feet to the west and coustruct it at a height of sia�ty-eight (68) feet above grade. Two variances--of m�imum height and of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs intended to be seen from a freeway be 1,000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 1038.82 feet west of an e�sting Adams Company sign and 803 feet east of an existing 3M Company sign. In addition, the proposed site is 509.88 feet west of a sign proposed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that would be 68 feet from grade. The grade at which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadway bed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been conshucted in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attracfive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height requirements of the Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land in the vicuuty is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and V andalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right-of-way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the V andalia Street bridge. It is on this railroad land that Midwest Outdoor Advertising proposes to construct its sign. 3. Midwest Outdoor Advertising filed an application for an outdoor advertising sign on Friday, February 21, 1997. The sign was to be located in the railroad right-of-way just east of Vandalia Street and north of the westbound I-94 off-ramp, 50 feet east from where the sign is presently proposed. The application stated that the sign would be installed at 37 feet above grade. The applicant constructed the sign at its current location and at its current height (58 feet above grade) sometime after being issued a permit by the Saint Paul Office of License, Inspecrions and Environmental Protection (LIEP) on Febniary 25, 1997. (The application stated that it was estimated that the sign would be constructed between Mazch 15 and Mazch 30, 1997.) 2 4 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 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 On Mazch 7, 1997, the applicant was notified of an appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The letter from Robert Kessler to Midwest Outdoor Advertising notifying them of the appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. stated: "If you choose to proceed and q/) _��{Q3 Universal's appeal is approved by the Planning Coxnmission, it would be your � responsibility to remove the sign at your expense." On Apri117, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission met to consider the appeal of the LIEP decision by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The matter was laid over until the May 1,1997 committee meeting. On Apri128, 1997, a letter was sent to Midwest Outdoor Advertising by Robert Kessler notifying them that their sign was constructed in violation of their permit inasmuch as it was 58 feet from the base to the top of the sign--not 37.5 feet as required. The company was futther notified that continued use of the sign would require a variance from the Planuing Commission. (The applicant has maintained that the construction of their sign was consistent with their understanding that sign height was to be measured from the top of the I-94 e�t ramp rather than the roadbed. The fact--and longstanding practice--that the measurement is to be taken from the main roadbed was clarified by a Minor Zoning Amendment adopted by the Planning Commission on July 11, 1997.) On May 1, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Pluming Commission devoted a significant amount of fime to a consideration of the issues associated with which of two sign companies should be pernutted to construct a sign within an azea where the Zoning code would allow only one. Because of different procedures followed by different staff members in the Office of Licenses Inspections and Environxnental Protection, both applicants asserted that they should have been considered "first," and, therefore, been approved. Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution of the appeal znight involve permitting both signs provided that they could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel; the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a vaziance of the code's sepazation requirement by the Planning Commission. Universal Outdoor, Inc. elected to suspend its appeal and file an application for such a variance. 4. The two companies, after the May 1, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting, crafted a proposal that would involve moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they both would meet the State of Minnesota's 500 feet separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-confornring signs removed by Midwest Outdoor Advertising elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Secfion 66302(b) of the Zoning code. That section provides, in part, that: a. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a permitted use; [:� c. The section goes on to state: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconfomiiug sign face credits sha11 comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, pazks, pazkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance requirements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This condition is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standazd 14 by 48 foot v-style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual conditions related to the site that have led to this application include: The advertising sign must be brought into conforuiance with the size and height zequirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and 3 °l�-ly? The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). (1) Topography. The site selected by the applicant and leased from the railroad is depressed to allow for the passage of trains under the Vandalia Street bridge. A sign constructed within the 37.5 feet height limit outlined in the Zoning code would not be clearly visible from I-94. (2) Separation from the proposed Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign. To resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would a11ow in this azea, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and indushy in the ciry. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of 14 non-conforming signs in other azeas of the city where the removal has ei�lianced the visual environment. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues permits for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with staYe statutes. The State does not have any height restrictions although their permits state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. Minnesota Statutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. 0 1 2 3 d. The sign wi11 not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and t4 � 3 Zighting. q 1' This standard is met. The closest residenrial properry is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the yeaz, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 4�4 45 46 47 48 49 50 e. The sign wouZd not be objectionable to adjacent properry owners. T'�is standard is met. While one properiy owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there aze outdoor advertising signs at regulaz intervals. Planning Commission: Findings of Fact: Zoning File No. 97-170 (Universal) 1. The applicant proposes to construct an outdoor advertising sign on private property located at 2100 Gilbert adjacent to the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp from I-94. Three variances--of maximuxn height and two of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs be 1000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 510 feet west of an e�sting Aclams Company sign, thus requiring a variance of 157 feet. It is also 509.88 feet from a proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign, requiring a variance of 157.12 feet. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that would extend 57.5 feet from the grade, 20 feet higher than allowed in the code. The grade on which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadbed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attraetive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and ciTy spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign conforniing to the height requirements of the Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right of way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. In between the railroad and I-94 rights-of-way is a 1 narrow strip of land that is privately owned and on which the Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign 3 is proposed to be conshucted. �,� _4y� 3 4 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 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 3. The applicant first applied for a permit to establish a sign on this site, but appro�mately 160 feet west of this location, on February 10, 1997. It was to be a single sided sign facing east and constructed at 37.5 feet above grade. On Mazch 3, 1997, the applicant was notified that their application was being rejected because of a permit issued to Midwest Outdoor Advertising on Febraary 25, 1997 to allow them to construct a sign east of Vandalia and about 300 feet from where Universal was proposing to establish their sign. On Mazch 5, 1997, the applicant appealed the decision of the Director of the Office of Licenses, Inspection and Environmental Protection, contending that their applicafion was filed before that of Midwest Outdoor Advertising and, therefore, should have been granted. The appeal was heard by the Zoning Committee on April 17, 1997 and on May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making applicafion and being granted a variance of the Code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. The applicant agreed to suspend the appeal pending the outcome of such an application process. 4. The two sign companies subsequently crafted a proposal that involved moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they would both meet the State of Minnesota's S00 foot separarion requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. The new proposed site has led to a request for a height variance in addition to the separation variance. In the original locarion, the dimensions of the available land would allow the conshucrion of only a one-sided east-facing sign. Moving to the east would allow for a v-sign, but, in order to be seen from both directions, the applicant states that the sign would have to be elevated. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 20 foot height variance to allow the sign to extend up 57.5 feet. The proposed sign replaces non-conforming signs removed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. from locarions elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Sec6on 66302(b} of the Zoning code. That section provides, in gart, that: � � c. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a permitted use; The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height requirexnents as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and The advertising sign as zelocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2A� 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 34 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 The section goes on to state: °11-�4� (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residenfial disiricts, pazks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distauce requitements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This standard is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14 by 48 foot v- style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual circumstances related to the site relate to its relationship to an existing building and to its relationship to the e�sting and proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign. While the applicant would not have required any variances at the location they originally proposed, to resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be pemutted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies aze proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and indushy in the city represents a replacement of three non-conforming signs in other areas of the city where removal has enhanced the visual environment. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues pernuts for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state staiutes. The State does not have any height restricfion although their pernuts state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdicfion. Mimiesota Statutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d. The sign will not advet affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting. This standazd is met. The closest residential properry is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the yeaz, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not � 3 visible from the homes across the &eeway. Q7 � � 4 e. The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This staudard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there aze outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 1997, the Plaiming Commission, in Zoning File No. 97-56, pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislative Code and based upon the preceding findings of fact (Zoning File No. 97-169), approved the application of Midwest for the following sign variance at �� Vandalia Street: 1. A 30.5 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 68 feet requested and a maacimum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and 2. An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet (a separation beriveen advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimuxn of 667 feet allowed); and WHEREAS, on August 8, 1997, the Planning Commission, in Zoning File No. 97-57, pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislauve Code and based upon the preceding fmdings of fact (Zoning File No. 97-170), approved the application of Universal for the following sign variance at 2100 Gilbert Avenue (south side, east of Vandalia): 1. A 20 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 57.5 feet requested and a maYimum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and 2. An advertising sign sepazarion variance of 157.12 feet (a separafion between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed); and 3. An advertising sign separation variance of 157 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 510 feet requested and a minnnum of 667 feet allowed); and WHEREAS, on August 25, 1997, the Saint Anthony Pazk Community Council, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the detenuivation of the Planning Commission in Zoning Files No.'s 97-169 (Midwest) and 97-170 (LTniversal) to grant sign variances; and 1 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208 and upon 2 notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Council of the City of Saint 3 Paul [City Council] on September 24, 1997, where all interested parties were given an 4 opporhxnity to be heard; and q,7 �� 5 6 WF�REAS, the City Council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the 7 application, the reports of staff, the record, minutes and resolutions of the Planniug Commission; 8 DOES, HEREBY, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 RESOLVE, that the determivaiion of the Plauning Commission in these matters is hereby reversed based upon the following findings: The Planning Commission erred in deteruiiuiug that there were unusual conditions pertainiug to the specific building sites of each sign. If there were hazdships created by these sites, the hazdships were self-created. First, Midwest leased land from which a legally established billboazd could not have been seen from the freeway ... or from much of anyplace. Midwest also erected a sign which was 21 feet higher than MidwesYs permit allowed. Despite this, the sign is still bazely visible and Midwest is still requesting a sign height variance for a total of 30 feet. Second, Universal elected to move the site of its proposed sign from a place where no height variance was required in order to accommodate an agreement that would allow both Universal and MidwesYs to establish two signs in an area that can accommodate only one sign. Moreover, if the Midwest sign didn't exist, Universal would not have required a separation variance at its original location either. There is room for only one sign of regulation size and height in this general area. Universal has a lease for the land more suitable for this regulation sign. Midwest obtained its permit--for a sign of regulation size and height--but elected to build a sign which was taller than allowed under its permit.. Third, while the sign ordinance provides for sign credits when nonconforming signs aze removed, the sign ordinance also requires that replacement signs conform to the size and height requirements of the sign ordinance. The Planning Commission ened when it determined that granring the requested variances would not be contrary to the general intent of the sign ordinance. Finally, the Plamung Commission erred when it determined tha# the proposed signs would not be objectionable to adjacent properiy owners. The Zoning Committee file included a letter from an adjacent property owner opposing the variances. A second letter was received following the public hearing. Due to the development of the general azea, there aze few adjacent property owners. This point increases the significance of the two letters received in opposition to the ��E.iYF:iYLK�.`ll AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the above stated reasons, the appeal of the St. Anthony Park Community Council is hereby granted; AND, BE IT q1-14 �3 1 FURTI�R RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Midwest, 2 Universal, the appellant, the Zoning Adniiuistrator and the Planning Commission. t�ND BE IT 4 FINALLY RESOLVED, that during the interim period between the Council decision in this 5 matter and the passage of t3us resolution memorializiug the Council's decision, Universal has 6 represented to the Zoning Committee that a"settlement° concerning sign site location had been 7 reached but not yet formalized with Midwest, [which appeazs to make the original appeal of 8 Universal and any subsequent appeal by Midwest moot]. f[I] Requested by Department of: By: Form Appr d by City Attorney gY: -� /,Ti� ��r�, /(- 2S-`17 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY: a�._ n � Sy: Approved by Mayor: Date / i�'j.v �4 �- Hy: � �� — / Adopted by Council: Date ��. , �� \ �.q� \ �,�,N�,� crrY courrcu, Councilmember Megazd December 1. 1997 December 10, 1997 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET �� ° I'1-►�t?3 No 621i8 a�rrnwc� F � ❑ 611YAiMqEY ❑ CRYCEtK ❑wuxu.�aunraoa ❑wu�rJ.�aom,�eero ❑ r�vat�ae��assr,wp ❑ (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATUR� Finalizing Ciry Council action taken September 24, 1997 granting the appeal of St. Anthony Pazk Community CouncH to a decision of the Planning Commission granting variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor, Inc. to locate outdoor adverkising signs at the northeast corner of I-94 and Vandalia Street and at 2100 Gilbert Avenue respectively. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMIITEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IFAPPROYED k199::�P�a�; AMOUM OF TRANSACTION tSONAL SERYICE CANTRAC75 MUST ANSWER TNE FOLLAWING ( Has ihis Peisa�rtn everwaked urWer a conhact fw this dea�eM7 YES NO Has ihis peisoMim ever 6een a eilY empbyee9 YES NO Does fhis P�Mrm P� a sIdII not �armellYP� M anY curteM citY emWoyeeT YES NO Is tlus µvsarJfifin e tergetetl venda? YES NO COST/REVENUE BUOGETED (GRCLE ONE) YES NO /ICTNITY NUMBER in/4ji:1r3S `�.'k.;.i.'...`e! uSa�.d __�. �' _ �JJ� OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY Peg Birk City Attorney 9� - I'{7 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor c�.,torvrs:on 400 City Hall I S West Ke7loggBlvd Saint Paul, Mrnnesota 55702 TeZephone: 672 266-8 77 0 Facsunile: 672 298-S6I9 November26, 1997 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretazy Saint Paul City Council Room 310 Saint Paul City Ha11 RE: Appeal of St. Anthony Park Community Council, (Zoning File No. 97-220) heard on September 24,1997. Dear Nancy: Attached please find an original resolution, signed as to form, memorializing the decision of the City Council in the above entitled matter. This matter should be placed upon the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, ' i.G6/�7G Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney , : 7 • ;,,;�� t: s ` r � 3 1g9� DEPART'MENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMENT Pome(a Wheelocl, Disector CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 WestFourth Street SaintPauI,MN55102 q�-14 �13 G\ Telephane: 612-2666655 Facsimile: 612-22&326I �"s� �� i�fi't�?' August 28, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: ;;;; ; � � i997 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, September 24, 1997 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision granting variances for the establishment of two advertising signs: Appellant: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL File Number: #97-169 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision granting variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising for the establishment of an advertising sign. Address: Northeast comer of I-94 and Vandalia Legal Description of Property: See Survey in File Previous Action: Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 15-1-1, August 8, 1997 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 5-0, July 31, 1997 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the September 10, 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6557 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �"(��- 9�� Nancy Homans City Planner cc: File #97-169 Mike Kraemer Donna Sanders � � `araricn oF rbsuc aenxnva . _ The Saint Paul CiLy Councff will' conduct a public hearing on Wednesday; Septemtier.24; 1997 at 4:30 g.m. in the City Councff Chambers, Third Floo� Citp = Hall-Court House,-to consider the appeal of St Anthony Pazk CommtuuYy Council .= to'a decision of thcPlannin Commission granting variances to Midwest Outdonr - Advpsti�; ��for establishment of- an advertising sign at the Northeast corner of - I-94 and Vandalia Street. - _ , , _ , Dated: September 3, 1997 � �- _ . - - . . . PFfi1VGY ANDERSON � � ' , . . -�- _ _ , _ _. _ -,,.. _ � � -- -ASSistant City Councik Secretary � ->- �� -- - - , � - -.- , ,(SeP4e'mber,6: �k997} � - " _ - ,�, I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pamela Whee7ock, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 WestFounh Street SaintPaul,,NN55102 ��-1y?3 Telephane: 612-266-6655 Facsimile: 612-228-3261 u� �. i August 28, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research O�ce Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: i�� 2 � i3�7 1 would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, September 24, 1997 for the fotlowing appeal of a Planning Commission decision granting variances for the establishment of two advertising signs: Appellant: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL File Number: #97-170 Purpose: Appeal a Pianning Commission decision granting variances to Universal Outdoor, Inc. for the establishment of an advertising sign. '�� Address: 2100 Gilbert Avenue Legal Description of Property: See Survey in File Previous Action: Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 15-1-1, August 8, 1997 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 5-0, July 31, 1997 My understanding is that this public hearing request wilf appear on ihe agenda for the September 10, 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6557 if you have any questions. Sincerely, l �` � ��/ Nancy Homans City Planner cc: File #97-170 Mike Kraemer Donna Sanders ��he; septemb,e zFlall: Eoui to a decisi Inc. for e, D'ated: Se N2'INCIs ltl Ass:staztt. ao2res oi+_g[�sErc a�a�rG Patil City Cpuncii wiH �coaducf a public - hearP � 1997 at4:30 p.m. in the'G�ty Gauncil-Ckamfiet ise, to�onsider the annealof Si: nnth�n., ra�k� � �. - - � I � on� Wed'nesdav. ....�.r�a.uuug .,ommiss:on grannng vaziances to IInivers lishment of an. advertising sign, at 2200 Gilbert Avet;ue. �ber.3, i987 " _ _ iRSON� _::;;�:�.r ` � _ - - � � � rCouncil SecaNCaiy � � � ' - :- ,: "' . . ; ° _`�Septemb�e7 6, 1997) . . . \�PED33VSYSVSHARP.D�NPI-PZONECASE�91170APLCFM ,+ t � & ECO OMIC O MP ENT (.� Pamela Wheelack Director �� _' • �� CTTY OF SA]NT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor rr�r Septembez 11, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota S S 1 Q2 • • 25 West Fourth Sireet Sain[ Pav(, MN55102 Zelephone: 612-266-6655 Facsimile: 6l2-228-326/ RE: Zoning Fale #97-220: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMTJNITY COUNCIL (Note new file number. File replaces Zoning Files #97-169 and #97-170) City Council Hearing: September 24, 1997 4:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Pi1RPOSF.: Appeal planning commission decisions granting sign variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor, Inc. to locate outdoor advertising signs at the northeast corner of I-94 and Vandalia and at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, respectively. PT ANNTtQC; COMMISCION ASTTON• APPROVAL 15-1 (in each case) 70NiNCC .�MNiITTEF RRC'(�MMF.NDATiON: APPROVAL 5-0 (in each case) STARF RF,C OMMFNDATION: DENIAI, (in each case) STTPPORT: No persons spoke. OPPOSITTON: One person spoke in opposition to both applications. One letter was received. The District 12 St. Anthony Pazk Communiry Council, Merriam Park Community Council and University LINITED all opposed the variances in both cases. Dear Ms. Anderson: The ST. ANTHONY PAItK COMMiJNITY COUNCIL has appealed the decisions of the Saint Paul Planning Commission, in separate cases, to grant sign variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor, Inc. to allow the installation of outdoor advertising signs on property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of I-94 and Vandalia and 2100 Gilbert Avenue, respectively. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the requests on July 31, 1997. Each applicant addressed the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variances in each case. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for approval on a vote of 15 to 1 in each case on August 8, 1997. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1997. Please nofify me (6-6557) if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the sites presented at the public hearing, Sincerely, �a�y I�omanp� Northwest Quadrant Staff Attachments cc: City Council members 1 � ' � � • i q t 1 , , n LJ TYPE OF A.PPEAt: Appficat'�on is hereby made for an appeai to the: C Board of Zoning Appeals � City Councif under th� provisions ot Chapter 64, Section 206 , P2ragraph a of the Zoning Code, to appea! a decisipn made by the P1 anni n9 Commi sion on A ugu s t 11 , 19 97 File number. 97- 69 and 97-7 70 (d�te o� decisiorJ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL• Expfain why you feel there has been an error in any requiremen:, pz;r,i;, dec�s�on o- refusai made by Gn admini;trativ> oniciai, or zn e�ror in fact, procedur2 cr imd�ng !nace by the 6oard of Zoning Appea'�s or ihe Plznning Gommiss:on. SEE ATTACHMFNT n LJ .r� r f�„JG-12-1957 11��! =�T F'HUL F'L�;it:.11i, �- E_Ot� - APP4ICATIQA! FOR APPEAL .Department oJPlnnning and .Economic Developm¢nt Znxiirg Seclion 1100 City� Hall Annex ZS 6�'est Fourfh Street Sarnt Paut, MN 55102 Z6b-6589 °l'1-1y �� V1= �G� JJS4 ♦ F.C�_ �� :, � Fafl� ,�n� aim " ``�_ :�fs .fative #�earji � APPELl.ANT Name St. Anthonv Park Commun�v Council � Address g90 Cromwell Ave. � City St. Paul g�, MN Zi 551 14 Daytime phone pRQPERTY Zoning File Name Midwest Outdoor Advertisinq 97-169 & j LOCATION � � -f�dt�ssfLveeE+c�r+- Uni versal Outdnor Tn 9�-� � — — Midwest - NE corner of I-94 and Vandalia, Universal - 2100 Gi lbert Ave., SE side of Vandalia �� A!tach add:GOr,a! shee! d r,ecessary) T St_ nthonV Par�C Community Counc9l q � Ip C . � �� jn:..L......i'e elnnoYi�ro .... �J1L1,4.2�._ � 0 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION • TO GRANT FIVE (5) VARIANCES TO TWO (2) BILLBOARD COMPAI3IES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF (2) BILLBOARDS AT I-94 AND VANDALIA. I. Zoning Ordinance. q .�,1N'I� Saint Paul Zoning Code, Chapter 66, qoverns the erection of billboards in Saint Paul. The last major revision of Chapter 66 occurred in 1987 and provides that the minimum distance between billboards on interstate freeways is 1,000 feet. The height limit for all billboards in Saint Paul, including freeway billboards, is 37.5 feet. Zoning Code §66.214(b). The Zoning Code also provides for "non-conforming sign face • credits." A billboard, which complied with the Zoning Code when erected, and became non-conforming because of a subsequent change to the Zoning Code, is a legal non-conforming billboard. If a billboard company removes leqal non-conforming billboards that company is grar.ted non-conforming sign face credits can be used in the erection of new billboards. These oredits All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b), .. but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing requirements in section 66.21�(b). Zoning Code §66.302(b)(6)(c). Thus the use of non-conforming sign face credits along I-94 could reduce the minimum distance requirement between billboards from 1,000 feet to 667 feet. ' , n, _„ .. �_____,_ � �� a ��- -z . • 1 TI. Background. Two billboards, owned by Fairway and Adams billboard companies • were, until recently, 2ocated on the North side of I-94 between Vandalia and Cleveland. The Fairway billboard was a one-sided billboard showing advertisements to the west bound flow of tra£fic on I-94. The Adams billboard is a two-sided billboard. Neither billboard received a variance from zoning code restrictions. The Fairway bi2Zboard, was remnved when it was found to be in the highway right-of -way. The Adams billboard remains on the property of Ivy League Place at 475 Cleveland Avenue. When the Fairway billboard was removed two other sign companies made application to erect a billboard to replace the one removed. In November, 1996, Midwest Outdoor Advertising first submitted an application for a billboard 72 square foot in sign • area and a height of 15 feet above grade. On February 10, 2497, Universal Outdoor applied £or an permit to erect a one-sided, 37 foot tall billboard on property leased at 2100 Gilbert. Neither the Midwest billboard nor the Universal billboard, as described in their applications, required variances from the Zoning Code. On February 21, 1997, Midwest resubmitted an appZication for a larger and taller billboard. This second application revised biidwest's first application and called for a 648 square foot billboard, 37 feet "above qrade," Again, Midwest's billboard, as described in its second application did not require variances. Midwest's second application noted the use of 648 sauare feet o� non-confort�ing sign face credits. This was necessary because the � G F�LE �" � ��11� 0 %�-1�� proposed site of the Midwest billboard was within 1,000 feet, but • greater than 667 feet, from the existinq Adams billboard to the east. The City, office of License, Inspection and Environmental Inspection (LIEP) approved the second Midwest billboard application and issued a construction permit. On February 24, 1997, Universal completed its application by submitting additional information and materials as requested by LIEP. On Maxch 3, 1997, LIEP denied Universal's application because of the proximity of Universal's proposed billboard to the proposed Midwest billboard for which LIEP had issued a permit. On March 5, 1997, Universal appealed the decisions to grant Midwest's billboard application and to deny Univezsal's billboard . application. LIEP wrote to Midwest informing that company of Universal's appeal and that any billboard erected was erected at Midwest's sole ris!c. Despite the pending appeal, and LIEP's warning, Midwest constructed a two-sided billboaxd 68 feet above qrade! Midwest's billboard is 30.5 feet higher than allowed by the zoning code, 31 feet higher than indicated in Midwest's construction application, and 31 feet higher than allowed by the construction permit. When this violation of the Zoninq Code and construction pernit became known to LIEP, that office wrote a letter, dated April 28, 1997, to Midwest telling that company to reduce the billboard in kteight or seek a variance allowing the greater heiaht. The matter of Universal's appeal was before the Zoning • 3 � No '�� FILE 9 �•ZZ.o --___ � Committee on April 17, and May l, 1997. The Zoning Committee has • never decided the matter of Universal's appeal. On May 5, and June 18, 1997 Universal and Midwest, respectively, applied for variances which would allow the construction of two two-faced billboards. Midwest appZied for a height variance of 30.5 feet and a distance variance of 157.12 feet, reducing the distance between its billboard and Universal's proposed billboard to 509.88 feet. Universal applied for a height variance of 20 feet and two distance variances of 157.12 and 157 feet. The distance variances would reduce the distance between the Universal billboard and the Midwest billboard to 509.88 feet and the distance between the Universal billboard and the Adams billboard to 510 feet. In effect two billboards were squeezed into a space where one billboard was removed. The Zoning Committee heard the matter of the variances on July 31, 1997. The Zoning Committee (five members voting) voted unanimously to allow all five variances. The Zoning Committee recommended to the Planning Commission at the Planning C.ommission's August 8, 1997, meeting that the variances be allowed. The Planning Commission, at the August 8th public meeting, at which no public testimony was a2lowed, voted to allow a11 five variances. �O /1 t,�� . �� F �`� 9J• _�� •. 0 q �_�,��3 • III. opposition. The Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development (PED), Saint Anthony Park Community Council, Merriam Park Community Council., Bniversity United, and an adjoining land owner; Ivy League Place, all oppose the issuance of any variance for any billboard on the North side of I-94 between Vandalia and Cleveland. These entities do not necessarily oppose the construction of a billboard to replace the removed Fairway billboard. They oppose the issuance of variances from Zoning Code restrictions. IV. Grounds for Appeal. a) Errors in Procedure. � i. The Zonina Committee Inaoprooriatelv ProDOSed _the Var�ances to Resolve Universal's Anpeal. The Planning Commission Resolutions allude to the critical issue o£ who initiated the concept of allowing both billboards to be erected. The only issue before the Zoning Committee at its April 17, 1997, meeting was Universal's appeal of the issuance of a billboard construction permit to Midwest and denial of Universal's application to erect a billboard. "Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal • Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution of the appeal miqht involve permitting both signs provided that they could meek the 50o foot senaration reguired by state law." Resolution, Zoning File #97-169, p. 3. "The appeal was heard by the Zoninq Committee on Apri1 17, 5 �� 'j.� /�•220 �' 1997 and May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve • permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law." Resolution, Zoning File #97-170, p. Z• These statements are misleading and give a false impression of this critical issue. It was Zoning Committeemember Gordon who first proposed, at the April 17th meeting, that both billboards be erected making it unnecessary for the Zoning Committee to decide Universal's appeal. He asked Ms. Lane of LIEP "Can we permit both signs?" To which Ms. Lane responded the Planning Commission could "always grant variances." Later in the April 17th meeting Zoning Committeemember Gordon asked Mr. Cronin of Universal "You would be satisfied with a• resolution of this matter that provided £or Midwest and Universal to have a sign?" Mr. Cronin's reaction was not enthusiastic. He responded: "As long as they [Midwest] built their sign as applied for and permitted by law." That is, provided there be no height variance. Since the April 17th Zoning Committee meetinq Cor.unitteemembers Gordon and Vaught have championed the idea of issuing whatever variances might allow the erection of both billboards. Comnitteemember Vaught again raised the idea of variances at the May lst Zoning Committee meeting. He asked Ms. Lane of_LIEP whether the cor�nittee would have the ability to vary the requirements of the Zoning Code to allow both biliboards. Zoning • 6 Z �� FoLE �--__ • ZZo �� • Committee Minutes, May lst, 1997, p• 4- Universal's Mr. Cronin was more direct at the July 31st Zoning Committee meeting. He stated that it was his understanding "that the Zoning Committee had asked the two companies to find a way to fit both signs." Zoning Committee Minutes, July 31st, p. 1. Further, Committeemember Vaught stated at the July 31st meeting that it was incumbent on the Zoning Committee to clean up a "problem created by the division of LIEP." Zoning Committee Minutes, �uly 31st, p. 2. Committeemember Vaught has been very direct in his criticisms of Mr. Ressler who heads the LIEP office. It is the function of the Planning Commission to hear matters which come before it. It is not the function of the Planning Commission to first suggest and then advocate for the issuance of • variances. The Committee shall, upon proper notification, conduct public hearings on ... the various types of �oninQ apolications that are duties of the planning commission. Administrative Code, 107.03. Here, the issue before the Zoning Committee at the April 17th hearing was Universal's appeal and nothing more. Had the Zoning Committee ruled on Universal's appeal, as was their duty, the issue of variances would never have arisen. But rather than ruling on Universal's appeal, Committeemembers Gordon and Vaught sought to avoid a difficult decision by suggesting the erection of both billboards. The Zoning Committee tabled �Jniversal's appeal at its April 17th meeting at the urging of committeemembers Gordon and Vaught. Subseguer.tly these same . Comr,iissioners advocated for what was, in fact, their idea: the � '�� Ft�.E 9�??_0 issuance of all variances needed to construct two two-sided signs. The Planning Committee Resolution allowing Universal's three variances gets close to the truth. (Remember Universal's billboard construction application was for a one-sided, 37 foot tall sign requirinq no variances.) "Plhile the applicant wouid not have required any variances at the location they original2y proposed, to resolve a dis�ute between two comnetinQ companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sian that the zonina code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity." Resolution, Zoning File #97-170, p. 3-4. By first suggesting, and then advocating for the issuance of variances, the Zoning Committee abandoned all pretext of being an • impartial decision-maker. Midwest's and Universal's applications . for variances would not have been in front of the Zoning Committee had that committee not strongly suggested the sign companies submit the applications. When the variance applications were eventually submitted there could be no doubt the Zoning Committee would grant them. Advocacy of the issuance of variance is an abuse of the Zoning Committee's and the Planning Commission's discretion. ii. Zonina Code Standards were ImproneTlv Applied. The Zoning Code specifies certain standards that must be met before a variance to the Zoning Code can be issued. Section 6 of each Planning Co��ittee Resolution apply these standards to each applicant's variances as a unit rather than applying the standards 8 �� • r �� °�� 9� a , , _�y�� to each variance requested. Each standard is applied equally to • height and separation distance variances. Each standard must be applied independently to eacri of the five variances. For example: a site location which was unusual and justifies a heiqht variance does not necessarily justify a separatior. distance variance. iii. Zoning Committee Renort to the Plannina Commission was Whollv Inadequate. The Zoning Committee's report to the Planning Commission on August 8th prior to the Planning Commission's issuance of the variances was wholly inadequate. Inadequacies include: * The Zoning Committee Chair's report did not mention any opposition to issuance of the variances. When the representative • from Merriam Park Community Council rose to speak on this point she was told to be quiet and sit down. * The Zoning Committee`s report contained no discussion of applying zoninq Code standards to the variances. (One member of the Planninq Commission made it clear he did not know what standards to apply to his decision.) * Again, Commissioners Vaught and Gordon advocated for the issuance of these variances as a way of fixing LIEP's "mistake." b) Error in Fact. Neither Midwest nor Universal has sufficient non-conforming sign face credits to allow the construction of the proposed two- sided billboards. LIEP has misapplied a provision of the zoning • code such that a billboard company need remove as little as one- 9 �� half the non-conforming sign face square footage needed to erect a • new billboard at two-thirds the distance separation. According to LIEP's interpretation, a billboard company could take down a one- sided, non-conforming billboard and use those credits to erect a two-sided billboard where each side of the new billboard is the same dimensions as the one side removed. Non-conforming sign face credits can be used to double display surface area and reduce the required distance between billboards by one-third! This doubling effect is possible by LIEP's misapplication of a provision of the Zoning Code. Only one side of a double-faced sign or V-shaped sign shall be used to compute the gross surface display area, display surface area, or sign area of a sign. Zoning Code §66.201(14). The maximum gross surface display area of business signs, for example, is 75 square feet. Zoning Code §66.205(1). The maximum �. gross surface display area for a billboard along I-94 is 700 square feet. Zoning Code §66.214(b). When calculating these limits only one side of a two-sided sign is measured. The term "nonconforming sign face credit" is omitted from the above provision. Yet LIEP interprets the provision to apply to non-conforming sign face credits. We contend the LIEP office �isapplies the above provision which misapplication results in insufficient non-conforming sign face credits being required for the subject billboards. LIEP has read the term "non-conforming sign face credit`" into the above provision. This is an abuse of that office's discretion. ZO ��N� • 10 �`,� C ♦ c Q� _�Z` q ,� _ �y �3 • c) Errors in Findings. The Zoning Code specifies the standards which must be met before the Planning Commission can qrant a variance. See g66.409. Again, each of these standards must be applied to each oP the five subject variances. The Planning Commission did not do this. i. "Unique sign or unusual conditions pertainina to sian needs for a specific buildinq or lot.!' * Universal's Heiaht Variance: This standard is not met. No one suggests that these billboards are unique. They are standard highway billboards. Nor are there any unusual conditions pertaining to the specific lot or construction site which would support a height variance. On the contrary, the existing Adams billboard, built 500 feet east of the � proposed Universal billboard site, is a two-sided billboard clearly visible from I-94 at a height of 37 feet. Indeed, LSniversal's billboard application is for a billboard 37 feet tal1. * rt,,;. � �S Two Dxstance Variances: This standard is not met. The Planning Commission did not apply this standard to Universal's distance variances. There are simply no "unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot" which justify either Universal distance variance. The only justification mentioned by the Planning Commission is that the two sign companies have agreed that each be granted distance variances to resolve their dispute. Resolution, Zoning File #97-170, p. 3. - That one sign company does not object to, or even encourages, � the issuance of a variance to another siqn corpany is not a �� t� 9�.2 -.`io standard to be applied by the Planning Commission to the issuance of variances. � * M�dwest's Heiaht Variance: This standard is not met. Midwest has constructed their billboard at a height that allows both sides of its billboard to be seen from I-94. If Midwest had been restricted to the 37 foot height, the west face of the billboard would not be visible from the west because of the Vandalia overpass. Rather than limit their billboard to a one side, billboard Midwest seeks a 30.5 foot height variance on top of the 37.5 feet height allowed by the Zoning Code. The resulting 68 foot height is nearly double the height allowed by the Zoning Code and nearly double the height of the Adams billboard approximately 1,000 feet to the east. In order to find unusual conditions pertaining to the site of � Midwest's billboard it is necessary to conclude that overpasses along I-94 are unusual. I-94 was constructed beneath the level of neighboring roads requiring many overpasses. We disagree with the Planning Commission that an overpass is an unusual condition. * M�d west's Distance Var�ance: This standard is not met. Regardless of whether the overpass might justify a height variance, the overpass cannot justify a distance variance. Again, the only justification nentioned by the Planning Commission is that issuance of the variance would resolve a dispute between the sign companies. That consideration is irrelevant. /Z �� , �G �� , z • iz � q'I _�y� 3 ii. �,�t,.ary to the General Intent nF the Chaater • *�;vPrsal's and Midwest's Heiaht & Distance Variances: This standard is not met. The general intent of Chapter 66 regarding non-conforming sign face credits is to encourage removal of billboards which violate provisions of the 2oning Code and replace those billboards with billboards which do comply. To encourage the use of non-conforming sign face credits the Zoning Code allows a one-third refluction in the distance requirement. All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits sha11 comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b), .. but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing requirements in section 66.214(b). Zoning Code §66.302(b)(6)(c). It is the intent of the Zoning Code, through the use of non- conforming sign credits, to bring Saint PaUl billboards into • greater compliance with that Code's provisions. This intent is defeated if the billboards built with non-conforming sign face credits do not themselves otherwise conform with height and distance provisions. In the words of the Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development "The intent of the code is to move toward overall conformance with the provisions of the sign ordinance. Granting [these} variances would move the city away from the balance intended in the code." Zoning Committee Staff Report, Suly 24, 1997, p. 4. u /�� I/�� . e � j �F 13 � �2� iii. S�'eate a Hazard F7e make no comment other than to note the west face of • Midwest's billboard is now close to the Vandalia street overpass. The proposal is to move it 50 feet closer. This proximity alone raises concerns of a traffic hazard. iv. Violate State S atutes Rules or ReQUlations. We make no comment. v. Not Objectionable to Adiacent p"ooertv Owners• * Universal's Aeiaht =nd Distance Varian�es: This standard in not met. It is first necessary to note the owners of property adjacent to the proposed site of the i3niversal billboard. The railroad borders the North side of the property and I-94 borders the South. The railroad is an interested party because it is leasing space to Midwest for its billboard. There is • no west side. The East side is bordered by Ivy League Place. Ivy League Place has lodged a timely, written objection. The objection reads in part: "��7e have an Adams advertising sign on our property that is in compliance with the City's ordinance and feel that both Midwest outdoor and Universal Outdoor should likewise be held to the same standards." vi. Adverselv Affect Residential Propertv• We make no comment vii. In keeoina W'th the General Character of ttte Area. We make no comr.ient. � �oA� � �� G �o • � 9� z �Z°/ -- ��-iN�� v. Conclusion. • The Planning Commission has no authority to issue any variance which fails any of the above standards. As has been shown the Midwest and Universal variances, each, fail at least.one Zoning Code standard. Thus the Planning Commission does not have the authority to issue any of these five variances. • . /��! �� ol� 9 15 �� Correspondence Received After Zoning Committee Public Hearing � � � • • � ATERTOWER �SSOCIATES - L 1 SSO Vandalia 5treet St. pAUI, MN 5511d August 7, 1997 Mr. David McDonneli St. Paul Planning Commission 25 W. 4`" Street �`1100 St. Paui, MN �5102 Re: Sign Vaziance Heazing - I94 & Vandalia Dear Aave, q� -1y�l3 (612)b46-280[ Fax: 642-256� 1 just retumed from a vacation and discovered in my mail that 1 have missed a hearing retating to Outdoor Advertising Sign Variances adjacent to my business property I want you and the Commission to know that I am vehemently opposed to grantin� the variances as have been requested. The Midwest Sign is immediate]y adjacent to my building. it is 20' too high, where i1 blocks the view to private signage on my building. lt is also too close to the next nearest sign, which requires another vaziance. I am the property owner most affected by this illegal, ill-placed, monstrosity of a sign. My opposition is based on the practical consideration as already noted, but also on the principle of granting variances to ordinances very judiciously. Sign ordinances, especially, are designed ta guarantee some environmental and aesthetic decorwn to our neighborhoods. This pazticular situation is a mistake that shou[d be secognized as such, and not aifow a variance. Many thanks for your and the Commission's consideration. P(ease say "NO". Sincereiy, l G. chard� Partner GRP/dt�r . � . � , � 707RL F•�� a �..14' 13 � Ptanning Commission Resoiutions P{anning Commission Minutes August 8, 1997 � � ��r �� city of saint paul planning comm�ssion resolution file number 9�-5 date Au�st $ 1997 C� WF�,REAS, MIDWEST OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, file #97-169, has apptied for two Sign Variances under the provisions of Section 66.409 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow an existing advertising sign to be relocated: 1) a 30.5 foot sign height variance requested (a sign height of 68 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet aitowed) on progerty located at X3�,Y VANDALIA STREET, legally described in the file; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on 7uly 31, 1997, at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said apglication in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the 5aint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Corrunittee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant proposes to move an existing outdoor advertising sign approximately fifty feet to the west and construct it at a height of sixty-eight (68) feet above grade. Two variances-- of maximum height and of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs intended to be seen from a freeway be 1,000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 1038.82 feet west of an existing Adams Company sign and 803 feet east of an e�cisting 3M Company sign. In addition, the proposed site is 509.88 feet west of a sign proposed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that would be 68 feet from grade. The grade at which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadway bed. �� moved by Field �� seconded by �A�l� in favor 15 a�4�,t 1 (G°isser� (Kramer abstained) � s� �� L`D Zoning File #97-I69 Page Two of Resolution 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height requirements ofthe Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much ofthe land in the vicinity is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right-of-way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. It is on this railroad land that Midwest Outdoor Advertising proposes to construct its sign. 3. Midwest Outdoor Advertising filed an application for an outdoor advertising sign on Friday, February 21, 1997. The sign was to be located in the rai(road right-of-wayjust east of Vandalia Street and north of the westbo�nd I-94 off-ramp, 50 feet east from where the sign is presently proposed. The application stated that the sign would be installed at 37 feet above grade. • The applicant constructed the sign at its current location and at its cunent height (58 feet , above grade) sometime after being issued a permit by the Saint Paul Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) on February 25, 1997. (The application stated that it was estimated that the sign wovld be constructed between March 15 and March 30, 1997.) On March 7, 1997, the applicant was notified of an appeal fifed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The letter from Robert Kessler to Midwest Outdoor Advertising notifying them of the appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. stated: "Ifyou choose to proceed and Universal's appeal is approved by the Planning Commission, it woutd be your responsibility to remove the sign at your expense." On April 17, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission met to consider the appeal of the LIEP decisioa by Universat Outdoor, Inc. The matter was laid over until the May 1, 1997 committee meeting. On Apri128, 1997, a letter was sent to Midwest Outdoor Advertising by Robert Kessler notifying them.that their sign was constructed in violation of their pernut inasmuch as it was 58 feet from the base to the top of the sign--not 37.5 feet as required. The company was fur[her notified that continued use of the sign would require a variance from the Planning Commission. (The applicant has maintained that the construction of their sign was consistent with their understanding that sign height was to be measured from the top of the I-94 e�cit . ramp rather than the roadbed. The fact--and longstanding practice--that the measurement Z�N�NG F�� Z2� o i u r L_ Zoning File #97-169 Page Three ofResolution � is to be taken from the main roadbed was clarified by a Minor Zoning Amendment adopted by the Planning Commission on July 11, 1997.) On May 1, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission devoted a significant amount of time to a consideration of the issues associated with which of two sign companies should be pernutted to construct a sign within an area where the Zoning code would allow only one. Because of different procedures followed by different staff members in the Office of Licenses Inspections and Environmental Protection, both applicants asserted that they should have been considered "first," and, therefore, been approved. Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution of the appeal might involve pemutting both signs provided that they could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance of the code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. Universal Outdoor, Inc. elected to suspend its appeal and file an application for such a variance. 4. The two companies, after the May 1, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting, crafted a proposal that would involve moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they both wouid meet the State of Minnesota's 500 feet separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-confomung signs removed by Midwest Outdoor Advertising elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66302(b) of the Zoning code. That section provides, in part, that: a. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a pemutted use; b. The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height requirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and c. The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: � `��- a�� 2� Zoning File #97-169 Page Four ofResolution (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face crediYs shall comply wiYh the size aad height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, parks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance requirements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicanPs request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as £ollows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needr to the site This condition is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14 by 48 foot v- style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual conditions related to the site that have led to this application include: (1) Topography. The site selected by the applicant and leased from the railroad is depressed to allow for the passage of trains under the Vandalia Street bridge. A sign constructed within the 37.5 feet height limit outlined in the Zoning code would not be clearly visible from I-94. • (2) Separation from the proposed Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign. To resolve a dispute • between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfui(y Iocate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning cade. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concem for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of 14 non=confornung signs in other areas of the city where the removal has enhanced the visual environment. c. The sign will nof create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues pernuts for ali signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restrictions althoagh their pernuts state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. Minnesota Statutes require that signs be located no • closer than 500 feet apart. ,� —�� Z ��'N� �'�� 9 . �.-�?--� �� , {�d� � . Zoning File #97-169 Page Five of the Resolution d The sign wi11 not adversely affect resirlential property through excessive glare and lighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. e The sign would noi be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advert+sing signs at regular intervals. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paui Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for the following Sign Variances to allow an e�sting advertising sign to be relocated to X�'Y VANAALIA STREET is hereby approved: 1. A 30.5 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 68 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed). '�� _� � ��g� 9 z � �,� city of saint paul � planning commission resolution file number 97-57 �te P.ugust 8, 1997 • �� _ WHEREAS, ZJNIVERSAL OUTDOOR, INC., file #97-170, has applied for Sign Variances under the provisions of Section 66.409 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow an advertising sign: 1) a 20 foot sign height variance requested (a sign height of 57.5 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet from a sign to the west requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed); and 3) an advertising sign separation variance of 157 feet requested (a separation between advertising signs of S 10 feet from a sign to the east requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed) on property located at 2100 GILBERT AVENLTE, legally described as see file; and WI�REAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 31, 1997, at which alf persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings offact: 1. The applicant proposes to construct an outdoor advertising sign on private property located at 2100 Gilbert adjacent to the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp from I-94. Three variances-- of maximum height and two of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs be 1000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 510 feet west of an e�cisting Adams Company sign, thus requiring a variance of 157 feet. It is also 509.88 feet from a proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign, requiring a variance of 157.12 feet. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is moved by Field � secorxied by . in favor 15 a!'ta��t 1 t�isser) ��,. �� G F! —�E . _� � (Kramer Abstained) Zoning Fi(e #9?-170 Page Two of the Resolution intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that wou(d e�ctend 57.5 feet from the grade, 20 feet higher than allowed in the code. The grade on which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadbed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side ofthe westbound VandaIia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-44 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount ofprivately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height requirements of the Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land is publicly owned and associated wiYh the I-94 and Vandatia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right of way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. In between the railroad and I-94 rights-of-way is a narrow strip ofland that is privately owned and on which the Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign is proposed to be constructed. � The applicant first applied for a permit to establish a sign on this site, but appro�cimately 160 feet west of this location, on February 10, 1997. It was to be a singie sided sign facing east and constructed at 37.5 feet above grade. � On March 3, 1997, the applicant was notified that their application was being rejected because of a pernut issued to Midwest Outdoor Advertising on February 25, 1997 to allow them to construct a sign east o£ Vandalia and about 300 feet from where Universal was proposing to establish their sign. On March 5, 1997, the applicant appealed the decision of the Director of the Office of Licenses, Inspection and Environmental Protection, contending that their appiication was filed before that of Midwest Outdoor Advertising and, therefore, should have been granted. The appeal was heard by the Zoning Committee on April 17, 1997 and on May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance of the Code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. The applicant agreed to suspend the appeal pending the outcome of such an application process. 4. The two sign companies subsequently crafted a proposal that involved moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they wo Id both meet the State of � ��/�� '�E��, -� . q�_1�1'�3 � Zoning File #97-170 Page Three of Resolution Minnesota's 500 foot separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. The new proposed site has led to a request for a height variance in addition to the separation variance. In the original location, the dimensions of the available land would allow the construction of only a one-sided east-facing sign. Moving to the east would allow for a v- sign, but, in order to be seen from both directions, the applicant states that the sign would have to be elevated. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 20 foot height variance to allow the sign to extend up 57.5 feet. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-conforming signs removed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. from locations elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66.302(b) of the Zoning code. That section provides, in part, that: a. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a pernutted use; b. The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height • requirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and c. The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, parks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance requirements in section 66214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This standard is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14 by 48 foot v- style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual circumstances related to the site relate to its relationship to an existing building and to its relationship to the e�sting and proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising • sign. While the applicant would not have required any variances at the location they originally proposed, to resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to �� F �L E 9 � z �,o --�---_ � Zoning File #97-170 Page Four of Resolution which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfuily locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. T'he proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of three non-conforming signs in other areas of the city where removal has enhanced the visual environment. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Staiutes or rules and regulations. • This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues pernuts for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restriction although their pemuts state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. � Minnesota Statutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d The sign will not adversely affect residential property through ezcessive glare and lighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and offramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. � The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to ihe proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the sumounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway comdor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals. ZONING FILE 9'=_0 � � - - - q� -14�� . Zoning File #97-170 Page Five of Resolut'son NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 6y the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for the foilowing Sign Variances to allow an advertising sign at 2100 GILBERT AVENTJE is hereby approved: A 20 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 57.5 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and �� • 2. An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed); and 3. An advertising sign separation variance of 157 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 510 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed). ��I�OB�� LE 9� z �?o �'1-I�l'�� • Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting ofthe Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, Au�ust 8, 1997, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissionen Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Geisser, Maddox, Nordin, and Treichel, and Messrs. Chavez, Present: Field Jr., Gordon, Gurney, Johnson, Kong, Kramer, McDonell, Nowlin, Vaught and Wilson Commissioners Mmes. *Faricy and *Wencl, and Messrs. *Mardell, and *Sharpe Absent: *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Pla�ning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Patricia James, and Roger Ryan, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; Fred Ocwsu, City Clerk; and Tom Beach from the Department of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. • I. Swearing in of Jennifer Engh Fred Owusu, City Clerk, swore in our latest Planning Commission appointee, Jennifer Engh. Ms. Engh stated that she is a resident of Irvine Park. Currently, she is serving as the Assistant Commissioner for Tax Policy at the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Her entire life has been involved in serving at different levels of government: she's worked at the U.S. Senate; the White House; the Minnesota Legislature; she's lobbied; worked in the Carlson Administration for five years at the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development; and now at the Department of Revenue. II. Chair's Annouucements Chair McDonald announced that there will be an orientation for ne�v Commission members immediately followin� today's Planning Commission meeting. He announced that the public hearing on proposed zonina regulations for large metal shredders will take place at the next Commission meeting, Friday, August 22, 1997. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford reported that he has had a few calls in the past week in response to the Land Use Opportunities Paper, which the Nei�hborhood Planning and Land Use Committee has been working on very hard for the last several weeks. The issue paper has been broadly • distributed in the community. It projects many very important concepts for a new land use plan. It encompasses many ideas that the Commission has talked about, and included some �zo��NG ��L� 9��Z�E principles for future development in the City that come from the Saint Paul on the Mississippi River Development Framework. • IV. Zoning CommiEtee #97-146 James F Thomas - Sign Variance at 1941 Grand Avenue. Commissioner Field explained that the appticant proposes to place a mural on three sides of his building, and there is some signage associated with the mural. Mr. Roger Ryan presented information on vazious aspects of the wine glass and LIEP's determination that it is a part of a sign. Mr. Ryan explained that part of the complexity of Yhis case is distinguishing between murals and signs. Murals are not regulated by the Zoning Code. Scenery murals ue a permitted use. However, if a mural is placed on a business bnilding, and it has sign elements painted on that mural, then the entire mural is considered the sign, which means the entire mural would then be considered in the calculation of the mvcimum amount of sign area that one is allowed on a lot. In this case, a vineyard is being painted on the building as well as a wine glass and some identification signs. The sign vaziance, in this case, is for 1,238.5 square feet; 119.5 square feet are allowed. Total square footage of the mural is 1,358 square feet. MOTION: CommissionerFie[d moved approva! of a requested sign variance for I,238.5 square feet at I941 Crand Avenue. •. Commissioner Field reported that the Zoning Committee approved the requested vaziance on a vote of 5- I, and he was the dissenting vote. He added that the sign code defines a SIaR flS: The use of words, numerals, figures, device, design, or uademark for the purpose of which is to show or adveRise a person, firm, profession, business, product or message. He went on to say that the applicant, at the hearing, stated that the purpose of the mural was to promote his business, and so, gauging the entire mural to be a sign, Commissioner Field couldn't vote for approval. He added that he has a grave concem about the number of murals on Grand Avenue. Part of the sign code is to protect open space and areas characterized by unique environment, historicat and azchftecturat resources. He said that these murals, in his opinion, are inconsiste�t with Grand Avenue. Commissioner Vau�ht commented that he read the same si�an code and noted especially the part that says the Planning Commission has the authority to vary the requirements of the sign code, He added that he found the mural to be completely nonoffensive. He supports the variance. ' Commissioner Field rebutted. He sees this as a much bigger issue. He fmds this to be a proliferation of murats, �vhich aze advertisin�. He stated that cleazly, in his mind, if these were billboards, they �voald not go up, and yet, they have the character of a billboard. He • 2 ZONiNG F11E 9.�Zo' q'1- I y'l3 feels that this mural issue needs to be gotten under control before the character and quality . of Grand Avenue suffers. He reported that he has asked the Zoning staff to get murals on the Zoning Amendments as soon as possible. Commissioner Nowlin asked what were the factors considered in deciding whether or not to support the variance? Commissioner Vau�ht responded that the issue at that particular Zoning Committee meetina had nothing to do with the broader mural, but had to do with whether the wine glass to be placed on the side of the mural, if we approve this, ought to be an allowed variance from the provisions of the sign code. Commissioner Nowlin stated that he would support the request for a variance. He is concerned that in this case, the Commission is not considering anything other than subjective aesthetics in deciding whether or not to grant a vaziance. Commissioner Chavez noted that there was a problem with this case from the very beginning. The issue was whether they actually have or do not have a sign with the mural. They could keep the sign they had and paint around it because the statute says they can. At the second meeting, another issue appeared. It was staffls interpretation that the wine glass was a sign, and therefore, the entire mural had to be counted. He concluded that the reat issue is statute. T/:e motion on t/ee tn approve a request for a sign variance that would allow a mural • with a total sign variance of 1,238.5 square feet at 1941 Grand Avenue carried on a voice vote of IS to 2(Field, Gurney). #97-043 Michael P Voto - Nonconforming use permit to allow a 4 unit building at 1947 Roblyn Avenue. Commissioner Field informed the Commission that the Merriam Park Community Council voted to not support this nonconforming use permit. Testimony from the City Fire Marshal identified the properry as at one time being a four plex, then a triples through a series of doors being locked and unlocked. The applicant indicated that he bou�ht the home understanding that it was permitted as a triplex, but understanding also that he could apply for a nonconformin� use permit for a fourplex. The City Fire Marshal testified that from a life safety perspective, the property complied with all the requirements for a fourplex. On a vote of 4-2, the Zoning Committee voted to approve the request. MOTION: Commissioner Fie1d moved approval of tlte requested nonconforn:ing use permit to aZlow a 4 unit building at I997 Roblyn Avenue. Commissioner Chavez informed Commission members that the first motion that came out of this case ended in a tie vote, so a second motion was drawn up; it was approved. • Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission that he was part of the 3-3 vote; he had voted to suQport the staff recommendation for denial. Then, he said he made the motion to � ZoI�t�G FlLE g .z� -�----- i approve, which then passed 4-2. He added that he turned his decision around because he • was really torn about the project. He stated that it is c(early an anomalous property. A statement by the Fire Marsha(, who said given the quality of the maintenance and upkeep on the place and the square footage that if, in fact, the Commission would allow this use, he would have no hesitancy whatsoever about approving the Certificate of Occupancy, swung his decision. Commissioner Gordon asked to hear what the reasons were for the m o who dissented from approval. Commissioner Chavez responded that during the testimony it was pointed out that there had been a problem there before. He said that he, personally, didn't think that the appticant was very up-front about what had occurred. He said that the applicant had bought the property with a full understanding, and he had been wamed about noncompliance more than once; and Commissioner Chavez did not feel it was right for him to now come to the Committee and be approved for his noncompliance. Commissioner Field added that there was a history that this property was being used as a fourplex over a continuous period of time. Some members ofthe Zoning Committee took issue with whether it met the 10-year standazd for having been used in a nonconforming fashion. Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission why he voted against it at first. He said that he didn't recall any testimony that indicated this particular applicant was involved in what appeared to be a pretty unsavory practice on the part of the previous owners of • property. He said he appreciated the applicanYs candor in admitting that he knew at the time he purchased the property that it was not a legal 4 unit use, thereby he argued the hardship issue, which was of his own making by purchasing it. At that time, Commissioner Vaught said, he could not convince himself that there was a legitimate hardship, which is a required finding, since the applicant had created it himself. Tl:e motion on the floor to approve tl:e requested nonconformin; use permit to allow a 4 unit building at 1947 Rob[yn Avenue carried on a voice vote of I S-2 (Chavez Nordin). #97-165 Tene Lv - Special condition use permit to allow outdoor sales of used automobiles on the northwest comer of University and Oxford. Mr. Rvan stated that a letter had been received from the Thomas-Dale Community Council. They had reviewed the application and recommended support of the requested special condition use permit, with the provision that the signage on the lot «'ould be reduced to meet the sign requirements of the sisn code, which is 350 square fe:t of signs on the lot. UnfoRunately, the letter was misplaced and did not get to the Zoning Committee for them to consider. The letter was later sent out �vith an explanation by i�fs. \ancy Homans. She also spoke to the applicant, who said that he wishes to be accommodating to the neighborhood, and so he has a�reed to paint over the existing signa�e on the norrh edge of the property. He will maintain the sign on the west edae of the property. Therz is a lar�e fence on the north side of the property and also one on the west side of the property upon which the two sio s are painted. • 4 zon�rNG F�iE 9� � q�-iy�� • MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of tl:e requested special condition use permit, with several conditions, to allow outdoor sales of used automobiles on t/:e northwest corner of University and Oxford, w/:ic/: carried unanis:ously on a voice vote. #97-169 Midwest Outdoor Advertisina - Two variances to allow an existing advertising sign to be moved on the northeasterly corner of I-94 and Vandalia. �97-170 Universal Outdoor. Inc. - Three variances to allow an advertising sign at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, south side east of Vandalia. Commissioner Field explained that the two above cases were tied to a matter of old business: a Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision on a sign. Commissioner Field stated that he will present both of them together because that is the way they were heard at the Zoning Committee meeting. Universal Outdoor, Inc. applied for a sign permit at 2100 Gilbert Avenue. They were informed they needed additional information and proceeded to get it. In the interceding period of time, before they could complete the application, Midwest Outdoor Advertising came with an application for a sign at a close by location, which was approved. Universal Outdoor, Inc, in their appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision, indicated that they had filed the applications consistent with al] prior customary procedures, and felt . that they still had a valid application going at the time Midwest submitted their application. At the time of the hearing, it was indicated that there was a possible compromise which could be reached that might satisfy both companies but required that both companies apply for variances. They came back and so the two cases were joined together since the primary issue is permitting the two signs to be 509.88 feet apart versus 667 feet which is prescribed when appropriate sign credits are developed. Typically, the City code requires that they be ' 1000 feet apart, but when sign credits, which are granted when other signs are taken down are generated, they can go to 667 feet. On a vote of 5- 0 the Zoning Committee approved the new sia s with Commissioner ICramer abstaining. Commissioner Kramer stated that he will be abstainina from the vote on this issue today also. Commissioner Vaught commended these hvo companies for being abte to sit down and work together. He added that two reasons why he was able to vote in approval of these signs were that: 1) the state �vould approve both of these; and 2) these two billboards aze replacin� seventeen other billboards removed by the t�vo companies. Commissioner Geisser commented that it seemed to her that Sain2 Paul is endin� up with an extra billboard. She said she had thouoht that it was the Planning Commission's intent to . try to rid the ciry of billboards as much as possible. She is concemed because these are lar�e signs, and there are already many signs in that area. She said she would like to see Z��6�VG �iLE 9� � fewer billboards. She cannot support these. Commissioner Gurney explained that a certain number of signs need to be taken do�vn in • order to get a sign credit. And although there is another billboazd being added to this paRicular location, there are several locations around the city where these billboards have been taken down. Commissioner Field reiterated the explanation of sign credits and added that the freeway is a better place for those signs than in the neighborhoods. Commissioner Vaught echoed Commissioners Gurney and Field, and added that there is no increase in square footage of biilboards. In fact, it is a substantial decrease in the number o£ billboards. He noted that the thing that tipped him over was that he thinks the City has some culpability in the way this process operated. He does not think it was proper, and it worked to the detriment of both companies. He stated that there is some curative intent in his vote. Commissioner Gordon stated that, generally speaking, he agrees with Commissioner Geisser that Saint Paui ought to have fewer rather than more billboards. He thinks that is what is happening in this case. He will support the motion. He is motivated by the equities of this situation. He noted that he is also concerned about the potential liability of the City. Commissioner Chavez questioned whether the Commission could legally vote on both of these cases as one case. MOTION: Cammissio�:er Vaugl:t moved to divide the question , to vofe on the crues •� separately. Commissioner Field seconded the motion. Commissioner Nordin brought up how this tivould work if the Commission passed one, but denied the other. She said that she would really like to see only one billboard there. So, if the vote is divided, she needs more information to make a decision. Commissioner Vaught, seeking to help Commission Nordin with her decision, informed her that the Universal application was submitted first, but was not processed first. The Midwest application was submitted second, but was processed first. The Universal application was complete reasonably soon after submission, but the Midwest application was still granted and Yhat si�n was erected. So, the sign thaYs currently there is the Midevest sign, buY iT's a result of the second application. The motion on the floor to divide the question ofMidwest and Universal carried unanimously on a voice vote. Tl:e motion on the floor to approve the requested sign variances to a11ow an existina advertising sign to be moved onto the nortlteasterly corner of I-94 and Vandalia Street by Midwest Outdoor Advenising carried on a voice vote (�'ramer abstaining}. The motion on the floor to approve ihe reguested sign variances to allow an advertising sign at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, southside east of Vandalia Street by Universa[ outdoor, Inc Carried on a voice vote (%ramer abstainin�. • 6 ZoNING F1 E 9� q� -1y�3 Commissioner Field read the agenda for the Zoning Committee meeting on August 14, . 1997. V. Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development Committee Commissioner Maddox announced a meeting at 4 p.m. on �Vednesday, August 13, on the citywide application of the Mississippi River Development Framework. VI, Neighborhood Planning and Land Use Committee Commissioner Geisser announced that the metal shredder study materials are beir copied and will be sent out. Copies of the NINRRA Plan are available today. VII. Communications Committee No report. VIII. Task Force Reports No report. IX. Old Business No report. • X. New Business Commissioner Vaught requested that staff inquire whether the Graduate Club has paved their parking lot, or that their additional living unit is unused, since their recently acquired permit stipulated that the additional living unit not 6e used until the parking lot was paved. District 6 Plannine Council request for public hearino on a site �lan for proposed Clean Soils Storage yard south of Maryland and west of 35E between the railroads - Staff report, Commission determination. (Tom Beach) Mr. Tom Beach with the Zoning Section of LIEP, explained that Clean Soils wants to have a storage yard for soil that's contaminated with petroleum that will be stored there temporarily and then hauled off to a processing site. The site is located on railroad property south of Maryland between Jackson and 35E, the same site that was proposed for a school bus site by Comfort Bus about a year ago. There was also a request for public hearing on that request. This site plan shows an area for the storage of the contaminated soil, an area for storing contractor's equipment and aga egate. The aggregate would be for sale. The site plan sho�vs a chain link fence. No buildinQS are proposed. The site has no street fronta�e. The access is proposed north of Maryland. There is no • sewer or water on the site. ' Z �� i�.� /� � The main issue raised here has to do with the impact on nearby property of storing contaminated soils. There are residents within a couple hundred feet area. There's also a • city sYOrm water holding pond located directly south of the site. The applicant has not yet identified the processing site. The applicant's history in Saint Paul includes having an operation where he was actually processing the soil in the earIy 1990s on Como near Dale on the old Maxon Steel site that generated a number of complaints. After that he has been operating in South Saint Paul. Currently, he's under a court order to shut it down and get the soil out of there. Commissioner Gordon asked what the nature of complaints with respect of the operation in the early 1990s, and what is the enforcement aspect with respect to the applicanYs representation that he intends to store the contaminated soils there for only a short period of time? Chair McDonell interjected, for the benefit of the new commission members, why this site plan is coming before the Planning Commission. He noted that normally site plan reviews are delegated to staff. The Planning Commission mighY consider holding a public hearing regarding a site plan if there are one or more of the following issues present: 1) it is a major project; 2) are there important policy issues raised, and 3) does the site plan have a major impact of the surrounding neighborhood? Mr. Beach added that in the early 1990s, the applicant was processing soils. He would cook the soils. Then it was brought up on a conveyor belt and dumped into the cooker. The vehement neighborhood complaints were about odor, dust, and noise. The he moved to South Saint Paul down by the River. He encountered a number of compfaints about the •. same issues there. The State Attomey General's been involved there. He had to stop processing the soil in December of 1996. He's was given until June of 1998 to cleaz out all the soil, but some soil is still there. He seems to have been an enforcement prohlem. Mr. Beach stated that conditions can be put onto a site p[an, but if they are not met, there is an enforcement problem. MOTION: Conimissioner Geisser moved that tke P[anning Commission hold a public hearing regarding this case. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nowlin. Commissioner Chavez questioned the terminoto�y used by Clean Soils about the soil being not contaminated and yet the MCA is makin� them move it off of the present site. Commissioner Kramer asked what zonin� classiftcation does a hazardous waste storage faci[ity� fit into, and why doesn't it need a special condition use permit? Mr. Seach responded that if the applicant were processing the soil, it would require a special condition use permit for outside processin� or for a recycling center. As lon� as the soil is just stored there, iYs considered just outside stora�e, whtch is a permitted use in an I- 2 zoning district. NIr. Beach added that the Minnesota PoI[ution Control A�ency wiIl need to issue a permit for this operation, but they will not review the permit until the local unit of govemment hzs dealt with it fsst. � 8 zoN�N� ��E 9� � � �-14`13 Commissioner Kramer asked �vhere this use would be first allotived? • Mr. Beach said that it would have to be industrially zoned property, probably I-1. Commissioner Kramer commented that this site plan issue raises an important policy issue: Where is Saint Paul going to allow storing of contaminated waste in the City? Saint Paul allows processing of it with a required special condition use permit, but to store it in the open, we don't require a special condition use permit? I think thaYs something we may want to look at down the line, too. Commissioner Vaught asked if site plan reviews conducted by staff were appealable. Mr. Beach answered that site plan reviews conducted by staff are appealable to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vaught asked if, in this case, staff conducted the site plan review, which types of staff would be involved with the review? Mr. Beach responded that the main issues in this case is po(lution. He would look at and consult with some of LIEP's environmental people. Then Public Works would look at it in terms of sewer and water availability. Commissioner Vaught asked if there is any opportunity for public input when staff conducts a site plan review? � Mr. Beach answered that the district would be notified, they then coutd hold any neighborhood meeting that they think is appropriate. If the district has a comment on it, it would come back to him and he would pass it on to whomever needs to consider it. Commissioner Vaught asked if there would be any direct, face to face contacY between the concerned persons in the community and those who would be ultimately making the decision? Mr. Beach responded that in this case, there was a meeting in district 6, which he attended. The applicant did not attend, so there was not as much discussion as there would have been otherwise. Commissioner Vau�ht asked Mr. Beach if staff has already conducted the review? Mr. Beach answered that an i�itial investigation has been done, but there still are a lot of questions left to ans�ver. Commissioner Vau�ht clarified himself and asked if is there an analogue to a Planning Commission site plan review in the staff site plan review process? Mr. Beach responded that there has already been one meeting with the committee and the applicant, where some questions were raised that aze still unanswered. • Commissioner Johnson stated that he is would stron�ly encourage a public hearing at the 9 ZOfVI[V� ��LE � Planning Commission level on this issue. He added that he has a great deal of expertise • working in the area of hazardous waste having been a 12-year employee of the Minnesota Pollution ControI Agency. For four years he worked in the specific area of petroleum contaminated soil, and he is fully conversive with the hazardous waste rules involved. In fact, he wrote the most recent versions of the siting criteria involved. He said that what they discovered at the State of Minnesota was that most district councils, counties, cities, etc., do not have the espeRise to judge these things. Petroleum contaminated soil is a unique waste that can be nonhazardous, special, or hazardous, and iYs difficult to telt which. Commissioner Gurney noYed that he had need to drive past ihe applicanYs Maxon Steel site many times during the 18 months that he was there, and he remembers his eyes watering for about 1 1/2 blocks later from the steam that �vas coming off the machinery. He thinks this could have an extreme adverse impact on the neighborhood. T/ae motion on tl:e floor to hold a public hearing on the proposed Clean Soils Storage Yard sauth ofMaryland and west of 35E between the railroarfs carried unanimously on a voice vote. Commissioner Gordon urged staff in their communication with Mr. Poucher to encourage him to be prepared to respond specifically to the concems raised in the letter by the District 6 Planning Counci(, Commissioner Kramer asked staff to include pages from the Zoning Code that lay out the 10 or 12 criterion to be considered in site plan review for Commissioners. Commissioner Vaught cautioned Commissioners about prejudging this case before the �. evidence is provided. Commissioner Engh asked if an official from the MCA could be invited to attend the upcoming public hearing. Mr. Ford commented that there aze rivo possibilities conceming Commissioner Engh's request: 1) that we request some testimony at the pubtic hearing; and 2) that ,typically, the Commission would refer all the comments made at the public hearinQ back to a committee. If the committee �vanted to call on some other expertise, they could. Mr. Johnson informed Commissioners that it is the policy of the Minnesota Pollution Control AQency to �ladly send people out to explain their policies in this matter, so that all we need to do is request it and they will have someone there. b4r. Beach noted that he has been in contact with the MCA staff and he will pass alon� that request. bIOTION: Commissioner moved September 12, I997, as tlze date of tJte pub[ic hearing for the site plan review for the proposed Clean Soils Minnesota Inc'storage yard Commissioner Sramer seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. Chair McDonell reminded the new Commissioners of the orientation meetin� immediately following this meeting. , �o Z�►�=�G �itE ��.�� 1� -1y� • LJ � XI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 a.m. Respectfully submitted, � Ken Ford Planning Administrator \planningUninutes.fan �� Approved (Date) Carole Faricy Secretary of the Planning Commission � Fl�� s� Z2v -------' q�-1y� � Zoning Committee Minutes April 17, 1997 May 1, 1997 July 31, 1997 � ! ��_��{�� • � • PRESENT P5SE�iT : MINUTES OF THE ZONING CONG4ITTEE CITY COUNCZL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, N,ZNPIESOTA ON APRIL 17, 1997 Mme. Faricy; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kram=_r and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Wainer, Assistant City A*_torney; Mmes. Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Planning Division. Wencl, excused Gurney Time: 6:28 - 8:35 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. �� oear nrrmnnno rur �inn �'lh rt- AvPnuP Gourhside east of Vandalid• #97-049• A�neal; Appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a permit for an advertising sign. Commissioner Kramer disclosed a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from participating in the discussion and vote. Commissioner Gordon disclosed a potential conflict of interest, which he no longer believed Co be a con£lict. Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, deemed there to be no conflict. Kady Dadlez, PED Zoning Office staff, reviewed the staff report and presented one slide. Staff recommended denial of the appeal of the zoning administrator's decision to deny a permit to Universal Outdoor inc. for a permit for an advertising sign, based on findings 2 and 5 of the staff report. Copies of an Affidavit of Ronald Leonard, owner of the property upon which Universal wishes to erect their sign, were distributed. The St. Anthony Park Community Council did not intend to take a position on the appeal. Commissioner Vaught asked for an elaboration of the specific deficiencies of the application by Universal. Wendy Lane, LIEP, reviewed these. 1) Demonstration of avai�able sian credits A demolition permit is required before sign credits can be issued; a sign not conforming with the current sign ordinance is removed. The square footage of that sign, those credits, are banked and can be used toward building other signs that are in strict conformance with the current ordinance. A log book of the sign credits is kept by LIEP and the sign credits must be used within 5 years. Universal had 528 sign credits on record and needed additional credits to erect a sign. Universal received a demolition permit on February 24 for the demolition of another sign which would allow them to erect a new sign. � Z�N�� .� �:2ZD ( 2j Mnr detailed site ��an Ms. Lane was unable to speak to what was lacking, however agreed there was a site plan but it was not in • sufficient detail. 3) Srr„�r„ral drawinas. Ms. Lane said no structural plans drawn by a registered engineer were submitted to show that a structure of that size was not going to fall over. 4) Fees for demolition and buildina nermits. The fee to establish the additional sign credits was not paid. Commissioaer Vaught asked Ms. Lane if she would characterize the above as substantial deficiencies. Ms. Lane responded that it was the opinion of the director of LIEP, Robert Kessler, that the deficiencies were substantial. She said that the sign ordinance doesn't give much direction as to what constitutes the first application and reported that sta£f is having difficulty in determining how to deal with that and that LIEP is looking for direction from the Planning Commission in that regard. Ms. Lane reported that she was in the process of dra£ting written policies for LIEP and LIEP intends to implement them following the outcome of this decision. Ms. Lane noted that the sign ordinance requires specific items needed, i.e. structural drawings and filing fees, for a completed application and advised that the deficiencies would have been apparent had Universal referenced the ordinance. Commissioner Vaught asked why staff took 8 days to notify Universal that the � application was incomplete. Ms. Lane responded that John Aardwick was the staff person who reviewed Universal's p1an, and who typically reviews most . billboard permit applications and demolition applications. Given Mr. Hardwick's other responsibilities, it appeared to be a matter of workload and getting to the task. However, Ms. Lane reviewed that representatives from Universal spoke with Mr. Hardwick in person on February 10 and that Mr. Hardwick reviewed the basics o£ the additional requirements at that time. Commissioner Vaught reviewed that Universal had a completed application on February 24. Midwest's completed application was submitted on February 21, however the permit wasn't issued until February 25, the day after Universal's completed application was received. Commissioner Vaught referred to a spacing requirement, noting a reference made to arterial streets, indicating that somehow the sign couldn't be seen from the freeway therefore the spacing requirement shouldn't be from the freeway. Ms. Lane said that Universal's application referenced the permit that was originally issued to Midwest in November, 1996, for a sign o£ 72 square feet that was never built. However by the time Midwest submitted its revised application to replace the 72 square foot sign with the 648 square foot sign LIEP felt the arguments made were not relevant and never made a determination as to whether the 72 square foot sign was intended to be read from I-94 or not. • z ��G F6LE S= �'zz° � �c�—�� Commissioner Vaught asked that wh<n sitting in a qsasi-judicial capacity, . whether in that capacity they must consider Mr. Kessler's decision aad find error with the d=cision in order to cnange it, or�whether the committee may conduct a d_ novo review and make a decisioa with respect to tne underlying issues. bir. Warner responded that the committee can do a d: novo review. � Commissioner Gordon asked that if the appeal were graated, whether Universal riad the credits needed to put up the requested sigr.. Ms. Lane responded affirmatively. Commissioner Gordon rePerenced the sCaff report which noted: ��fees for demolition and building permits" and asked whether they were different fees. Ms. Lane responded that they were. She said that the fee for a demolition permit of a sign is $42. The fee for construction of a new sign is $200, and those fees were not submitted with the application. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Midwest came in wiCh the required fees for permits and demolition and permits and with a detailed site plan and whether Chey had sufficient cxedits. Ms. Lane responded affirmatively. Commissioner Gordon asked how many applications on average does LIEP get per year for such signs. Ms. Lane said that perhaps about 12. Commissioner Gordon asked whether any other applications have been denied for � those reasons. Ms. Lane said that LIEP has reczived applications that did not meet their requirements and were denied. Generally it wasn't a formal denial but just a verbal communication explaining why they couldn't issue permit or asking for additional information. Commissioner Gordon referenced a mattress sign on the building immediately north of the sign erected by Midwest, noting it is quite close to the Midwest sign and asked if the location of that sign was germane to the discussion. Ms. Lane said that it was not, that it was a business sign, not an advertising sign, and that the separation requirements are between advertising signs. Commissioner Vaught asked that when the Midwest sign was approved on February 25, whether Ms. Lane knew whether staff issuing that permit knew that the issuance of that permit would prohibit the Universal sign from being constructed. Ms. Lane said that the issuing party did know. Commissioner Chavez, in referencing the Midwest permit of November 8 1996, asked how long that permit would have been good for. Ms. Lane responded that all building permits are good for 180 days and construction must commence within 18o days. Commissioner Chavez asked for an explanation as to why Midwest was required to submit a new application. Ms. Lane responded that Midwest needed a new building permit because they decided to build a larger sign. Commissioner Vaught asked if Midwest had built the originally requested sign • whether the Universal sign would have been allowed to be built. Ms. Lane 3 �� "'^� ...�_�( f responded that Universal had questioned thaG in their application, however LIEP never made that determination. • Commissioner Vaught questioned that in the event the Universal application had been complete, given the fact that Midwest had a valid building permit, that it might have been a Conclusion that LZEP may have not been abie to issue Universal a permit to build their sign unless or until the building�permit that Midwest had from November had expired. Ms. Lane responded that such a decision was never made, but that LIEP might we11 have issued the permit. She reviewed that the permit issued to Midwest in November was for a 15 foot high sign, and that site is in a ho1e, and was only 72 square feet, and she believed that Midwest's proposed sign would have been very difficult to have been read by I-94. Ms. Lane reported having spoken with the person who issues building permits for the State Department of Transportation, who issues building permits along state highways and freeways, and asked him what he thought about that sign, whether it could be read from 2-94. Ae said that they would have asked Midwest to put up a sign of that size and run down the freeway and see if it could be seen. However, Ms. Lane seriously doubted that it could have been read from I-94 and if not, then the Universal sign could have been legal. Commissioner Vaught clarified that despite the fact that the Universal sign would have been close to the Midwest sign, it was more the orientation to I-94 which is important. Ms. Lane said that it is based upon whatever street that the sign is read from. Commissioner Vaught clarified that space requirements exist if, and on2y if, both of the signs which are potentially subject to them can be read from the � same reference street or highway. Ms, Lane agreed. � Commissioner Gordon asked that if Universal's appeal were granted, whether that would mean that the Midwest sign would have to be taken down, and i£ so, who would pay for that. He further asked if the committee had the authority to approve tfie Universal sign, in addition to the Midwest sign. Ms. Lane responded that when the appeal came in that a letter was sent to Midwest informing them of the appeal, and that if they proceeded that they did so at their own risk. If the appeal were to be ultimately decided against them, that Midwest would need to remove their sign at their own expense before construction started of a Universal sign. She noted that there is a provision in the zoning ordinance which states that when an appeal is filed on a decision of the zoning administrator that with respect to any permits that have been issued, that no work can commence. However, she noted that there isn't such a provision in the sign ordinance. Ms. Lane further explained that initially it was believed by LIEP that Midwest would not be able to go forward and build their sign because of the appeal pending. But, because that provision is not in the sign ordinance, LIEP had to inform Midwest that they were proceeding at their own risk, but LIEP did not have the authority to stop them from construction. Ms. Lane, in responding to whether the committee could grant both signs to exist, said that the committee would have the ability to grant variances, however a variance would require a different application. She also stated that she was uncertain whether the separation from the Midwest sign would meet the State requirements for separation of signs. • 4 z�1V11��; ��E -� q�-1y�3 Commissioner Gordon said that the sign in questioa has two faces and asked • whether th= committee would have the authority to give one fzce to Universal and one to Midwest. Ms. Lane responded that LIEP Considers it to be one sign structure whether the sign is on one side or both sides, so they would sti11 be required to meet the separation requirements, whether single-sided or double-sided, so it would require a variaace. Michael Croain, 8809 W. Bush Lake Road, Bloomington, represe,ting Universal Outdoor Advertising, spoke. Mr. Cronin reviewed that Universal Outdoor Advertising was previously Naegele Outdoor Advertising, and that they have had a lot of experience building signs in Saint Paul and working with the intricacies of the ordinance. He reviewed that their appeal had three major points: 1. In a case where the City has to control the densiCy of uses as well as the other standards and may have to choose between granting one of many potentially qualified permits, the best way he suggested to do that is when a qualified application is received that that application is simply processed first to the end, rather than jumping between applications. 2. Mr. Cronin claimed that Midwest built their sign to a height of 58 feet above grade, however based on their permit were to build a 37 foot sign, where only a 37 1/2 foot sign is permitted. Mr. Cronin further suggested that Midwest didn't build their sign exactly where they said triat they were going to build it on their application. Universal � believes Midwest's sign to be an illegal sign, built 20 feet too tall, and Mr. Cronin suggested the sign should be taken down, and since Midwest did not abide by their permit that i3niversal should have their application approved. 3. Mr. Cronin suggesCed that now that the sign is built they can see that a 37 1/2 foot sign built in a hole probably couldn't be seen from I-94, therefore Universal raises the question can it be read and where does Midwest go from there. Mr. Cronin distributed a map prepared by Universal. On this map he reviewed the area in question, pointing out the existing signs. He reviewed that the City regulates a select group of uses not only by zone and district and setbacks and heights, etc., but the City also regulates them by density so there are spacing requirements. He noted that this space was filled by the Fairway sign, previously which had been there for a number of years. Mr. Cronin reviewed that last summer or fall the City learned that the Fairway sign which had been permitted to the property at 2100 Gilbert, which is Universal, was built on City property which was also built too tall, and when that sign was removed, that decreased the density in this location and provided the opportunity for a sign somewhere in the vicinity of Vandalia. He said that the owners of the properCy at 2100 Gilbert started a process of trying to select a sign company and they finished that process up in January, and Universal filed their application in February. Mr. Cronin referenced his handout entitled ^Instructions for Billboard � Applications," which is on the back of the building permit of the sign permit 5 ""�. Z��a ��L� �Z20; application. Mr. Cronin reviewed that there is no question that Universal is a qualified sign builder. He reviewed that Universal did submit on February • 10 a survey showing the lot dimensions of where they wanted to put the sign; the location of that survey on that structure, as there was a Q1=stion as to whether or not they could overhang a now vacated street, with Mr. Hardwick saying that they could not overhang any public right-of-way, so they located the sign exactly on the survey. The survey showed all the street and alley locations as well as the right-of-way and the type, size and height of the billboard. Mr. Cronin reviewed that on February 18 they received a phone ca11 requesting further information: that the City wanted an exact statement of how far it is from the Universal proposed site, back to the Adams sign and from the proposed site to the 3M sign. He said that sometimes this is required, sometimes it is not, and this was not brought along on February 10. Secondly, the Ietter indicated a need for the structural drawings of the proposed structure. Mr. Cronin said that Universal has signed engineering drawings of similar structures on file with the City, and that sometimes the City wants a new set, specifically for this location, and sometimes the file drawings are adequate. He said that was on a Wednesday, and it took a few days to get the sign drawings up from Chicago. In regard to the zoning germit fee, he said that typically they pay the fees when they pick up the permit, and Universal looks upon the indication that the fee is outstanding as a reminder to not forget the checks when the permit is picked up. Mr. Cronin said that Universal believed they had a qualified application on February 10 which met all of the original standards. Also, they believe that 8 days, when notified of the need for further information, that they clearly worked hard to bring back the additional information that was needed and which • was supplied by February 24. He claimed that on February 24 the City may have had two completed applications, but somehow Midwest's permit was granted and . Universal's was denied. Mr. Cronin said that as Ms. Lane pointed out, there is no ru2e on that, that it's clear that the first application filed, or the first qualified application, or the most complete application, is accepted. Universal has never had a similar experience as this. Universal believes that as long as the City is making policy and precedence that the clearest and the best in these conditions would be that the first qualified application received be worked through until the end. Mr. Cronin pointed out that Universal had sign credits, they have signs they can take down as they have in the past. He said that they trusted that they were moving forward. He said if Mr. Aardwick had called them on February il with a request for additional information they would have had them in prior to the Midwest application being filed. He said that Universal believes they were acting in good faith, they ha3 the ability to build the sign, they were qualified to build the sign, and they had met each of the requirements as they were laid out for them. He suggested the best process the City could follow is first come first served. Mr. Cronin reviewed the Midwest application, daCed 2/21/97. He reviewed that the overall height above-grade is specified as 37 feet. He questioned the completeness o£ what Midwest submitte3 as structural drawings. He noted that the application said "about 23 feeG to the bottom of the sign." Mr. Cronin reviewed that you take a 37 foot sign, have a 13 1/2 foot sign face on it, and � DR,Q��, 6 ZOtVlNG �iLE `��.zz� � �i `l - I y'1'� the base of the structure is about 3 feet; and that means that the bottom of . the sign is about 23 feet above grade which is a very importaat number for tork and wind loa3, as well as it tells the City zoning staff that the sign is going to be 37 feet ta11, and is in compliaace with the ordiraace. Mr. Cronin noted a survey that Universal had done, which indicates that the sign was built at 58 feet, not the 37 feet specified on the permit. Universal believes that du_ to the illegal sign that Midwest's permit should be invalidated ar.d that tk:e sign should be removed. Mr. Cronin spoke to the visibility of the existing signs, and said that he did not believe if the sign were reduced to 37 feet, that it would be visible as it would be down in a ho1e, because the 58 foot sign is barely visible (this is travelling east on I-94). Travelling west, the outline of the sign is just visible from the ramp. Mr. Cror.in referenced the section in the code which states "the maximum height of any sign in St. Paul is 37 1/2 feet." In the section speaking to spacing, "the spacing between signs sha11 apply to advertising signs on the same side of the same street". Regarding the issue of does it read to Vandalia, does it read to I-94, to University, to Victoria -- Cronin said, in effect you could have signs closer than 1000 feet if they read to different streets. He reviewed that the spacing between signs shall be measured by the nearest points of the sign to the property lines and the right-of-way which they are intended to be read. Presumably in Universal's case that is I-94, as they wish to be on the property zt 2100 Gilbert. • Mr. Cronin continued, the determination of advertising signs to be read from a roadway should be based upon, but not limited to the following: angle of the sign to the roadway; the duration o£ the view; again this is a 58 foot sign, and if lowered the whole length of its face and then some, is there any view at all; the distance the sign is from the roadway. He said Universal will be right on the right-of-way. He said the size of the sign relative to the roadway is not important now as Universal will have 672 and Midwest has 648, but is very important to the 672 square foot sign that was back in November, which is clearly not what is seen on freeways, and any obstructions to the view. It was Universal's opinion that at 37 feet the sign would be totally obstructed by the bridge, the ramps going up and down, and the trees. For those reasons Universal asked the committee to set the precedent that the first qualified application, as long as people are moving forward on it, is the one that prevails. Secondly, Universal asked that the City tag the Midwest sign. They believe that Midwest has lost their chance to build a sign at that location and that the sign was not built according to the provisions of their permit or permitted by code, and should therefore be removed. Thirdly, tiniversal believes that a 37 1/2 foot sign at that site would not read to I-94. There was a handout summarizing Mr. Cronin's report. Commissioner Chavez asked whether Universal employs their own people to erect their signs or whether they contract that done. Mr. Cronin said that since they have become Universal they have had a crew that comes from Chicago that builds their signs to their specifications, but for the past forCy years Naegele built their own. . ' ZOt�i�G ��L�' q��zz-a � Commissioner Chavez asked whether Mr. Cronin could attest to the fact that every sign that either Naegele or Universal has put up has always been done to • the specifications outlined and that no mistakes have occurred. Mr. Cronin said that in the past thirteen years thaC he has never known their company to be more than a couple of feet off. Commissioner Gordon clarified that Universal's position is that once_an application has been filed that that application should be processed, regardless of how de£icient it is. Mr. Cronin responded that as long as it is a qualified application, which means that it meets the criteria that's outlined on the back of the application when it is submitted, and that the applicant clearly has the ability to provide the sign credits or whatever else is required, and as long as the applicant is purposefully moving forward on that application, the City should give the applicant the courtesy of working - it through, Commissioner Gordon reviewed that Mr. Cronin was talking about complying with the instructions, and asked if the demonstration o£ available sign credits is part of complying with the instructions. Mr. Cronin responded that it is not part o£ complying with the application instructions, and should not be what is necessary to start, however demonstrating the ability to do it before the end. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the detailed site plan is part of the instructians as he read them. Mr. Cronin agreed that they were. Gordon asked about the fees for demolition and building permits. Mr. Cronin responded that fees are always paid when the building permits are picked up, and are not a part of the application. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Cronin how long he believed the City should give • � the applicant in order to come into compliance. Mr. Cronin suggested an arbitrary period of possibly 14 days could be given to respond to any request � made by the staff. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal was told of the deficiencies of their application on February 10. Mr. Cronin reviewed that they were told what their sign credit balance was and that they would have to bring that in, and Universal faxed the sign credit location to Mr. Hardwick the next day, explaining that it was the sign they intended to take down aad file the demolition permit on. The sign was not taken down, and is not usually taken down until they're certain of the outcome. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Universal was more concerned with the Midwest sign coming down, or the Universal sign going up. Mr. Cronin responded that if the City does not enforce the ordinance and the Midwest sign is permitted to remain at the existing height that the sign would create a problem with the State regulation. If enforcement is done, and the sign is in conformance, it appears that both signs could be located th=re, and could comply with State requirements. Universal would be satisfied with a resolution o£ the matter that provided for both Midwest and Universal to have a sign as long as Midwest's sign is built as applied for and permitted by code. No formal complaint has been made to the City reqarding the Midwest sign. He said that this hearing was the fo-mal complaint. 8 9� ZON�1�� FiL� a� -i�c�� Commissioner Gordon asked why Universal waited until February 2a to respond to • the additional requests. Mr. Cronin noted that there was a w_ekend in that tim= period, and it took the time to get what they needed fron their Chicago office, which arrived on Saturday, and was fil>_d with the City on Monday. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal had any comment regardir.g the timing on the Mid application. Mr. Cronin respoaded that when Ur.iversal apolied on February 10 that they asked if there was a competing applicatioa and they w=re told that there was not whicn he believes to be the case. Ee said that they believed that there application would continue to proceed fo= until it was completed. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal was allowed to install a 37 1/2 foot sign whether that would be a meaningful sign for them. Mr. Cronin said that it would as they are along the right-of-way, and not down in the hole. He said that the face heading west would be very good, the face east may not be as good, and they may want to request a variance in a year. Commissioner Vaught asked if Universal knew prior to February 25 0£ the pending Midwest application. Mr. Cronin said that he didn't think that they did. He said that Paul Rademacher is an employee of Universal who dealt directly with Mr. Hardwick. Mr. Rademacher responded that when he delivered the application on February 24 that Wendy Lane told him that Midwest had filed an application, and that he believed that was the first time that anyone from Universal knew that an � application had been submitted by Midwest. Marvin List, attorney for Universal Outdoor, said that regarding whose application is dealt with first, that the only rational way to do it is process the first application received through completion. Doing it any other way, he suggested, leads to the issues at hand and to litigation. By coming up with a test that the first one who has submitted is dealt with in a reasonable fashion as long as they are proceeding in good faith, and if that application is accepted or not accepted, then the second application is dealt with. Mr. List referenced the application of Midwest and said it is critical to look at that application in one regard. The signature of the applicant has the boilerplate language that certifies that the applicznt certifies that all of the information is correct and that all pertinent State regulations and City ordinances will be complied with in performing the work for which this permit is issued and it indicates that the sign will be 37 feet. However, he said it's not 37 £eet. Mr. List said that Universal's surveyor indicates that it's 20 plus feet higher than that and that it was not built to the provisions of the ordinance. He said that it was his guess that it may have never been intended to be built at 37 feet because if it w=re built at 37 feet virtually no one would see it along I-94. It is their position that a tough line be taken with respect to that permit, as it's not built properly and it's not what they certified in the application to the City would be done. Commissioner Vaught asked if Mr. List had any evidence, other than • circumstantial evidence that would indicate that th= sign wasn't intended to 9 � � 9 � �p�� be built at 37 feet. that they have as to surv=yor. Mr. List said it was his guess, however the evidence its construction is information from a registered Comm,issioner Vaught asked of Mr. List, if he saw Universal's concern to be nore the process and how the process works, or is it their cor.cern to build the billboard. Mr. List responded that it is both. He said they see thz process to be im�ortant as a situation like this could a:ise again, and he said the process leads to the conclusion that they obtain the permit for the reasons that Mr. Cronin indicated above: they had the information indicated on the apolication; there was an 8-day delay in ir.forming them that they needed more. Ae pointed out in other situations the plans aren't required as they are on file with the City, and sometimes they are requested, where other times they are rot. He reviewed that once notified that they were required they were obtained immediately and transmitted to the City. He noted that Universal acted in good faith, and the process is importan[. Secondly, he said that they want their sign built there and believe they deserve to have it built there, because the sign that was built in the nearby location is not in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Vaught asked whether Mr. List agreed with the rationale that Universal's sign should be allowed to be built where proposed because the ordinance snecifies the orientation of the street, and the Midw=st sign can't really be seen from I-94. Mr. List agreed. Commissioner Vaught noted that the photograpus seemed to indicate that the Midwest sign couldn't even be seen from 58 feet. Commissioner Gordon said that perhaps the Midwest sign was appealing to the traffic on Vandalia. M:. List indicated that Midwest was present at the meeting and could perhaps ad3ress tfiat. He said he thought that Mr. Schroeder, the generaZ manager of Midwest, may testify that he could live with both signs if they are pointing in different directions. However, he said there may be a problem with State approval as they may not comply with State regulations in that instance. Mr. List reviewed that the Midwest sign is not proper and shouldn't be there. fe reviewed that staff notified Midwest before the construction of the sign that they would be erecting the sign at their own risk, and felt the fact that biidwest may have to dismantle their sign should not be a consideration. Commissioner Gordon questioned the process proposed by Mr. List where a person comes in with a reasonably close application and the City continues to process that apolication until somebody eventually coacludes that the applicant is not going to be able to successfully conclude it. He said that this might create more problems. Either standard would involve a judgment call. With respect to the issues of impropriety o£ the Midwest Sign as exceeding the height limit ar.d the issue of whether Universal is entitled to a sign, he asked Mr. List if he saw those as separate issues. ��N1NG F�L� 9�•Zw 10 � U �� Od) • � �� q'1-�`I'1 � Mr. List responded that the ordinance should be enforced and th_ Midwest Siga � should be removed, in which event he said that th= Universal a:plication should tfien be granted. He said that the result Universal was looking for could be reached without determining what the process should '�e when competing aoolications come in because Universal claims the sign built if Midwest was improperly built and therefore they believed should come do.r... That would just leave Universal's application. � � Commissioner Gordon auestioned whether the Universal applica:ioa would sti11 be pending. Mr. List responded affirmatively, saying that U^iversal appealed from the denial, and considered their application to still be p=nding. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. List whether IIniversal would hav> any opposition to seeking a variance so that both signs could exist. Mr. List said his only concern would be whether there were State requiremeats that could not be met. Commissioner Gordon asked i� Universal's surveyor's report showing Midwest's sign to be 58 feet in height was in a written report. Mr. List submitted the report for commissioners' review, and for the record. The survey was done by Sundee Land Surveying. Lonny Thomas, 6949 Valley Creek Road, attorney for the land owaer, said that they were much more concerned about the sign then they were about the procedure. He said he represents two retired persons that have about $200,000 of their retirement funds tied up in the outcome of these proceedings. � Commissioner Vaught noted that the committee had seen his clieats' affidavit, and asked Mr. Thomas to provide a summary rather than to review it in its entirety. Mr. Thomas said he was present to note that there are equities that are a part of this process. He reviewed that about one year ago he testified and pointed out something that a sign company at the time, had no intentioa of representing, but had to be disclosed in the property owner's view. In the communications that followed Mr. Thomas' office discussed their intention to put up a replacemeat sign and they immediately set out to do that. One year later he said he can't say that he can point to any communications or relationsriip between Midwest and Fairway, but noted that Fairway was very angry when he decided to testiPy before the committee and tell the City that the sign was not where it was supposed to be, and Fairway was r.ot going to disclose it. Mr. Thomas noted that was a year ago, and that suddenly an application goes in days before the company they're doing business with, and his client has $200,000 riding on the outcome. Mr. Thomas said he has a lot of unanswered questions. Commissioner Vaught asked for any evidence Mr. Thomas might have regarding any collusion that might exist. Mr. Thomas' response was that they have questions. He said h2 has no doubt that if Fairway was asked waat the relationship is between Fairway and his client, there would not be kind words as they w=re not happy with Fairway's decision. Commissioner Gordon asked if it was possible for the Universal sign to be 500 • feet from the Midwest sign, and asked factually, based on th=_ knowledge of the 11 Zo�� 9� � properties involved. He reviewed that the staff report indicates the distance � between the existing Midwest sign to where Universal wishes to place their sign would be 350 feet. He further asked if Universal could locate their sign 500 feet from the existing Midwest sign, physically and still be on the property they have control over. Mr. Thomas responded that they had just gone through the process of vacating Gilbert Avenue to help accommodate that, and he would believe the answer to be yes, but would need to confirm that. Mr. Cronin reviewed that the spacing between the 3M and the Adams signs is fxxed, and said he didn't think there was enough room for Universal to move east because of the Adams sign, nor did he believe there to be enough room for Midwest to move west because of the other sign and still meet the City's distance requirement. He said that the building also becomes a factor, and that the best location for Universal is the location that they applied for. Peter Remes, President, Midwest Outdoor Advertising, 1103 Homer St „ spoke in opposition. Mr. Remes reviewed that this is their second billboard located on I-94 in Saint Paul. Ae said the discussion had been a bit slanted and reviewed his version of the facts. He said that: 1) Midwest applied for a 648 square foot sign on February 21, 1997. He said that previous to their application they had removed 9 advertising signs within the city and received their nonconforming sign credits. 2) Midwest then, with their nonconforming sign credits applied for their � permit, with their site plan, with their structural permit and the other documents needed for the application. Mr. Remes said that Midwest is aware of the process for applying for applications within �. the City of Saint Pau2 and believed that Universal is aware of the same process. He said that to make application within the City of Saint Paul and not complete the application to be a clear indication that the aoplication was not conplete, and therefore should not be given precedence over an application that is complete. 3) �r. Remes noted that the City of Saint Paul has a code which mandates what is needed in a sign permit application an3 he refereaced it. He noted that section 66,?04 under permits, titled: a, und=_r application, states in part "...structural pZans a-e require3 �or all free-standing signs greater thaa 50 square feet..." Given this langaa?_, h_ didn't s=_= any aainiguity in what exactly is r_=eded within th= ap?lication. He said that Midwest has had applications with structural p'_aas or, file for the many various signs that th=y have built in Sain� Paul and sti11 uaderstand that th=re are sets needed for every applica=ion. a_) Mr, Remes spoke to the sign that Midw_st built at a cosc of over $�1,000, including the cost of their laad lease. He said it was correct that they were notified by the City that if they built a sign, the sign would be bu?lt at their own risk. However, h_ said th_y were notified only 2a hours before they fia3 their excavator cet th=re d-gging the hole for their sign. They had purchased the_r sig� • structure, they had entered into their lease agreement wich their 12 ��1�!'l �� FI LE 9�.2z.o -----�_ � ('1-1��7 • landowaer, they had paid virtually all of the costs associated with building the sign. He noted too that there had been a good deal of talk about the height of the siga that was built. He said that their inter.tion in building the sign was to be 37 feet above tne roadway. Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, said that the City is or. ample notice that there is a potential violation as to how high the Midwest sicz is. He said that LZEP enforcement staff can take whatever enfozcement ac[ion they would like to, and that if the committee erished to hear Mr. Remes' explanation for the heig:t o£ the sign, triat it would be interesting but he didn't know how it would pertain to the appeal and the allegations made by Universal. Commissioner Vaught said that he was prepared to potentially make his decision on a very narrow issue which may be what orientation to what street is what sign, and with that the case, it seemed that the height might have some relevance, if only tangential. Commissioner Gordon said if the committee had made the ruling at the outset that the height of the sign should not be addressed he would be more comfortable not allowing such testimony, but as Universal was permitted extensive testimony regarding it, he felt that Mr. Remes should also be given the same opportunity with respect to that issue. Mr. Remes said that Midwest had a survey done showing the location of the sign in reference to the property that they lease. (A copy of the survey was distributed). Also showing the top of the billboard, the height of the � billboard, and also showing the roadway, and the elevation of the roadway. The elevation of Che Z-94 exit ramp he said is at 123.11. The elevation of the top of the billboard is 152.47 and said that puts the billboard at an overall height of 29 feet. Their intention was to build the sign at 37 feet and with his calculations believes they actually fell short of their target of 37 feet. I-ie said that the zoning code, the ordinance pertaining to advertising signs, section 66.21A.g. under height says: `�The height of advertising signs may be measured t'rom grade or surface of the roadway, whichever is higher.° Mr. Remes reviewed that in reference to the height of the sign, Midwest knew that the height of the sign would be measured £rom the exit ramp of Z-94 which is classi£ied as the interstate, as it is part of the I-9� system. They also knew that the westerly bound face of the sign would be reading towa=d. the traffic on th= interstate ramp, and that is where they gezred it to, and they have committed a sign to a client who is looking for interstate ex.it ramp trzffic as they come of: I-9� and turr or. to Vandalia Stre=_t. Cnair Field asked if the exit ramn is east bound or west bourd, with Mr. Remes indicating thz ramp to be westbound. Commissioner Gordon asked if Midwest took their grade from the I-95 ramp. Mr. Remes responde3 afzirmatively, and noted that the grade of the ramp on the survey cistr:buted which shows the gradR of the ramp at 123.11 aad the elevation at tne ton o£ the billboard at 152.47. Chair Fie1c asked for clariiication tnat Midwest wanted the sigaa for the � westbour,c t-z°�ic ramp, a.d 'ne reviewed by looking at tre orie::ation of the 13 � Z0�1�G FJLE �•ZZv �� ----_. �� sign that the traffic is past the billboard when it gets on the ramp noted. • Mr. Remes disagreed, stating that the billboard is visible as traffic drives up the ramp to Vandalia Street. Ms. Lane clarified that Mr. Remes was speaking of the exit ramp, not the entrance ramp. Mr. Remes noted that Universal speaks o£ the value of this location,-however noted that Universal presently has approximately an 85 percent market share within the Twin Cities, the remaining divided up amongst about 7 other companies. Midwest has one other billboard location on I-94 and he suggested that this location means more to their company than it means to Universal, being they have numerous billboard locations along I-94. Mr. Remes said that Midwest feels they have done everything procedurally correct and have done everything they've been asked to do by the City o£ Saint Paul and by the State of Minnesota and have filed their permit application in a timely manner, complete with all the necessary documentation. They have understood this process over the years, and believe there to be no question or grey area about what the procedures are, but are clearly put forth and documented in the legislative code and he challenged any necessity for discussion o£ what is needed and what the timetables are, and what completes an advertising sign application. Finally, he noted that Midwest did have an application for this location given to them back in November, 1996 for a 72 square foot sign and they also maintained a State permit since that time as well. Commissioner Chavez asked Midwest if they contract out the installation of the signs or whether they have their own crew. Mr. Remes responded that Midwest builds their own signs and agreed with the statement offered by Chavez that all o£ their signs are in comp2iance. In reference to violations of other � advertising signs within the City of Saint Paul he said that there exist numerous violations by other companies. Commissionez Gordon asked that if a complaint was filed that the Midwest sign was too high that Midwest would reject that based on his description above. hlr. Remes agreed and said that to be what the ordinance allows for, and that is what their intention was for in building the sign. He said that at 37 feet it would be very difficult to see the sign, and that only the top third of the sign would be visible. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Gordon Mr. Remes established that he would like to keep his sign, and had no objection to Universal installing a sign nearby, and had no problem with a variaace pernitting Universal to put up a sign. Comnissioner Gordon asked how it was that Midwest came to file their anplication on February 21. Mr. Remes responded that Midw_st filed th=_ir appiication in November, 1996. At that tin=_ they had 72 square feet of noncon�orming sign credits in the City bank. From that day fo-ward he said they worked very vigorously trying to qualiry and remove oth=r nonconforming signs with?n the city of Saint Paul, and took down approxima�ely 12 signs cf which 9 they aoplied toward this new application. he said that this process tak_s time. Tne signs must be evaluated by them internally to s=e if they are conforr„ing or not, th=n must b_ reviewed by City st�ff to evaluate whether the City fir_ds them nonconforming, and then their company must go out and take the sia:s nowr, ard h= of£ered that he has records of when their r_onconfo-ming sigas were submitte3 with th_ c"ity of Saiat Fau1 wnich he said he could submit to the conmittee shoaing as evideace that th_ whole process was started quite � 1S ��8�� F1LE �zo�' � • some time ago. Commissioner Gordon asked if Mr. Remes was stating that the process generally started in November, 1996 or that Midwest specifically applied for a sign at this location in November, 1996. Mr. Remes responded that Midwest applied for a sign at this location in Novemb=r 1995 znd receive3 a permit for this location. He said if he would have done what Universal did, he wo•i1d have submitted his application for 640 square feet, stating he didn't have his credits yet, but asked that the City hold his application and not permit anyoae else to apply because he was working on it. However, he said that isn't what he did. He went out and evaluated the signs that he could remove from the city; had the city staff person go out and evaluate them and then once their approval was received went out and began pulling the signs down and it took some time to remove the 12 or so signs. Once they were approved, Midwest went back and made application for their second advertising sign permit on this location. Commissioner Vaught asked when Mr. Remes learned of the issue of the height of their existing sign. Mr. Remes responded that he had just learned of the issue from Mr. Cronin's testimony at this meeting, and said that based on their interpretation of the zoning code that it is not an issue. Commissioner Vaught noted the Midwest survey was dated March 17. Mr. Remes noted that two surveys were done. The original survey was done showing the sign location and where it was built. He reviewed that Mr. Robert Kessler, LZEP, wrote a letter to him requesting more information on this survey, � showing where the cat-walks were, the height of the sign, the placement, the footings, constituting additional information. Midwest then submitCed the letter to the surveyor asking the surveyor to add the requested information to the survey and Mr. Remes received the updated survey on April 16, 1997. Commissioner Vaught asked for confirmation that at the point that Midwest received Mr. Kessler's letter that Midwest proceeded to erect the sign at their own risk, Midwest had not yet begun construction. Mr. Remes responded that was correct. Midwest received the letter and called the City of Saint Paul for their footing inspection. Chair Field, in referencing biidwest's application, noted that at the bottom in the plan review remarks that it references 23 foot to bottom o£ sign and Field said h_ interpreted that to mezn from the g:ound to the bottom of the sign He then asked Mr. Remes if he'd care to persua3=_ him otherwise, that it wouldn't be, aad asked staff to ass�st in that, as staff apoarently wrote notes on this apolication. Mr. Remes responded that the first time he saw those notes is when he received a cooy of the appeal. He said he assumed those notations were made when the insgector inspected th=ir footings when th=y were building the siga, although he's not certain of that. h]s. Lane respond=_d tha* the notations were made by LIEP's structural engineer, the oae who would have reviewed the structural plaas that were submitted for the sign from tue applica:t, so iC's not based on the field inspection bu� on his review o= th_ structural plans that were submitted prior to the issuance o� the permit. • 15 ��r�W �� --�!^! 1 I Chair Field asked whether the structural design of a sign of 37 feet in total • height be different than the structural design of a sign of 58 feet in actual height from ground to the peak of the sign, as opposed to the roadbed. Ms. Lane responded that she would imagine so, speaking as a non-engineer. Chair Field asked if the plans discussed were at the committee's disposal. Ms. Lane said that they were. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the relevant inquiry was what was applied for and approved, which would be 37 feet above grade, and approved on February 21. Chair Field said that is why he desired seeing the structural plans to witness what was intended, as the testimony was that they probably would be different, Commissioner Vaught asked Ms. Lane whether the City always requires structural plans when an application is received for an advertising sign. Ms. Lane responded that they do not. Structural plans are required. In some cases they will have structural plans on file £or a specific type of a sign. If they are on file they do not ask for another set. She responded to a question from Vaught that yes, staff has accepted applications without structural plans and have considered them either qualifying or complete. Commissioner Vaught asked if it is the general practice of Saint Paul that the various fees which are required are paid when the permit is picked up, or when the application is submitted. Ms. Lane responded that staff will accept the � fees either way but do not process them until the permit is actually issued, which is generally when the applicant brings in their check. � Commissioner Vaught established that sta£f has in the past accepted � applications without the fees being paid at that point, and have actually gone through the who2e process of doing everything but issuing the permit. Ms. Lane agreed. Commissioner Vaught asked if she had any sense of what the more common practice is. Does someone submit the checks when the applications come in or whea tne permits are picked up? Ms. Lane responded that generally, when the permits are picke3 un. Com^isaioner Vaught reviewed that what Mr. Cronin said in his testimony is not inaccurate with respect to what genera'_ly hGop=ns. Ms. Lane agreed. Co-missioner Vauc;�t referred to the instructioas on the back of the apnlication form, and asked if that was accurate. Ms. Lane said it was and conce3=_3 that it doesn't say anything about structural plans. She also added that the back of a11 of their permit application forms gives a summary of what is rernsired. She said that more detail is included in the actual ordinance. Com-`_ssior.er Vaught said he might be sotnew�at sympathetic to the idea that if an tp�licart pretty much complies with what's on the back of th_= permit apalica_ion that it s=ems to be a reasozable apnroach. Ms. Laa= pointed cut that a11 0£ the sign comnanies are license3 ard as a part • �E Z��C� ��1.E 9�—.�?o __ ��--J�-r�� . of their license they are responsible to know what the ordinance says. Commissioner Vaught said he was looking more for a course of practice, as opposed to what it says, for what the City does. The ordinance says to submit structural plans but staff has indicated that applications are accepted without structural plans, but that they process them and issue permits on occasion without th=m. And the ordinance also states that fees be paid but staf£ has indicated that fees sometimes don't get paid when the applications are submitted and are not considered incomplete, and that is also stated on the back of the application. Vaught noted that by the time the end of the process is reached, with the exception of the structural plans, which sometimes staff never requires because they already know what they are, staff has required that everything be done that the ordinance requires. Ms. Lane agreed. Brian Hates, 1985 Grand Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Bates said that his interest was to see that neither sign was built. He said that for the past couple of years he has been approaching different community groups trying to obtain interest in ridding the city of billboards entirely. He said that one thing he heard from both Universal and Midwest is that they would like to see the sign ordinance enforced, which Mr. Bates concurred with. He said he believed that both Midwest and Universal are being a bit disingenuous about the issue of height. He said that the sign ordinance does read that the height can be measured from grade or surface of the roadway, whichever is � higher. He noted that when it says "of the roadway�� that it means of the roadway of which it is meant to be seen, which is I-94. He said that certainly Midwest's existing sign, the west face of iC, can only be seen from I-94, and cannot be seen from the ramp, so it would be measured, not from the hole, not from the ramp, but would be measured from I-94. Mr. Bates referenced Chat the landowner who spoke on behalf of the appeal, pointed out that there is an existing billboard on that site currently, so there is currently a certain amount of income. He said the primary issue which hasn't been made real clear, and has been referred to as the sign credits, and said the deal is that on I-94, is that you cannot have a sign within 1000 feet of another sign. If the proper sign credits are available, that distance can be shrunk to 2/3 of that to 665 feet, and fie said that it's important to note how many signs there are right i� that 2 or 3 block area between working fron the east and going west, betwee^ Prior and Cleveland there are 2 signs; if you include the Midwest sign thz= has already been built, there are 2 signs betweea Cleveland and Cretir. and then the-e is the 3M sign west of Cretin, so there are 5 signs th=re now. There are 5 signs in 3000 feet. Normally, with no credits, you could just s�ueeze in e signs within 3000 feet. He said that anyone suggesting that a variance mignt allow 6 signs he said that is an extreme egregious variance azd would recessitate that some of the distances between the signs be less than 500 feet, probably �50 feet. Mr. Bates said that the distances between t�= existing sians now are a11 less than 1000 feet, and range from as low as 60C feet to as hign as 9D0 feet. Mr. Bates said that that zo=ing lot is not o° suf£icient dimension that any l sig_^_ can be built th=re. I�e noted that there is on= existing sign on the site now that shouldn�t have bee� built there. Mr. Bates referenced ia the zoning • code, Cnaptez 66.21S.b whic: states: "TCe zoning lot on which the advertising 17 Z�NIN� �ILE 9 -� ? .u� � signs between 400 and 700 square feet°... (bath Universal and Midwest signs fall within that range). Mr. Bates said there is a minimum of 660 feet perpendicular to the right-of-way of the highway and 13,02D feet in length, for the zoning law itself. He�said that the lot uader question was zor.ed T-1. He said that immediately on the north side of the railroad tracks it is I-2. He said that the zoning lot is a railroad strip property and is very narrow and he guessed that it is approximately 150 feet deep, and is nowhere near the 660 feet required. Ae said that no signs should be built there. The one sign that is there should be removed. Mr. Sates submitted a picture which shows the narrowness of the site. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Bates had filed a complaint with respect to the Midwest sign with the City, with Mr. Bates indicating that he had not. Mr. Cronin said he didn't know if the City administrators would have allowed the ramp to be used as the basis for the height or not. He said the issue to him is that on the building permit it said 37 feet above grade. The note by the City engineer said 23 feet to the bottom. Commissioner Vaught said i£ the ramp isn't used, and I-94 isn't used because of the evidence that it can't be seen from the freeway, then maybe Vandalia should be used, which is higher than the ramp. Mr. Cronin said another alternative would be to use the grade of the railroad road. Commissioner Vaught said he'd read the particular code provision that gives the alternative and he thought it was pretty clear and clearly allows the grade at the bottom of the sign or the grade of the roadway, whichever is higher. He said either it can be seen from the freeway, in which case it's oriented to the freeway, in which case it may be too high, but the Universal sign can't be placed there because it's too close; or it is the grade of the ramp, in which case, according to the survey submitted by Midw=st, if it is correct, that it is a conforming sign with respect to height, or the grade of the only other roadway in the area which is Vandalia, which is higher than the grade of the ramp, at that point, which also means that it is not 58 feet. He said a choice has to be made that in tw� cas_s it is conforming; or choose the other in whicn it prohibits the Universal sign from being cor.structed because it is too close. Mr. Cror.in said he b_lieves it to be ciear thzt th=_ roadway cs=_d fo= measurenent is the roadbed of I-94, whicn he said in this cas_ is about the same level as the railroad road bed, within 5-10 £eet. I:e said that if Midwest's sign was intended to be read to Vandalia tnat it co�.:ldn't be that large of a sign, as Vandalia doesn't p=rnit that siz= of a sig� to be erected along it, aad he said that he also thinks that the orientatior_ of the sign is basically parallel to Vandalia, and doesn't believe that ori=ntation to Vandalia to be the ir_tent. � � Comnissioner Vaught asked what h� is to nak< of the photograncic evid_nce fron Universal that the Midwzst sign ca�not be seen frer I-9S. Mr. Cronin said he ca�'t see why the Midw=st sig,^. was built wh__e it was, as U^_iv2rsal would not have built a siga in that location. hz felt that if Midwest had built their • � �r�� Fi�E .Z� 18 QR �Fr �(�-l�f'�� sign in accordance with his permit that it is improbable. He said if Midwest is allowed to build it according to their permit it would be interesting to see if he would in fact build it. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Croain agreed or disagreed with the proposition that the ramp is also to be considered a part of the road. Mr. Cronin responded that in his understanding of the ordinance that he would say that is not a reasonable interpretation. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal has ever taten elevations off of a ramp. Mr. Cronin said that is not the way that Universal operates. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Cronin saw any alternative available whereby Midwest could have its sign as built and Universal could have their sign. Mr. Cronin responded that no, he did not see that as an alternative because there is no provision in the State regulations for a variance. He said that they have a rock hard, 500 foot spacing between signs reading to interstates. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught asked within what timeframe must the committee act on appeals such as this. Mr. Warner responded that within a reasonable period of time, and he thought that certain cases coming out of places like Mendota Heights would suggest contemporaneously, or by the next meeting of the � committee with a written resolution setting forth the reasons for the committee's decision. Commissioner Vaught noted that the staff report indicates the deadline for action to be May 3. Ms. Dadlez responded that the source of that deadline to be the 60 day law. However, Mr. Warner said it didn't apply in this matter, because it was an appeal, and that the code is very clear that appeals from decisions of the zoning administrator require a fairly contemporaneous finding to grant or deny the appeal. The next meeting of the zoning commitCee was scheduled for May 1, 1997. Commissioner Vaught said he would like to speak to Mr. Hardwick and Mr. Kessler, LIEP, to hear wha= they had to say about what they did and how they did it. Commissioner Vaught moved postponement to the May 1 zoning committee meeting, and requested that sta££ request Messrs. Kessler and Hazdwick to be present. Mr. Warner found this postpoaement to be acceptable, to provid= for additional information to help the coc.mittee cone to a rational decision. Commissioner Gordon seconded the motion. Conmissioner Gordon said he didn't hav� a particular d=sire to speak with the ir.dividuals Vaught wanted to speak to, however he said h= saw eauities on both • sid=s. He said he would lik= to see wzetnAr or not there is a way to accommodate both sides, ar_c 'r_e sunported the notio.. for layover to determine 19 ZO�r�� FeL� �.z� � ____ whether that was possible. Commissioner Vaught requested staff to ascertain from the State how it views various issues, specifically with respect to the Midwest sigr. zad the highway it is oriented toward, and speci£ically with respect to the proposed Universal sign, and whether or not inasmuch as the State would be forthcoming,� as to whether or not there is any construct under wnich they would permit both the Midwest sign where it is and the Universal sign where Universal wishes to put it. Vaught said he saw this as the biggest problem with resolving this as he said he was willing to be equitable about it. Mr. Warner, reviewed that the public hearing was closed, and he reviewed that the layover was to allow the committee to gather additional information from staff. Commissioner Vaught said he wished to allow for the possibility to ask questions of either the applicant or those in opposition, and requested that the motion be amended to a11ow for reopening of the public hearing. C� Mr. Warner said it would be appropriate to hear from the appellant and if the appellant was not strongly opposed to reopening the public hearing which would require renotification, then reopening the public hearing would be reasonable. Mr. Warner asked the committee to bear in mind that this matter is not one which is affected by the 60 day requirement, but is an appeal, and it is appropriate to layover if additional time or information is desirable. However, he noted that regarding the public hearing, the public testimony has been heard and that is done, the opportunity has been given. If the appellant � has no problem with laying the mattet over with the possibility that they would be asked questions, then it shouldn't be a problem. However, if they are reluctant to do that, Warrer said he saw a problem with laying it over for ' the purposes of taking additional testimony, but not laying it over for the purpose of getting additional information from staff which would be appropriate. Commissioner Vaught said a reason he believes it appropriate, is that although his advisement was not to go too far with the height of the Piid�est sign if not necessary, the apnellant has made that one-prong of their two-prong pos±tion, that Universal's siga should go up; and Midwest�s sicn should come dow::. Ae said he saw *_hem as s=parate issues, but as vastly related. He said in looking at the documen� tnat d=_als with the structural pl��s of the sign he said �� couldn't read it, anc h=_ said if he was able to cons�lt with someone prior to th> next meeting that would cause him to ask a que�_ioa with respect to wn=_tner or not some notaticn on thos= plans might indicat=_ tzat the measliremert of the sign was to be gra3=_-level, as opposed to =oadway level, he would want to be free to ask that question. z�n��nr� ��L� Z 20 �--- l � - _ �� I�� • Comnissioner Vaught requested that the chair ask the applicant whether or not they object to reopening the public hearing at the next meeting. Marvin List, representing Universal, responded that Universal ha3 no objection to reopening the public hearing at the next meeting. Commissioner Gordon wished to clarify that in the interim period the committee requested that sta£f look at whether or not there existed any options or alternatives that would permit both signs to exist, and he also encouraged any persons who have interest and wish to submit any alternative to do that. Chair Field noted that implied in the motion is the request that Messrs. Hardwick and Ressler attend the May 1 meeting. Commissioner Vaught said that with respect to the committee's activity from this meeting to the next, he noted the City Council has a rule which gags them from talking about matters, looking at matters in a quasi-judicial sense, to see that such discussions become part of the public record, and he asked if this was pertinent to the Zoning Committee in this case as it was a quasi- judicial matter. Mr. Warner encouraged committee members to observe that as we11 because of the Zoning Committee acting in a quasi-judicial manner in this case. The motion carried on a voice vote of 5 to 0(Kramer, abstained). � Drafted by: Submitted by: Approved by: �o.�.►�e`_�P�-�A?r—__ , \"� 6�`-�C� Donna Sanders Kady Dadlez Litton Field Chairperson . • t � ZC)�Vi�� FtLE � � z� x • MINUTES OF THE ZONING CONC2ZTTEE CITY CO(NCIL CHAMBERS, SAIDiT PAJL, MIri.IESOTA ON MAY 1, 1997 PR^�: Mme. Faricy and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gurn=y, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. 4larner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of th� Planning Division. AR�S�.NT Gordon, excused Time: �:20 - 5:40 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. LTNTVFRC�T Oi1TD00R THG • 2100 Gilb . Aven�-o Gov hside .as of Vandal'a: #97-Q�9 Ang .�.: Appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a permit for an advertising sign. The appeal by Universal Outdoor, Inc. at the April 17, 1997 meeting was laid over to this meeting, with the public hearing to be reopened. Wendy Lane, LIEP, reviewed that it was asked at the last meeting how the State � would regulate Midwest's sign if it were reduced in height to 37' and could only be viewed from the exit ramp of I-94. Ms. Lane has been informed by the State that if a sign can be viewed at all from I-94, even only from the exit ramp, that the sign would require a State permit, and all other signs to be read from that same freeway must be 500 feet away. Ms. Lane reported that Universal has identified a location 500 feet from the two existing advertising signs, however it would require a variance. Ms. Lane reviewed that the committee at its last hearing requested that both John Hardwick and Bob Kessler, LTEP attend this meeting. Mr. Hardwick was present and Mr. Kessler was unable to attend. Commissioner Faricy reviewed the timetable of events: Universal applied for their sign on February 10 and were notified by John Hardwick, LIEP on Februazy 18 to complete thzir application; Midwest submitted their application on Friday, February 21; and Universal completed their application on Monday, February 24. Commissioner Faricy asked that if two con£licting applications are received ae approximately the same time, how a decision is made by LIEP as to which application receives precedence. John Hardwick, LIEP, responded that as the responsible person for reviewing and issuing sign permits in LIEP for the past 15 years, that past practice has been to process a permit to a conclusion once it has been submitted. Any subsequent permits would be placed on hold until a final determination had been made on the £irst permit submitted. Hardwick said given his past practice, although not a written policy, he would have processed the Universal � Advertising permit to completion, either approval pr denial, before accepting another permit for a location that would conflict with Universal's location. , ��V � 9�� = Commissioner Faricy asked whether it was normal procedure to contact an . applicant to notify them of an incomplete application, as he did with Universal. Mr. Hardwick responded affirmatively, He reviewed that he m�t with a Universal representative on February 10 when they submitted their application, and at that time informed Universal of additional information needed, and then as a follow-uo by phone on February 18. Commissioner Chavez asked whether it was common for LIEP to have two companies submit applications for the same location and whether both ap�lications would typically be accepted. Mr. Hardwick responded that it is commonplace because the City is so built-up with advertising signs that when a location becomes available many sign companies wi11 compete and submit applications for the same location or a location close enough to prevent other sign companies from erecting signs. Commissioner Vaught asked Mr. Hardwick to review what was specifically dzficient with the Universal application. Mr. Hardwick reviewed four deficiencies: 1) A more exact site plan was needed; one that showed a location £or the proposed sign to an object that was measuzable by an inspector going out into the field; 2) Structural drawings were needed; Co a21ow the str�ctural engineer in � LIEP to review those drawings to ensure proper footings are in place; 3) A letter £rom the property owner at a location on Winifred Street where Universal proposed to be moving a sign in order to obtain sufficient nonconforming credits to erect the sign at the proposed location; and a) Fees were needed for both the proposed demolition at the other location and for the new sign at this location. Commissioner Vaught asked whe[her Mr. Hardwick on February 10, cited all four specific deficiencies with Universal. Mr. Hardwick couldn't recall the exact conversation, however said it was on February 10 that Universal representatives were made aware thaC their application was incomplete. Mr. Hardwick reviewed that he was specific outlining the four deficiencies in the February 18 telephone communicaCion. Commissioner Vaught reviewed the individual deficiencies of the application. 1) He asked if a more exact site plan wasn't a substantial item and could be easily remedied, with Mr. Hardwick in agreement. 2) Regarding structural drawings, Vaught reviewed that Universal claimed at the April 17 meeting that it is not unusual that at the time an application is submitted that structural plans are not submitted, and that Ms. Lane confirmed that there are times when plans that are of sufficient detail for the type of sign are already on £ile in LIEP because of a previous application, that structural plans may not be � required at a22. Mr. Hardwick responded that LIEP has in the past kept some z ZONi�+� FlL� � u� � �-; � f - � L 1 � C • structural drawings from the major advertising sign companies on file. However, LIEP's current structural engineer has expressed concern in that the draaings that are submitted and that have been kept on file are generic drawings, and it is the structural engineer's opinion that he did not wish to be in a position of determining what size footing is required for what size sign, a�d that is the applicant's responsibility. Mr. fiardwick noted that L3niversal was aware that they needed to submit structural drzwings when they submitted their application on February 10. hir. hardwick said triat every permit application that has been submitced within tnz last 5 years has been required to have structural drawings wich it. Commissioner Vaught asked whether the struccural plans submitted on February 24 by Universal were sufficient structural plans from Universal. Mr. Hardwick was not aware whether LIEP's structural engineer ever reviewed those plans, however they were stamped by a registered engine°r, and there was nothing to lead him to believe that the structural plans would not have been sufficient. 3) Commissioner Vaught referenced the letter from the Winifred Street property owner with respect to the sign credits, and asked whether it's a common occurrence that an application is submitted without it and then submitted within a reasonable period of time thereafter. Mr. Hardwick responded Chat it is common for an application to be submitted without the letter of waiver, and this matter was resolved on or befoze February 24. 4) Commissioner Vaught spoke to the fees. He reviewed testimony from Universal that it is not uncommon not to submit the fee when th= application . is submitted but to pay it when picking up the permit, and asked if thaC is a common practice. Mr. Hardwick agreed, and said that those fees were paid on or before February 24. Commissioner vaught summarized that with respect to all four of the issues addressed above the cited deficiencies were all remedied by submission from Universal by February 24. Commissioner Vaught said he saw two weeks compliance as a reasonably short period of Cime, and one that is an acceptable period of time in which to remedy noted defects in an application. Mr. Hardwick reviewzd that no writ[en policy exists, but agreed that two weeks is not an unreasonable amount of time and is typical for processing a sign application. Commissioner Vaught reviewed that Mr. Hardwick had testified that he normally followed an apolication through to the issuance of a permit or denial, before considering another permit apolication, but was not the case in this circumstance. Mr. Hardwick concurred that the procedure followed was not typical of the way that he has processed sign p2rmits in the past. He noted thzt he wasn't involved in the issuance of the permit for the site in question. PTendy Lane, LIEP, spoke. Ms. Lane clarified eaz'lier testimony by Mr. Hardwick that a fee was not paid by Universal on or bzfore February 2�, and pointed out that a fee is not paid until a permit is issued. Since no p°rmit was issued to Universal the fee was never paid as the cneck was never cashed. • Commissioner Vaught asked whether checks are submitted and held in advance 3 � zo[V�NG F�L� � i _ �, 6 until the permit is issued. Mr. Hardwick reviewed that some companies submit , a check with their application while others wait until they pick up the permit, and that either one is acceptable. Commissioner Vaught noted that the deficiency related to the fee doesn't constitute a deficiency as it followed the standard operating procedure. Ms. Lane agreed. Ms. Lane reviewed that the application for the Midwest sign was processed by Robert Kessler, the Director o£ LZEP, who chose to get involv:d with this case because of some past problems. Siace no written policies existed, it was his d>_cision to consider the application that was complete as having precedence ovzr the application that was incomplete. Ms. Lane agreed that was a departure from the past practice by Mr. Hardwick. She pointed out that LIEP is currently in the process of establishing written poZicies. Commissioner Chavez reviewzd testimony from thz April 17 meeting that an application was made by Midwest in November, 1996, and asked whether Mr. Hardwick was familiar, with Mr. Hardwick indicating that he was. Commissioner Chavez asked if that application process was handled in the typical way. Mr. Hardwick responded that he was not involvec3 in the issuance of that permit, and that Ms. Lane was. Commissioner Chavez asked if a permit was good for one year. Ms, Lane responded that once a permit is issued that construction needs to begin within 6 months. Chavez asked Ms. Lane if the November Midwest application was • handled in the typical fashion. Ms. Lane agreed that it was. Commissioner Vaught referenced three letters in Mr. Kessler's signature: 1) an original letter to Universal indicating that the first complete application was processed; 2) a letter to Midwest to build at their own risk; and 3) a letter of LIEP's conclusion that the Midwest sign as constructed does not conform to the code with respect to the height requirements and the conclusion that the affected roadway was in fact Highway 94, not the exit ramp from I-94 to Vandalia. Ms. Lane in response to an inquizy, said that she drafted all of the letters at the request of Mr. Kessler. With this review complete, reference was made back to Ms. Lane's initial remarks regarding the location identified by Universal that would be 500 feet from the two existing advertising signs which would meet the state requirements, however would require a variance from the City. Commissioner Vaught asked whether the committee would have th= ability to vary the City requirements, with Ms. Lane responding affirmatively, how=ver a separate application would be required. Marvin List, Attorney for Universal Outdoor Inc., the appellar.t, spoke. Mr. List distributed copies of a survey Universal conducted since the previous meeting which showed the Midwest sign that was recently constructed, He described that 519 feet to the east of that is the existing building and Universal's proposed sign location, and another 504 feet to the east of the proposed sign is the existing Adams outdoor sign. Mr. List reiterated that • Universal could locate a sign more than 500 feet away from the two existing , 4 I Z�N1�lG FILE �2zn � ��: ��-lu�'� . signs which would comply with the State la.r requiring S00 feet spacing requirement, bur Universal's proposed sign location would not comply with City spacing. Mr. List indicated that Universal would like to resolve their a�oeal by requescing and being granted a permit to construc� the propos=3 sign indicated on th= survey, which would require a variance under the City cod°. He said triat neither Universal nor Midwest are oppose3 to the other cor.�pany located nearby. This solution would require two variances: 1) a spaci:�g variance; and 2) a height variance. Zf constructed at the 37 foot requirem=:�t the sign would not be visible, hencz the 20 foot variance. Mr. List presented some conceptual photos of the proposed sign. Chair Field review=d that the matter under consideration by thz committee was an appeal of the zoning administrator's decision, and said that what was presenced by Mr. List appeared to be a counter proposal. The Chair asked legal counsel for direction. Mr. Warner suggested that the committee could proceed by temporarily suspending the appeal to see if the plaz proposed by Mr. List could accommodate the needs of all concerned. Mr. Warner reviewed that Ms. Lane had indicated that Univzrsal can meet the State's separation requirements, however will require a variance from the City. Mr. Warner advised that Universal might temporarily suspend their appeal; file an application for a variance and await the outcome of the varia:�ce. If the variance is granted and Universal gets their sign, it would mace the issue of the appeal moot. He anticipated that Universal may wish to przserve their right to come back i£ the variance were not granted. � Mr. List agreed with Mr. Warner's overview, and agreed that while Universal proceeded with a variance request that they wouldn't want to waive rights regarding the appeal at this time. As the committee was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in this matter, Commissioner Vaught asked Mr. Warner to confirm that the committee was not bound by the State law as it relates to processing zoning cases within the 60 day period. Mr. Warner confirmed that. Vaught reviewed that with the concurrence of the appellant that the committee could table or suspend immediate consideration of the appeal to allow the process outlined. Jean Weigum, 1647 Laurel Avenue, spoke in ooposition. Ms. Weigum addressed concern over the apparent interest in making two business representatives happy, and asked what about those persons who live in the area who aren't happy. She reviewed that the district council meC and discuss�d billboards and passed a resolution proposing a moratorium on all new billboard construction and the gradual removal o£ all of the billboards in the eity. Ms. Weigum said the neighborhood doesn't want any more billboards, that they are unattractive, and detract from the gateway to the city. She said there are reasons for having distances between signs, and asked the committee to say no to the billboards. Commissioner Vaught respond=d that not allowing a sign would be unlawful. The best scenario he could see from Ms. Weigum's perspective would be that only • one sign be constructed. 5 ZON�N� ��LE ' � � � ,� Ms. 4Jeigum reviewed that she understood that th= MidNest sig:� was constructed illegally and is too high, and the committee ne=d not grant a variance, and said if the sign cannot be read, it would not be built. Peter Remes, Midwest Outdoor Advertising, 1103 Homer Street, spoke briefly regarding sign credits, the result being that in his opinion m.o:e billboards are coming down then going up. There was no rebuttle from the appellant. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught moved that further consideration of the appeal by Universal be temporarily suspended pending submittal by Universal of a variance request, and the final determination of the variance request by the planning commission. It was acknowledged that Midwest may also plan to submit a variance request during this time. Commissioner Wencl seconded the motion. Commissioner Kramer indicated a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from the vote. Ms. Lane reviewed that LIEP does not receive a lot of applications for new signs, but aren't seeing a lot of signs coming down either, however said she felt more signs are coming down than going up, The motion carried on a voice vote of 5 to 0(Gurney and Kramer absta3ned) Chair Field asked that the height of billboards be looked at in future minor zoning text amendments, and how they relate to the grade of the road as ooposed to the height of the sign itself. Drafted by: 1 )�-"w°----�w.zttt,6--�-� .�� Donna Sanders �� ittqd by:�� p' � y \ v` � �tN Kady Dadlez 6 �Z % �� . , • � r 1 L_J MINUTES OF THE 20DIING CONMITTEE CITY COLNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MZPINESOTA ON JULY 31, 1997 �(�t - i �t`� � PRESrNT: Mmes. Faricy and Wenc1; M2ssrs. Chavez, Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attor.ney; Mm=_s. Homans and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Zoning Office staff of PED. �S��;T Gordon, excused Gurney Time: 4:52 - 5:28 p.m. The meeting was chaired by.Litton Field, Chairperson. The committee unanimously voted Co hear Midwest Outdoor Advertising, #97-169 and Universal Outdoor, I$c., #97-170, together. For the purpose of _ __ recordkeeping individual minutes were prepared separately. =- �DWFST Oi7TDOOR ADV RTI N.• nor hPast corner of 2-94 and Vandalia: �7-169• Sign variance. Two variances to allow an existing advertising sign to be moved. 1) A 30.5' sign height variance requested. A sign height of 68' requested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed. 2) An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12' requested. A separation between advertising signs of 509.88' requested and a minimum of 667' allowed. Nancy Homans, Zoning Office of PED, Northwest Quadrant, reviewed the staf£ report and presented slides. Staff recommended denial of the application for a variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs, based on finding 6.b of the staff report. The Merriam Park Community Council, the District 12 St. Anthony Park Community Council, and University ONITED voted to oppose the sign variances. One letter was received in opposition. Commissioner Kramer disclosed a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from the vote as well as from any discussion. Commissioner Vaught asked if the City wzre to approve the requested variances whether the State would issue a sign permit. Nancy Homans deferred the response to the applicant. Roger Ryan, Zoning Office staff, noted that the minor zoning text amendment amending trie sign ordinance to reauire applicants to obtain a State permit for an advertising sign be£ore they can apply for a City permit for an advertising sign, has not yet been enacted. Peter Remes, 1103 Homer Street, the applicant, was available to respond to questions. Mr. Remes reported that he had already reczived a sign permit from the Sta�e. No one spoke in support. � � 1 FlL� �-- ! Z��' Brian Bates, 1985 Grand Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Bates commented that • notfiing is unique about the Midwest Sign exceot that Midwest built their sign when the City told them not to. He disagreed with the staff report that findings 6 a, c and e were met, and asked that the committee revise the findings accordingly and deny the requested variances. He directed the committee's attention to a letter in opposition from an adjacent property owner and the call received by staff from a second owner. He suggested that ehose contacts constitute objections by adjacent property owners and should lead to a finding that condition 6e is not met. Peter Remes, the applicant, responded that he had a valid City permit when he installed the Midwest sign. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught reviewed that prior to the installation of the Midwest sign that LIEP had cautioned Midwest of circumstances pending and that if they were to install their sign that it would be at their own risk. Mr. Reme� agreed that was correct:... " Commissioner Vaught made a motion encompassing both the Midwest and Universal requests together. The motion below reflects the Dtidwest Outdoor Advertising action. Commissioner Vaught moved approval of the application for a variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs, Commissioner Wencl seconded the motion. � Commissioner Vaught said he disagreed with staff finding "6b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code." and felt that on balance that test to be met, and within the general intent of the sign code. He said he saw the removal of the nonconforming signs to be positive, with two signs replacing 17 nonconforming signs. The unique topography of the site further justifies the requested variances, He further stated that he did not see a material difference between the Midwest and Universal signs and the neighboring Adams sign. Vaught furth=r concluded that this problem was created by the Division of LIEP, and that approving the requested variances is the most equitable solution. He added that he did find Midwest at fault for installing their sign despite the words of caution £rom LIEP. Commissioner Chavez said he supported the motion with some difficulty, and specifically found the argument of height from the ground to be somewhat disingenuous, as did Commissioner Field, who added that he fouad the freeway corridor to be a more appropriate place for advertising signs than some of the other locations where nonconforming signs were removed. 2 Z�{�1R1� �i'�� -_ ��-Iy'?2 • The motion for approval carried with a unanimous voice vote of 5 to 0(Kramer abstained)_ (*7,_�n�=: Due to technicaZ difficulties there is no audio recording of the meeting, and is the reason for the brief minutes.) . Drafted by: Submitted by: Aporoved by: ,,'/ �� v,�.y„_ S� ��Cl�n� �dD�'r'.�a�Je� � � Donna Sanders Nancy Homans : iel� Recording Secretary Northwest puadrant Chairperson� � � � L��trd\d � �54. (� t 3 • � U MINUTES OF THE ZONIhG CONIMITTEE CITY COU`NCIL CHI�NBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON JULY 31, 1997 pRESENT: Mmes. Faricy and Wenc1; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Homans and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Zoning Office staif of PED. P3SENT: Gordon, excused Gurney Time: 4:52 - 5:28 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Fie1d, Chairperson. The committee unanimousl� voted to hear Midwest Outdoor Advertising, and Universal OuCdoor, Sne., #97-170, together. For the purpose of recordkeeping individual minutes were prepared separately. #97�169 TiNNERSAL OLTTDOOR. INC.: 2100 C,ilbert AvPrn�e• southside east of Vanda��a• #9�-170: Sign Va_ria�. Two variances to allow an advertising sign. 1) A 20' sign height variance requested. A sign height of 57.5' reguested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed. 2) Two advertising sign separation variances of 157.12' and 157` requested. A separation between advertising signs of 509.88' and 510' requested and a minimum of .667' allowed. Nancy Homans, Zoning Office of PED, Northwest Quadrant, reviewed the staf£ report and presented slides. Staff recommended denial of the application for a variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs, based on finding 6.b of the staff report. The Merriam Park Community Council, the District 12 St. Anthony Park Community Council, and University UNITED voted to oppose the sign variances. One letter was received in opposition. Commissioner Kramer disclosed a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from the vote as w°11 as from any discussion. Commissioner Vaught asked if the City were to approve the requested variances whether the State wou2d issue a sign permit. Nancy Homans de£erred the response to the applicant. Roger Ryan, Zoning Office staff, noted that trie minor zoning text amendment amending the sign ordinance to require applicants to obtain a State permit for an advertising sign before they can apply for a City permit for an advertising sign, has not yet been enacted. Michael Cronin, representing Universal Outdoor, Inc., said that he appreciated th= staff findings and intent o£ ordinance, but understood that the Zoning Committez had asked thz two companies Co find a way to fit botn signs. He directed the committee to page 7 of the staff report (the applicant's attachment to their application) where the unique conditions of the site are discussed. The topography of the area and the placement of the neighboring building that blocks the "right hand read" of the sign require that the sign ZOtV1�G FILE � Zw be higher than a2lowed by the ordinance. He further suggested that the S committee distinguish between replacement signs that replace a single existing sign and those that replace multiple smaller signs. In this case, where the proposed sign wi11 replace multiple signs, he suggested that the replacement sign does meet the intent o£ the zoning ordinance. Mr. Cronin asked the committee to approve the sign variance, or for approval of their previous appeal. Mr. Cronin responded to Commissioner Vaught's question above, that no, Universal has not yet received a State permit. No one spoke in support, Brian Bates, 1985 Grand Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Bates disagreed with the staff report that findings 6 a, c and e were met, and asked that the committee revise the findings accordingly and dzny trie requested variances. He directed the committee's attention to a letter in opposition from an adjacent property owner �nd the call received by staff from a second owncr. He suggested that those`contacts constitute objections by adjacent property owners and should lead to a finding that condition 6e is not met. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught made a motion encompassing both the Midwest and Universal requests together. The motion below reflects the Universal Outdoor, Inc. action. Commissioner Vaught moved approval o£ the application for a varxance of the �� height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs. Commissioner Wencl seconded the motiqn. ' Commissioner Vaught said he disagreed with staff finding "6b. The sign is not contrary to the generaZ intenC of the sign chapter of the zoning code.° and felt that on balance that test to be met, and within the general intent of the sign code, He said he saw Che removal of the nonconforming signs to be positive, with two signs replacing 17 nonconforming signs. The unique topography of the site further justifies the reguested variances. He further stated that he did not see a material difference between the Midwest and Universal signs and the neighboring Adams sign. vaught further concluded that this problem was created by the Division of LTSe, and that approving the requested variances is the most equitable solution. He added that he did find Midwest at fault for installing their sign despite the words of caution from LIEP. Commissioner Chavez said he support the motion with some difficulty, and specifically found the argument of height from the ground to be somewhat disingenuous, as did Commissioner Field, who added that he found the freeway corridor to be a more appropriate place for advertising signs than some oE the other locations where nonconforming signs were removed. '�oNJJ�� -�_ Z ��'� �1 _ ��1��7 � The motion £or approval carried with a unanimous voice vote of 5 to 0(Kramer abstained). (NotP: Due to technica2 difficulties there is no audio recording of the meeting, and is the reason for the brief minutes.J Drafted by: Submitted by: Approve�: / ;. ��«--5..�.�-- �/(Q-r,�9�� . Donna Sanders Nancy omans itton Fi Recording Secretary Northeast Quadrant Chairperson � • 2�� A _ �E ��. ,_ _, 3 �,�� • Midwest Outdoor Advertising Appiication for Variances Zoning Committee Staff Report � � • i • APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPEC710NS, A��D ENVlRON,tfENTAL PROTECTION - ' 3�0 S1. Peter Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, N1N.i5102-1 2h6-90/)8 ' ZO��t� �1LE �_?1� APPLICANT PROPERTY Name blidwest Outdoor Advertisinq Company Address 110"� HomPr StrePt City St. Paul StateMN Zip 55116 DaytimePhone 690-5444 Properry interest of appticant (owner, contract purchaser, etc ) Les see Nameofowner(ifdifferentJ Soo Line Railroad Address/Location I-94 @ Vandalia Street Legaldescription Unavailable (attach additianal sheet ifnecessary) �,' Lotsize Railroad R/W Present Zoning IND PresentUse Railroad ProposedUse TN�+u"fllSifl�i S��4n Zoning otfice use dnTy � �p� � Fite aum6er. ' � i� Fee: � '2�5,bT3 Tentative fiearing date: � 34 `� Seetion{s): b /o• 2 ( �- �t�� : 3a2 C+��C3� Ci€yagent �•�- 1. Variance(s)requested. To allow existing advertising sign to be moved approxi- mately 50' to the west of existing location and to be built at 68' overall height��-� -(y,� �2c.� oF -�,.F 5��6*'�. `�e, w�ax�rvwvr 1�-�� V�k#"ad 'ts 37.5' -C'or-a vaalawe,�. �4�uest �.S' -� Vps� n ��SC�I� �' .nesrted �o,�, -I'� Ye� .u`r�l 5e� o�h �m d� �ro �I 2. Wh�hysical characteristics of the propErty prevent its �eing used for any of the permitte use in your zone. (topography, size and shape of lot, soi4 conditions, eta) The property slopes downward from the roadway. �5i�"� � F-e-S�• �� \m� �c�d.�o3�`a», ltis�v� vlov�coK{dv�w�.n9 S� �Jtv�'� is �7'� - t� QroQoud �e�v.m.�,`o,-� � 509.88' -�r a Joxio.nce �PSre� i57 .lZ�. 3. Explain how the strict appiication of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or eptional practicaldifficui5eso�exceptionalunduehardships. The OTdindnce dllOws for Sign to be 372 from roadway or grade, whichever is higher. To build the sign at 37'- from the adjacent freeway surface would result in limited visibility of the advertising sign. —`-��;� �3 ��,�c� '�j � m p�j'(i y Q 'kp �K�-� WC�S'�' -� [Z -i-LSL,� CASHIERSUSE�tJLY � Yo poud i,Cnv� a� s�� - to -i*�e �si� . 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose �$�.I.�jl��]pQ�:_i j�IL�� _�_R'i _' oftheZoningOrdinance. This is recommended compromise 4^ev i�n.a�� ._� suggested at Zoning Commission to facilitate 3��;".� a?�5.�: continued sites by Universal Sign and Mid�aest iF:_;v; i�;I ¢?2�•C� Outdoor . �fib+G� � _=� additional sheets if ApplicanFs si �� Date � �a % � ZONZNG_COMQITTEE REPORT —_�--__ FZLE # 97-169 1. APPLZCANT: MIDWEST OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DATE OF FiEARING: 07/31/97 2. CLA33ZFICATZOtt_ Sign Variance 3. LOCATION: XXX VANDALIA STREET (northeasterly corner of Z-94 and Vandalia) 4. PLANNING D23TRZCT: 12 5. LEGAL DESCRZPTION: see file 6. PRE3ENT ZONING: 2-1 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §66.409��66.302(b) 7. 3TAFF ZNVE3TIGATION P.ND REPORT: DATE: 7/24/97 BY: Nancy Homans 8. DATE RECEIVED: 06/30/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 08/29/9'7 A. PURP03E: Two variances to allow an existing advertising sign to be relocated: 1) a 30.5' sign height variance requested (a sign height of 68' is requested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed); 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12' requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88' is requested and a minimum of 667' is allowed). • B. PARCEL 3ZZE: Railroad right of way C. EXI3TING LAND VSE: Railroad right of way D. SURROUNDING LAND VSE: North: Industrial (I-2) East: Industrial (I-1) South: Freeway/Residential (R-3) West: Industrial (I-1) E. ZONZNG CODE CITATION: Section 66.409 of the zoning code states, "The planninq commission shall have the autriority to grant variances from the strict applications of Chis chapter for unique signs or unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot, provided such signs would not be contrary to the general intent of this chaptei', would not create a hazard, would not violate Minnesota State Statutes or rules and regulations developed pursuant thereto, would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners, would not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting and provided that the signs would be in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. The commission may not grant a variance that would permit the sign within a zoni.ng district which is not otherwise permitted in that zoning district under the provisions of this chapter." F. HISTORY/DZSCUSSION: 1. A 1997 appeal by Universal Outdoor, Inc. of the Office o£ License, � Tnspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) decision to gzant a permit to Midwest Outdoor Advertising to locate a sign in this vicinity while an applicatioh by Universal Outdoo=, Inc. was undei consideration. (97-049) zo��n�� l�.� ' I #R�—t�n9 �� z 2. A 1996 case involved a tequest by Faitway Outdoor Advertising for a • height variance to allow an existing 50 feet high advertising sign--that ieplaced a previous 50 foot high sign--to remain. The application was withdrawn when it was discovered that the sign was located on public right-of-way. The Fairway sign was located between the currently proposed locations of the Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal outdoot signs. (96-111� G. DZSTRZCT COUNCIL RECOM[�NDATION: 1. The Meriiam Park Community Council has submitted a resolution opposing the proposed variance. 2. A recommendation had not been received from the Disttict 12 Community Cour.cil at the time this staff report was piepared. H. FINDING3: 1. The applicant pxoposes to move an existing outdoor advertising sign approximately 50 feet to the west and construct it at a height of 68 feet above grade. Two variances--of maximum height and of distance between signs--are requested. The Zoning Code requires that outdoor ac3vertising signs intended to be seen from a freeway be 1,000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits which reduce the required distance by one third. Zn this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 1039.82 feet west of an existing Adams Company sign and 803 feet east of an existing 3M Company sign. In addition, the proposed site is 509.88 feet west of a sign proposed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The Zoning Code al.so requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs ' be no higher than 37.5 feet from the giade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway Yrom which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant pioposes a sign that would be 68 feet from grade, The grade at which the sign is proposed to be constructed is highet than the I-94 ioadway bed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now xoom, given state and city spacing requirements, for no moie than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of piivately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height tequirements of the Zoning Code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land in the vicinity is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right-of-way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass undet the Vandalia Street bridge. It is on this railroad Zand that Midwest Outdoor Advertising proposes to construct its sign. 3. Midwest Outdoor Advertising filed an applzcation for an outdoor advertising sign on Friday, February 21, 1997. The sign was to be located in the railroad right-of-way just east oE Vandalia Street and north of the westbound I-94 off-ramp, 50 feet east from where the sign is presently proposed. The application stated that the sign would be . installed at 37 feet above grade. ZOiV1�C �1L �'�� . -i�R � - l�aq � �C"i�jc 3 - - � The applicant constructed the sign at its current location and at its . current height (58 feet above grade) sometime after being issued a � permit by the Saint Paul Office oE License, Znspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) on February 25, 1997. (The application stated that it was estimated that the sign would be constructed between March 15 and March 30, 1997.) On March 7, 1997, the applicant was notified of an appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The letter from Robert Kessler to Midwest Outdoor Advertising notifying them of the appeal £iled by Universal Outdoor, Inc. stated: "If you choose to proceed and Universal's appeal is appioved by the Planning Commission, it would be your responsibility to remove the sign at your expense." On April 17, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission met to considei the appeal o£ the LIEP decision by Universal Outdooz, Inc. The matter was laid over until the May 1, 1997 committee meeting. On April 28, 1997, a letter was sent to Midwest Outdoor Advertising by Robeit Kessler notifying them that their sign was constructed in violation of their permit inasmuch as it was 58 feet from the base to the top of the sign--not 37.5 feet as required. The company was further notified that continued use of the sign would require a variance from the Planning Commission. (The applicant has maintained that the construction of their sign was consistent with their undezstanding that sign height was to be measured from the top of Che I-94 exit ramp rather than the roadbed. The fact--and longstanding practice--that the measurement is to be taken from the main roadbed was clarified by a Minoz' Zoning Amendment adopted by the Planning Commission on July 11, � 1997.) On May 1, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission devoted a significant amount of time td a consideration of the issues associated with which of two sign companies should be permitted to construct a sign within an area where the Zoning Code would a11ow only one. Because of different procedures followed by different sta£f inembers in the OPfice of Licenses Inspections and Environmental Protection, both applicants asserted that they should have been considered "first," and, therefore, been approved. Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution oE the appeal might involve pezmitting both signs provided that they could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance o£ the code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. Universal Outdoor, Inc. elected to suspend its appeal and file an application fot such a variance. 4. The two companies, after the May 1, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting, crafted a proposal that would involve moving hoth siqns fXOm their originally proposed locations in order that they both would meet the State of Minnesota's 500 £eet separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. . ��I �{' F�� 9� z z #� 9� - l t��1 �tri�. 4 5. The proposed sign rep2aces non-conforming signs removed by Midwest • Outdoor Advertising elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66.302(b) of the Zoning Code. That section provides, in part, that: (1). The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advettising signs are a permitted use; (2}. The advertising sign must be brouqht into conformance with the size and height requixements as set foxth in Section 66.214(b); and (3). The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two- thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: {6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requi=ements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing tequirements from residential distticts, patks, parkways and schoo2s in section 66.214(k), but nee@ comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance reguirements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request £or a sign variance to con£orm to the provisions o£ 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This condition is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14x48 foot v-style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual conditions related to the site that have led to this application include: (1) Topography. The site selected by the applicant and leased from the railroad is depressed to allow for the passage of trains undet the Vandalia Street bridge. A sign constructed within the 37.5 feet height limit outlined in the Zoning Code would not be clearly visible from I-94. {2) Separation from the proposed Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign. To resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the Zoning Code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is not met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 0£ the Zoning Code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desixe to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. • Z��vtt�� r�.E ��; I � �t�-t�q �aq� 5 �'�'�� That balance is st=uck in the specific p=ovisions of the code. • Particularly salient in this instance are those provisions related to the replacement of nonconfoiming signs. (See Finding #5 above) The code, for instance, allows those signs that replace nonconforming signs to locate closer to othex signs than would otherwise be permitted. Signs that replace non-conforming signs are allowed to be 667 feet from other signs. Without nonconforming sign credits, the required separation would be 1,000 feet. This applicant not only proposes to take advantage of the incentive provided in the code, but asks for a variance to further reduce the required separation. The code also, however, in a number of instances underscores the intent that the new signs--those that replace the nonconforming signs--adhere to the size and height requirements of the code. The intent of the code is to move toward overall conformance with the provisions of the sign ordinance. Granting this request for two variances would move the city away from the balance intended in the code. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues permits for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restrictions although their permits state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. C� Minnesota 5tatutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d. The sign will not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 60C feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. e. The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals. ` � 2. 3TAFE' RECOD4 Based on finding 6.b. above, staff recommends denial of the application for a variance of the height and separation =equisements associated with outdoor advertising signs. ZQ�lIi�G F��E 9��-O� �� 1��' � Universal Outdoor, inc. Apptication for Variances Zoning Committee Staff Report � � Mf.Y-02-1997 09�Z2 FR�M CITY OF ST PAUL LIEP TO AAPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE � OPFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS, AND . ENYIRON�YfENTAL PROTECTION � � ' ` � 3S0 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 ca` SaintPaul,MNS.i102- ± � 266-90U8 � � 3�'`��/� APPLICANT \ I PROPERTY Address 3_ �5 � R� � S'�2eE� NE Ciiy__ �AAttt�ol+3` Statef�Zip DaytimePhone 8�.9^/400 Ptoperty interest of appiicant (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) ��A3E Name of owner (if different) C.7 � PRo�,t�i�_S' �j � a � �.i ,, � ,, S '�'e}� es'�e� . 3. Expiain how the strict appiication ot the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance wou�d result n peculFdr or exceptionai practical diKculties or exceptional undue hardships. Present ZoninqT" � Present lSse Mt(e�tw��S see a�F�a�t,act CASHIERS USE ONLY Address/Location 0�� Gi�btA� �1Ve�c%>C. Legaldescription (attach additiona! sheet if necessary) Lot size Proposed Use 1. Variance(s)requested: �p��-�� ,�., - ('(n� t'e�uVe� `'--e��' ��'�' Q `� JQ '� { ' s �' r � Si� a� -�- �l.w�e ��di Uf-- T-�{4, uSUa� V�crnCav� 5�� GV'e4-�'iC� �b7� S��ra�i�» r�� . Y�ct, � � fraw, -t'�- �a�oscd J✓l�ctux's'1 3,�,-, ta -rre u.scs�i c�.�-d'slo' a-,apas� ��„-. -t�,.a !-��+rs s: - 6,-r� a�s� �Q 1^0;� y'�"�"� . � .. � 2. What physical characteristics of the property prevent its being used for any oYthe permitted uses in your zone7 V (topography, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) ��•� �J �SO Y' �. (�0.�� /vK[� See u.t�kct,ec( 1�`e,`�„a ��A {� �&� '�s 371'a , 4. Explain how the granting of a variance wiil not be a substantiat detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. See ��{�,.�I,cd • additional sheete if Applicant's 98697082 P.002 ..,. .,....:: .c;i:�:-,a�e;;_r.:.�.. Jbi25f47c•oo�t31��v6�i; i'•_ERu 1 � ): �� : ^,t`c �n 4"c'•0 �-anI.�:;Cc �� ,;.yu S+JFTT= �t�25, 00 �H�=."r: T iI: �t�2i.OL Ci-iA�iC�= s,Gt� Date S-S- �7 ATTACHMENT TO THE APPLICATION OF UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR, INC., A7 2100 GILBERT AVENUE FOR VARIANCES REDUCING THE REQUIRED SPACING BEfWEEN BILLBOARDS AND tNCREASIIJG 7HE MAXIMl1M HEIGH7 OF THE PROF'OSED BlLLBOARD FROM 371/2 F7'. TO 571/2 FT The requested variances are the minimum and ma�dmum necessary to permit constructiort of a bitlboard at a new site at 2100 Gilbert that was chosen in response to the discussi�n of the Zoning Committee of the City Planning Commission at ihefr meetings ot April 17 and May 1, 1997. Please refer to the record and minutes of those meetings for the background on the unusual conditions pertaining to the proposed sign on this specific lot. 1. The genera{ intent of the sign code is to permit biliboard type signs in industrially zoned areas along I 94. Because of the relationships of the existing sign in the area, the topography, the Vandalia bridge over 194, and the vegetation, the need to strictly enforce the minimum spacing of 667 ft. is mftigated. The requested 57 1/2 ft height is the minimum height necessary to locate a biilbaard intended to read form I 94 on the the lot and meet the other conditions imposeci by State statute and the discussion of the 2oning Committee. 2. A billboard in this isolated location and this height will not create a hazard for the public on locai streets or I 94. 3. The biilboard as proposed will be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes and rules providing regulation of Outdoor Advertising. 4. 7he character and uses of the adjacent sites are typica! of those where bil(boards are compatibly sited. 5. No residential property is located to be affected by glare of lighting from this biilboard. � • 6. Biliboards are in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. MBys,,�� zoN�� E ��- �o�\ \� � �� ZZ • 5. LEGAL DESCRZPTION: see file ZONZNG COM4ITTEE STAFF REPORT • s===—=�_--___—_--- _s FILE # 97-170 1. APPLXCANT: UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR� INC. DAR'E OF HEARING: 07/31/97 2. CLASSSFICATION: Siqn Variance 3. LOCATION: 2100 GILBERT AVENUE 4. PLANNING DI3TRICT: 12 6. PRE3ENT ZONI2IG: I-1 r 1 LJ 7. 3TAFF INVE3TIGATION AND REPORT DATE: 7/24/97 � ��,�a�� 66.409, �66.302(b) BY: Nancy Homans 8. DATE RECEIVED: 06/30/97 DEADLINE POR ACTION: 08/29/97 A. PuRPOSE: Three variances to allow an advertising sign: 1) a 20' sign height variance requested (a sign height of 57.5' requested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed); and 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12' requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88' from a proposed sign to the west and a minimum of 66"J' allowed); and 3) an advettising siqn separation variance of 157' requested (a separation between advertising signs of 510' from a sign to the east requested and a minimum of 667' allowed). B. PARCEL SZZE: 72,865 square feet C. EXI3TING LANp USE: Tndustrial D. SURROUNDING LAND VSE: North: Industtial (I-2j East: Zndustrial (I-1) South: Freeway/Residential (R-3) West: Industsial {I-2) E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 66.409 of the zoning code states, "the planning commission shall have the authority to grant variances fxom the strict applications of this chapter for unique signs or unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot, provided such signs would not be contrary to the general intent of this chapter, would not create a hazard, would not violate Minnesota State Statutes or rules and regulations developed pursuant thereto, would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners, would not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting and provided that the signs would be in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. The commission may not grant a variance that would permit the sign within a zoning district which is not otherwise permitted in that zoning district under the provisions of this chapter." F. HISTORY/DIBCU3SION: . 1. A 1997 appeal by Universal Outdoor, Inc. of the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LZEP) decision to qrant a pezmit to Midwest Outdoor Advertising to locate a sign in this vicinity ZONING CODE REFERENCE Z�NINt� FILE 9�•2zo� ��'il - l��% . �ct° � Z ' while an application by Universal Outdoor, Inc. was under consideration. (97-049) • 2. A 1996 case involved a request by Faizway Outdoor Advettising for a height variance to allow an existing 50 foot high advertising sign--that replaced a previous 50 foot high sign--to remain. The application was withdrawn when it was discovered that the sign was located on public right of way. The Fairway sign was located between the currently proposed locations of the Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor signs. (96-111) G. DI3TRICT COVNCIL RECOh44,NDAT20N: 1. The Mexriam Park Community Council has submitted a resolution opposing the ptoposed variance. 2. A tecommendation had not been received from the District 12 Community Council at the time this staff repo.et was prepared. A.�FINDZNG3: 1. The applicant proposes to construct an outdoot advertising sign on private pioperty located at 2100 Gilbert adjacent to the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp from I-94. Three variances--of maximum height and two of distance between signs--are requested. The Zoning Code requires that outdoor advertising signs be 1000 feet apaxt unless they have the benefit of sign credits that zeduce the required distance by one third. Zn this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 510 feet west of an existing Adams Company sign, thus requiring a variance of 157 feet. It is also 509.88 feet from a proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign, tequiring a variance of � 157.12 feet. The Zoning Code also tequiies that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher, The applicant proposes a sign that would extend 57.5 feet from the grade, 20 feet higher than allowed in the code. The grade on which the sign is proposed to be constructed is highet than the i-94 roadbed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discoveied that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who iecognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign confoiming to the height iequirements of the Zoning Code can be seen ftom I-94. Much of the land is publicly owned and associated with the I- 94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right of way north of the freeway is, foi the most part, a tiench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. In between the railroad and I-94 rights-o£-way is a narrow strip of land that is privately owned and on which the Universal Outdooi, Inc. sign is proposed to be constructed. 3. The applicant first applied for a permit to establish a sign on this site, but apptoximately 160 feet west of this location, on February 10, . 1997. It was to be a single sided sign facing east and constructed at 37.5 feet above grade. ZOlVI�G FILE •ZZO k �y+ �qc 3 a�'�`�� On March 3, 1997, the applicant was notified that theit application was • being rejected because of a permit issued to Midwest Outdoor Advertising on Feb=uary 25, 1997 to allow them to consttuct a sign east of Vandalia and about 300 feet from where Universal was proposing to establish their siqn. On March 5, 1997, the applicant appealed the decision of the Director of the Office of Licenses, Inspection and Environmental Protection, contending that their application was filed before that oE Midwest Outdoor Advertising and, therefore, should have been granted. The appeal was heard by the Zoning Committee on April 17, 1997 and on May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance of the Code's separation requirement by the Planning Conanission. The applicant agreed to suspend the appeal pending the outcome of such an application process. 4. The two sign companies subsequently crafted a pzoposal that involved moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they would both meet the State of Minnesota's 500 foot separation requi=ement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. The new proposed site has led to a request for a height vatiance in • addition to the separation variance. In the original location, the dimensions of the available land would allow the construction of only a one-sided east-facing sign. Moving to the east would allow for a v- sign, but, in ordei to be seen from both directions, the applicant states that the sign would have to be elevated. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 20 foot height variance to allow the sign to extend up 57.5 feet. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-conforming signs removed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. from locations elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66.302(b) of the Zoning Code. That section provides, in part, that: (1�. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a permitted use; (2). The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height requirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and (3). The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two- thitds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214ib) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, • patks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds oE the spacing distance requirements in section 66.214(b). ZolV�� E �2Zo �._ � `#�y1 I u �9� � 6. Tha ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to confozm to • tha provisions of 66,409 0£ the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This standard is met. The siqn is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14x48 foot v-style outdoor advertising sign. While the applicant states that the topography of the site and the relationship of the proposed sign to an existing building require that the sign be built 20 feet highez than the code allows, the Adams Company sign built at the east end of the same building at a similar grade and at the required height is clearly visible from I-94. The unusual circumstances re].ated to the site relates to its relationship to the existing and proposed Midwest Outdoor Advextising sign. While the applicant would not have required any variances at the location they originally proposed, to resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the Zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessa=y variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the genera2 intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is not met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the • Zoning Code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. ' That balance is struck in the specific provisions of the code. Paxticularly salient in this instance are those provisions related to the replacement o£ noncon£oiming signs. {See Finding #5 above) The code, for instance, allows those signs that replace nonconforming signs to locate closer to other signs than would otherwise be permitted. Signs that replace nonconforming signs are allowed to be 667 feet from other sign. Without nonconforming sign credits, the required sepaiation would be 1,000 feet. This applicant not only proposes to take advantage of the incentive provided in the code, but asks for a variance to fu=ther reduce the tequired separation. The code also, however, in a number of instances underscores the intent that the new signs--those that replace the nonconforming signs--adhere to the size and height requiiements of the code. The intent of the code is to move toward overall confozmance with the provisions o£ the sign ordinance. Granting this request for three variances would move the city away from the balance intended in the code. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Depa=tment of Ttansportation , ZC��; �fLE 9� z _zoI � q - 1 - I � �, R+�1 `� FJ" - - �� '�17 issues permits for all signs along the inteistate to ensure • conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restriction although their permits state that all signs must comply with Che requirements of the local jurisdiction. Minnesota Statutes requiie that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d. The si.gn wi21 not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and 2ighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 60C feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the tesidences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. e. The sign wovld not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance, most adjacent propetty owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals. • I. 3TAFF RECOh4dENDATION: Based on finding 6.b. above, sta£f recommends denial of the application for variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advettising signs. • � �°°' � ��F �2ZD � r� u Letters Received by Zoning Committee � � Tso P � • a 9 � Z � ro � ■ � Soi c� 9 9 f � WESTMIDW/+�- C � J C� 3uly 25, 1997 ��,��t�� ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL 890 Cromwell • St. Paul, Minnesofa 55114 292-788� Nancy Homans Zoning Committee St. Paul Planning Commission 25 W. Fourth St. 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Homans: The St. Anthony Park Community Council would like to go on record in opposition to the following variance requests: lYlidwest Outdoor Advertising, File # 97-169 Universal Outdoor, Inc., File # 97-170 I have enclosed a copy of the Billboard Resolution passed by the Council in October 1995, as well as Minutes from the July 1997 meeting that include the motion to adopt Merriam Park's resolution on billboards. The St. Anthony Park Community Council is concerned about billboards and their presence in our community. It is our hope that the 1995 Billboard Resolution wili be considered seriously by the Planning Commission and these variances denied. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, �t��u�'�`z... St. Anthony Park Community Council Heather Worthington Executive Director cc: Councilmember Roberta Megazd Brian Bates ' �� O �� e�� -� �� ``�� / ��\'�� % ...- � RESOLUTION WHEREAS billboards are a visual blight on our community; and WHEREAS the St. Anthony Park Community Council, on October 11, 1995, supported a moratorium on new billboard construction and the eventual removal of all existing neighborhood billboardsJ and WHEREAS the current St. Paul zoning code attempts to minimize the adverse effects biilboards nave on cur cor�unity �ilIG1QY1 spaciag and height restrictions; and WHEREAS Midwest sign company has recently erected a new billboard in the north east corner of Vandalia and I-94 which greatly exceeds the zoning code height limitation of 37 feet; and WHEREAS Universal sign comgany proposes erecting another bi2lboard �ust to tne east of the ilZegal Midwest bfl2board which, if erected, would violate the zoning code's minimum spacing restriction; now THEREFORE, untiJ. all billboards are removed, the St. Anthony Park Community Council encouraqes a strict interpretation and enforcement of all zoning code provisions which apply to billboards and objects to the issuance of any variances from such zoning code provisions. Specifically, the St. Anthony Park Cor�munity Council objects to the newly erected Midwest billboard. That billboard must be reduced in height to 37 feet or removed. Further, the St. Anthony Park Community Council objects to the issuance of any variance of any kind to Universal siqn company to erect ahy new billboard. Dated: Position. �� y �N � � _ �`�-, .�S • •� �/ _, -��/ � Y i. �,� �i �� . �'� ,� a �,ti�� St. Anthony Park Community Council Pull Councii ileeting Julv 9,1997 7:00 P.�t. Arndorfer Presiding PR[SF\T`. Cowuil Ricmb�rs: hlagnu�on. �Vattcrs, and �'� cb�r Sh�rih n Yoimg Arndorfcr. F3cncsh. Chfn-PurcclL Dufault, Floldcman, Lorcntzcn. S�aff. ��"orch�m�[on. Gucsts Siro Daccrn, Iiath� hios[rom, and Thc m�cting ��as callcd to ordcr b� Arndorf�r and introdac[ions tticcc madc The AGEND� and thc Junc I Ith !�11N1JTES ��crc approccd unanimousl}. Kellv Institute fCath} htostrom, Executi�c Dircctor of the kcli� Institute. rcported on the aniicipated mo�e of the hcll} Inshtide to SL Paul After a short prescnt�tion. I�ath} ans��cred mam' quesiions. and there ��as � bs�cf d�sc�rssion "jhc {nstrtut� ��arxs to 4��5� spacc on Um� ctsit� A�rnuc Their program is amird at persons �vdi alcohoVchcnurnl dcpcnd�nc� and cogniti�c mcntal hcalth problcros Thc most common combinahon is dcpr�ssion and alcoholism Trcatments t}'picailt last 3 I/2 months. Indn idual coimsclors aid clicnts C'licnts attcnd therap� scssions at thc ccntcr. I<cll}' InstitiRC has bccn in busincss sincc 1983. and thc� ar� o��ncd b� F:cih Norton Entcrpriscs, ��hich o��ns scvcral othcr treatm�nt/residcnc4 f�cihtics in and �round th� T�� m Citics. Somc of [hc chcnts nrc cmplo� cd, somc arc on SS � or othrr forms of �csistancc Thc Institutc �cill providc transportation for cltits}u if thc� h�c ncar thc facilit� 'T'hcir �uil is ro�ct pcoplc back into thc community and rcturn to somc scmblancc of normnlc� m dicir Incs Thc Kcll� Institutc is asking Ramsc� Count} to bc thcir host count�, an arcan�omcnt th:u ��ould allo�� [hcm to bc an official pro�idcr of scr�iccs to pcopic in [hc Count�', and an a�cnc} for rcf�rrals Ihrough thc Count} . An indcpcndcnt consultant «as hircd to find thc srtc [hc� �rc considcring Thc� chosc it bccause it is on a buslmc, thc size of dic spacc. and thc mon[hl} rcnt Thc} a�crlgc 10-I i chcnts per da�. b'Iotion by ��'atters ro support the Kelly Institute, and a recommendation that they make contact with the Prospect Par{: Community. Contingent upon the approval of Prospect Park, seconded by Niagnuson. Unanimous approval. NOSHAMS! Sheril}n Young of NOSHAMS! reported on the group's progress and the outcome of the shredder task forcc vote which was to ban largc metal shrcddcrs (cnclosed or unenclosed) in St. Paul. She passed around copies of the shredder newsletter, and an update on recent legislation. The shredder impact study requested of the shredder task force should be completed. Sherilyn asked that the Council re-state their previous opposition to the shredder. Watters reported that the Planning Commission ma} be advocating some lecway on shreddcrs. Shc urged the Council to restate prior opposition. Motion by Holdeman that the Council support the ban on shredders in the City of St. Paul because dismantling is more environmentally benign, seconded by Dufault. Friendly amendment by Watters to additionally state that shredders are incompatible, and that staff send a letter to the Ptanning Commission stating their position on this issue. Unanimous , approvai. � N N ff� � � � Standine Committees--Environment. Housine and Human Services .,,' .,` _��,,� _ r� j;� _. °-� � C�oje,V � �-' . � .., ;_. y �.� "� `-'- � g�% ' ..�_ . � ��G �e�_.�—'' Holdeman reported that thc cican-up took place at Kasota Ponds in June. The MT Lines property � �tias not included as permission was never granted by thcm. Discussion of the Environment Intem program. Motion by Holdeman to approve the institution of the Environment Intern program, seconded by Dufault. Unanimous approval. Holdeman reported on the American National Can Good Neighbor proposal. Benesh raported on the Housing and Human Services committee meeting. She reported on the Bike Racks in North SAP, Noise Abatement, Teen Programs, and the Garage Sale. Motion by Benesh to send a►etter to Parking Enforcement asking for stricter enforcement of St. Anthony Park, seconded by Dufault. Unanimous approval. Sue Davem aiso reported on bike racks, and updated the Council on the design, location, and number of racks to be insta[led. WoRhington reported on the Crime Prevention Coordinator seazch. A candidata has been selected, and pending a rcference check, wiil be offcrcd the position next weck. Billboards Brian Bates reported on billboards on Vandalia. An open area was created, and Midwest Sign as[ced for approva[ of a variance in thc spacing of biliboards in that area, after erecting a new sign that e�ceeded the height requirements. Merriam Park has opposed all variances. Watters reported that The Council tieas on rccord in opposition to all billboards. Worthington will call LTEP regarding the billboard on 280 bcRtieen the railroad tracks and busway (Eustis and Robbins), and send copy of resolution passcd by Council and rescarch previous opposition. Motion by Dufault �. to approve Merriam Park's resolution, seconded by Ntagnuson. SAPBA/SAPCC Small Business Fund Proaosal Worthington and Davern reported on a proposal to set up a tax deductible fund to aid small businesses in MSlton Square that �tere damaged in [he July 1 storm. Davem reported on Carter Avenue sewer probicros. There ��as discussion about [he impact of inadequate drainage and sewer in that area. Motion by Dufault to allow the Executive Committee of SAPCC to make the final decision in lieu of approval from the Fu11 Council, seconded by Magnuson. Unanimous approval. Niannheim Resi�nation Motion by Magnuson to accept Mannheim's resignation, and appoint Joann Benesh to the Fult Council, seconded by Dufault. Unanimous approval. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted by Heather Worthington, Executive Director ZOA�ING �dL� 9—��— ? _ � Ivy �eague Place - � . • 475 CLEVELAND ASSOCIATES 475 Cleveland Ave. N., St. Paul, MN 55104 • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 64110, St. Paul, MN 55164-0110 •(612) 688-2000 July 28, 1997 St. Paul Zoning Committee 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Committee Members: �Ve own the I�y L,eague Place office build:ng cr. the :.c:thwest corner of Cleveland Avenue and Hwy 94. We are not in favor of the proposed advertising sign variances for Universal Outdoor, Inc. and Midwest Outdoor Advertising near I-94 and Vandalia. We strongly object to both the requested height variances and spacing variances. We have an Adams advertising sign on our property that is in compliance with the City's ordinance and feel that both Midwest Outdoor and Universal Outdoor should likewise be held to the same standards. � Should you have any questions I can be reached at 683-1406. Sincerely, a antoo ian Real Estate Manage 1 �'� �� • � .�� Fe�� Z � �,�.� �� ,�. �� Ji�JL'17-97 Fki lt:tt� rn �r,.'+r� �.��,., ..... . —.-" IVlerr�am Par-k aQ` ��e to L/�e�o �8 x Community Council, Inco 1573 Selby Avenue • Suite 311 • St. Paut • hSinnesota • 55104 • 64a 6887 Internet: http!/freenet.msp.mn.uslnhoods/stpaullmerriam_parkJtop. e-mail: ed.bo�er@stpaul.gov • � Officcrs Fc�dinand Raen v�a�a<�� ctte t�+,��+n lY Yu Aeaident Cmnmuniry ksun Comm. C3�ir Dr.1Grrn Aistau 2nd Yce P.csidm� tini��R�tyoCSCilwm+s � Rogu Mcycr J`d Yce Prceid<n� Bwlding R Lnd Uee Caa+n. Cluir Snphi< hL��nt $ectt4ry Gl<a� Nontrem Trcuu¢r May 22, 1997 Brian Bates 1985 Grand Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 Dear Brian: �� y�� Dernnyer Pork �� eark at�.�;am ra.z Shadow FnlB At iYs regularly scheduied Board of Directors meeting, the Merriam Park Community Council adopted the foilowing resolution: WHEREAS bilfboards are a visual biight on our community; and WHEREAS the Merriam Park Community Council, on September 13, 1995, supported a moratorium on new biilboard construction and ihe eventual removal of ail existing neighborhood billboards; and WHEREAS the current St. Paul zoning code attempts to minimize the adver� effects billboards have on our community through spacing and height restric- tions; and r,. WHEREAS Midwest sign company has recently erected a new biilboard in t� .U,;rheelM�Dmaugh north east corner of Vandalia and I-94 which greatly exceeds the zoning cod w�.�„s.o�:cng height limitation of 37 feet; and Membecs c,.r nh�„� Kati<Donohoe 5�. Tham+e All Collcge Cowca R� Molly Atipacnck Honnie Lwrence En+imruncncd Ghiir FMk Sehertn�n Nanp�oCia Rcpmrniative Pcsc'dL S� Aubin SnclLngSdtry Arc� Bu�inae �„�<[.:t�, r ,e w�IL.msoo S[aFf u saw.� E�autivc Afet F{ollu I.. � WHEFiEAS Universal sign company proposes erecting another billboard jus' the east oi the illegal Midwest billboard which, if erected, would violate the z: ing code's minimum spacing restriction; now THEREFORE, until all bilibaards are removed, the Merriam Park Community � Councfl encourages a strict interpretation and enforcement ofi all zoning cod provisions which apply to biilboards and objects to the issuance of any vari- ances irom such zoning code provisions. 5pecifically, the Merriam Park �°" Community Council objects to the newly erected Midwest billboard. That bi! board must be reduced in height to 37 teet or removed. Further, the Merria Park Community Council objects to the issuance of any variance of any kir;c Universai sign company to erect any new biliboard. Cordiaily, K�m �c�� ZONii�C; FILE �1�1�9 Karen Dalton Community Organizer Ju1-31-9 �p to U�� Q � � � < � 12:11P Sn211 Ham Merriam Park � . �-�� Merriam Par-k Uesno)erPa,i; Community Council; Inc. M,�� 1573 Setby Avenue • Suite 311 � St. Paul • Mmnesota • 55104 • 645 6887 Internet: http!lfreenet.msp.mn.uslnhoodslstpaatlmerrig� arkltop.html / e-mail: ed.bower�a stpaul.gov O[ricen Fadi+und Pe�ea �pdm[ Grtg Mduah id Yiu Pnsidm� Commandy Tmua Comm. Chair Roga MeYu 2�dYccAv�dct BuilEing t Lnd Uae Corsun. Che�r So�n�e hbw+i Sarc+.ry c1�� N�..�,� r,�.a+R. Mcmhea c�y.�na�� Dc Ang=I�ncBurtni-Fictnon St'ILana� Acpn+m V�°s K.ria Dunulwc S� All Cvllcg<CouCCil (ZRxa.enlntivc etour t��ru�� s�;� i..m��e Ln�+�munaua: anV t.(ary 7o Lei<t M;a.et tu:�.w,�i W�lltvo S.OeamR Fnnk Sa�s.nen No�proC�ro Repasrn��•a priycSla Sc Aubn SnellingSdby Aro Bucino. .�aoociau4a 7�c Williomxn Staff ea eo.0 L.�„�;.e A�ecw� o-r,� x�wn�rtma by��ging EdiwL MRnian lark Pnsr u� �� Commu�iry O�guti[a Clwtinc Ym�h�r Qmar povmnion CooAin+ac Kim Red�� RaycLnE CM+�ro�r July 31, 1997 Nancy Homans Dept. of Planning and Economic Development 11 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Homans: �, �� l� � At it's May 14 board meeting, the Merriam Park Commu�ity Councii adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS biliboards are a visual blight on our community; and WHEREAS ths Merriam Park Community Council, on September 13, 1995, supported a moratorium on new billboard construction and the eventua. remo�al of all existing neighborhood billboards; and WHEREAS the current St. Paul zoning code attempts to minimize the adversE effects biilboards have on our community through spacing and height restric- tions; and WHEREAS Midwest sign company has recentiy erected a new biliboard in th� north east comer of Vandalia and I-94 which greatly exceeds the zoning code height limitation of 37 feet; and WHEFiEAS Universal sign company proposes eresting another billboard just t the east of the illegai Midwest biilboard which, if erected, would violate the zo ing code's minimum spacing restriction; now THEREFORE, until all bitlboards are removed, the Merriam Park Community Council encourages a strict interpretation and enforcement of aii zoning code provisions which apply to billboards and objects to the issuance of any vari- ances from such zoning code provisions. Specifically, the Merriam Park Community Council objects to the newly erected Midwest biliboard. That bili board must be reduced in height to 37 fset or removed. Further, the Merriar Park Community Council objects to the issuance of any variance of an:nd Universal sign company to erect any new biilboard. c l� a.,�.�.k, ��5� -%�_G� ZONING FILE ��zz.o Karen Dalton Community Organizer JUL ,v�C 4::6 P:�! UV[�, uhiieU!ti`.uNA: Cna`d. fn� P��. cY�e�� l�axa�y • � f ,� ;` :� UNITED's Board of Directors meeting was called fo order by board president, David Liset at 4:30 p.m. A motion was made to amend the agenda to ailow Brian Bates to do a presentation regarding two billboard variances. The agenda was appro�ed as amended. 7he board discussed its previous position on billboards. After the board discussion, a motion was made by Mat Hollinshead to oppose the variances on Midway signage bilfboards at 194 and Vandalia. The Board was encouraged to be consistent with its previous position on biliboards by opposing the'variance applications." The motion was seconded by Kate Severin. The motion carried. The May meeting minutes were approved. The June meeting was canceled by the board chair due to too few agenda items to be discussed. niversity UNITED Board Meeting Minutes July 8, 1997 ��_ty'�� oma�5 �� 6 — 331� % Present: Mat Hollinshead, Mike Smabey, Ken Smith, Henry S. Kristal, Jim Curran Jeff Fenske, Bill Gahr, Pete May, Kate Severin, Linda Skaiiman, David Liset, Nell McClung, Benita Tasselmeyer, staff, Irene Rodriguez, Halee Vang � • May's financiaV reports were reviewed, accepted and placed on fde. Henry Kristal motioned to submit a letter to the Business F2eview Council requesting 60 days (three days afterward) to research and review applications for iicenses as in the case of Pawn America. Motion was seconded and carried. Irene Rodriguez will draft the letter. Executive Committee Report: David Liset reported on Irene's suggestion to submit a Weed and Seed application to address three areas'in District Eleven: . �� c � � / � _./ 1. Midway Market Pface Crime Issues 2. UniversityAvenue Cruising Issues 3. Twins Motor Inn Emergency Shelter Issues A motion was made by Henry Kristai and seconded by Nell McClung to submit a Weed and Seed proposal. A second motion was made to support other collaboratives, District Seven, Hamline Midway Coalition, and Thomas-Dale Block Cfubs. Henry Kristai made the motion, and Matt Hollinshead seconded the motion. The motion carried. David Liset and Ne�l McClung reported on the Community Cruising Meetings. Some businesses benefit from it, while many others don't. One possibility is that Sears may provide some parking space for people invoived in cruising events. z��C'a ��.� 9r�•ZZ.D � 1pI.-:iC-, '++�� :.5 Pbf UFtI'l. U�i[TED!N[D'ri�" CE�si. in�, it��. 6�7d��. Trash cans and emptying them is a problem. With regards to fundraising during the event, sponsors will have a Iiabiiity issue. Jeff Fenske reported that the ballots for approval of the revised By-laws hava been sent out and are awaiting their responses. UNITED requested that they be returned by August 11, 1997. 7he Growth Committee had been canceled and will be reschedufed. Program reports: the Facade Improvement Committee will meet on July 16th to review the firsE round of appiications. A second meeting will be held July 30th. !t is estimated that approximately 15-20 grants will be awarded. The issue of Pawn America occupy+ng the old Ske�ngton building was discussed. There was a consensus that the hearing regarding Pawn America was too short of a notice and University United Board did not have the time to respond. Tha meeti�g was adjourned. r. • � � ��i�@1'�� i�� G . �,�,ly�' � Maps � � 1 ; / \� ; , . � � � f v ,: � ' .: ' :.� � ' y : : � �. � ` : �� '� `:, � � % � . � �� . /::;:, � � ' : ,,, � �\% ; ,, �� / � � i _'� �"' \ � \ N y. / �� /� - � ' � � i� �' % .\� �\ �7" L4 � �/ � �. �x, �. -- �� =, , ; .� � ;: , , � ,; ,.� , -� - . � , � � � ,� � �>-� , � � � ° �� i '_ � �� 4�< � � � � // � �� ` �, �- ; _�. \ / \� /.� �`� �\' �` � �.; �� " �'�� \\ / �` \� � - � �� /- ;, \` >,, �\ � = . _� ; �m� ;� ��ss °: � ';�, %r�` \ ,~ � \/\y. � ` �' \ \ .� / i /I�� /e�� ' � /, � ' �' _ ; �� ,� /)' .' i ;\� _ :, � . �.�:� �� ' � � >/�;�%`:�� . i ti . �� r � �-` � � � - `� , �. ,` � j� ' . ��. j \� �.. � . . % . %' ��\ \ -. . \ \ �y,, U z � Q O � O U � W � � � } � W � Q � � I � s 3 ' 3�� r� � ;1: °� ; � i � o � sI : R` � —- , . �' � a � �� 3{ s� s'e ` 3 ��/ � � .. . � � � / ,•Gy r; ',> % �� ;; Q �§ � c , a; � /, � Li.i � ..... L.�.. � � .�. � V •s � Ifi ;�; ,_ g; ; _e �ia s ��r 'yii � q : ,�; � c 1 i + .,jN 5 �4�� :S�F ; * . _�s3m CI ■� p I = 5 i � 3is , 3�: � e �Si i s -�x : �� e� �� I'►. � � � � � 1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD 2. �IAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTII' HII.LCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PAYNE-PFiALEN 6. NORTH END 7. THObfAS-DALE 8. SUM�fIT-IINIVERSIT'Y 9. WEST SEVENTH 10. COMO 11. WAY PA 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXII�IGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAhiLINE 14. MACALEST'ER GROVELANb 15. HIGHI.AND 16. SUMMIT FIILL 17. DOWNTOWN � ZONING FILE ZONING F9L� �•z�-�' CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS C ST. ANTHONY '�.� � 4 �� w�� i�� 3� �� 9,�r�y I Z�(�IIV� .FI�.E ��z� � � � �� ! T `\ \ \ ` \` � \` , � � � \ \ �. Q� �t � �—, . `�...;\ ., +� > \ �.. - � \'�- -��..� > < <' ,�O I �✓ i. .: � . i '. t � �� \- ` ' � . 1 O ❑ 'r ,�\ �� ' . •i �� '` ❑ � , • r � � o • � �� ' �� Q � . � i. � �� ,��, : i� � � �� \ � � ' , --�� '� � � ; �`' ,' � \ �/ \� { 1 � ' � `, ! / ' � O � 1 L • �� , � . .' � �� ,• . � � , , I � � _ { �� /. t\ ` ' ' `� f . ♦ �° � i � \ � � _ d � , � � � � .:.� :�� ::: ... _ _ � -. - \ . . 1 ' � ' \� •. \ \ �� ,\ � � � `�� J . '-% . � �� J.i C�_ � `,\�` ~``\` \ ' ' `- _ +_� O O \ � � J •�� . . � � O O ��. ' ' _. ' — 'S-- O \� ` ' O � O \ -O- . � �� \ - _ , .. . 0 O ' � ¢ O \ � � � ' !� T�'M�, � °, o a i , � ° ° � , � < � ' � ,0 ,0 I � �°'�w �� , � � �- - f�_ o° o o°i o� 4 ' ' � 1 �,\\ :.: — --� ! n _. ' � •� r� � APPLICANT � �7�a" ��'�� LEGEND _ '�° _ r� PURPOSE 5 � VN v�� zoning district boundary ----' FILE # �� (� t DATE 1' �'� 7 � subjed property north PLNG. DIST. �Z MAP # �/ o one family •� � commerciai _ p ¢ two family � .. � industriai SCALE 1" = 400' �� f�¢� multiple family V vacant I . , �..�. ; �^\\, ,�\ `` � �j ,� � q� � � � � \ \ 0. �i� . " ` / � y4 � � �� ,. � >�� / � � � , ,. � .� , , - ,(,, >,- , , . ( , .- . , , ,• ; . n � 0 �< � � \ � .� '`� . � � , •- • I ✓; J ._ , �., ,_, ,. _:,. � ►� �'� � ��:�� , n.� e` � • _. • � �i; �•, • � � � , .,r. � • � � � • i �• • � • • • • • � • � < . �� `.O . . E:� �J ;..: \ � :,. ' ` � � �� .° ❑ ; � ��' . ❑ � �� . ❑;� . ❑ ;. 1, : ;�..��; � � � �: t� L � / �,' . 1 �,`' C� �� f �.:. ,.t � : � �: , :y'� '. 1 P �.�: . y" _:. m � \�' ► �� ' � ... , � i -o- �T � �� APPLICANT �� . I � G • LEGEND rIJRPOSE �� '�� -� zoningdistricthoundary � q FILE # - `� � r � DATE � � 3 � � subject property PLN�. DIST. t Z MAP # � 1 0 one Tamify _ p� ¢ two family SCALE 1" = 400' �� Q multiple family ..m.._..v.. � , �\ -�.?. �- --- - � � _ j� nL orth .� • ♦ � commercial � �� industrial V vacant 1 /� il�� ( /i' � LONNY D. THOMAS, P.A. MidAmerica Bank Building, Suite 120 6949 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, Minnuota 55125 Telephone (612) 735-9262 • Fu (612) 735-9062 �d+etr o. n+oMas. csa. �s�s> >as-azss September 22, 1997 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Jerry Blakey Mr. Dan Bostrom Mr. Joe Collins Mr. Mike Hatris Ms. Roberta Megazd Ms. Gladys Morton Mr. Dave Thune CTI'Y HALL 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd Suite 310 Saint Paul, MI3 55102 Re: Appeal of Variance Your File Nos. 97-169 and 97-170 Our File No. 1177-000 Deaz City Council Member: Enclosed please fmd a copy of Memorandum of L&H Properties Opposing Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Grant Variances for Construction of Billboazds at I-94 and Vandalia. Please review the enclosed materials before the Council's Hearing regarding the above matter scheduled for Wednesday, September 24, 1997 at 330 p.m. If you have any comments regazding any of the factual allegations or legal azguments contained in the enclosed Memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact me. V ery truly yours, �� 0.��'lb LDT sas Enclosure Lonny D. Thomas cc: Ron Leonard (w/encl.)(via U.S. Mail) Don Harvey (wfencl.)(via U.S. Mail) Marvin A. Liszt (w/encl.)(via Facsimile and U.S. Mail) Also Licensed to Practice in Wisconsin �� /�� MEMORANDUM OF L&H PROPERTIES OPPOSING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO GRANT VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BILLBOARDS AT I-94 AND VANDALIA L&II Properties, a Minnesota Partnership (hereafter, "L&H"), as the owner of one of the properties upon wlrich the Planning Cominission ganted variances for the construction of an outdoor advertising sign respectfiilly submits this Memorandum in opposition to the appeal of the Pianning Commission's decision to gant such variances filed by St. Anthony Pazk Community Council (hereafter, "St. Anthony"). This Memorandum will respond to some, but not all` of the arguments advanced in St. Anthony's written appeal papers. INTRODUCTION For nearly 17 years, L&H has been the lessor under a lease agreement providing for the erection and maintenance of an outdoor advertising sign. L&H has been paid a substantial amount of money over the years pursuant to ihe lease arrangement and relies upon this crirical source of income to partially fund its payment obligations relating to the ownership of the property upon which the outdoor advertising sign has been located. Through no fault of L&H's, an outdoor advertising sign previously erected and maintained pursuant to a lease agreement with L&H was required by the City of St. Paul to be removed due to certain defects which will be addressed in more detail below. As a result of the removal of that sign, L&H immediately entered into a replacement outdoor advertising sign lease agreement with a different outdoor advertising sign company, Universal. Pursuant to the terms of the arrangement between Universal and L&H, Universal immediately filed appropriate ' L&H understands that a written Memorandum in opposition to St. Anthony's appeal also is being submitted by Universal Outdoor Advertising (hereafter, "Universal"). Since Universal is better qualified than L&H to respond to various azguments advanced in St. Anthony's written appeai, various technical and procedural issues are left by L&H to be addressed in the responsive Memorandum submitted by Universal. ��,1�� documents requestiug authority to erect a replacement outdoor advertising sign on L&cH's property. Appazently, a separate request to erect a separate outdoor advertising sign was simultaneously submitted by one of Universal's competitors, Midwest Outdoor Advertising (hereafter, "Midwest"). Both Universal and Midwest claimed to be eniitled to erect an outdoor advertising sign pursuant to theu respective applications. During various proceedings presented to the City of St. Paul Planning Commission (hereafter, the "Planning Commission"), issues involving the City of St. Paul's actions relating to the processing of each application were thoroughly examined. Reasonably recognizing the gravity of those issues, the Planning Commission attempted to accommodate the interests of all concemed. As a result of various discussions among L&H, Universal and Midwest wiuch were encouraged by the Planning Commission, a compromise arrangement was reached pursuant to which both Universal and Midwest could erect and maintain outdoor advertising signs. While the outdoor advertising signs allowed under the arrangement were less desirable to the parties than the signs requested pursuant to their original applications, the parties agreed to lesser signs as a compromise to avoid further complications, possibly incIuding litigation of their respective claims. The compromise agreement cannot be put into effect without the City of St. Paul granting several variances. The Planning Commission conducted the necessary pmceedings and ultimately granted the necessary variances, thereby reasonably accommodating the interests of all concemed and avoiding the potenfial for future litigation. The Appeal filed by St. Anthony attacks the diligent efforts of the Planning Commission, arguing, among other things, that the Planning Commission had no authority to participate in, or even suggest that the parties attempt `� �� ,�� to negotiate an amicable resolution of these issues. Contrary to the azguments of St Anthony, the Planning Commission's efforts were exemplary and should be applauded not overturaed. The Planning Commission acted well within its authority at all times and its variance approval decisions aze well supported in both law and fact. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The properry owned by L&H is located at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota (the "L&H Property"). L&H has owned the L&H Property since 1981. Shortly, after L&H purchased the L&H Property, L&H entered into an outdoor lease agreement providing for the erection and maintenance of an outdoor advertising sign on the L&H Properiy. The lessee in the outdoor advertising lease agreement was an outdoor advertising company now imown as Fairway Outdoor Advertising Company (hereafter, "Fairway"). The outdoor advertising lease agreement allocated to Fairway all obligations relating to the original construction and subsequent maintenance of the outdoor adverting sign. Pursuant to the outdoor advertising lease agreement, Fauway filed appropriate appiication documents and othenvise followed the procedures requued by the City of St. Paul. These procedures included a written designation by Fairway of the specific location of the outdoor advertising sign on the L&H Property, and an inspection by the City of St. Paul of the actual location and construction of the outdoor advertising sign after it was erected. During the Summer of 1996, the outdoor advertising sign appazentiy required repairs due to previous maintenance work regazding the sign footings which had been effected by Fairway. The new repairs required Fainvay to briefly take down the sign. Fairway effected the repairs over a weekend, not during business hours, and without any norice to L&H. L&H learned that ��,�� the repair work included moving the sign footings several feet and re-erecting the sign at approximately its previous height of fifty (50) feet�. L&H did not leara of the repairs until after the repair work was compieted and the sign r�erected. The City of St. Paul advised Fainvay (not L&I� that Fairway was required to obtain a permit for the sign repairs, movement of the sign a few feet, andlor re-erection of the sign. The City of St. Paul also advised Fairway (not L&H) that the height of the re-erected sign would require a variance. Upon leaming of these matters, L&H also discovered that the re-erected sign had been re- erected several feet outside the boundaries of the L&H Properry. In fact, L&H learned that the location of the outdoor advertising sign as originally constructed by Fairway and inspected and approved by the City of St. Paul also was several feet outside the boundaries of the L&H Property. Both the original location and newiy re-erected sign location were in fact located on public property believed by L&H to be owned by the City of St. Paul. Despite the City of St. Paul's licensing and inspection of the original sign, the sign was not located on the L&H Property. L&H learned that Fairway intended to appeaz before the Planning Commission to request a variance for the height of the newly re-erected sign. Due to L&H's concern that the information regazding the improper sign location would not be disclosed by Fairway to the Planning Commission, L&A appeazed at ffie Planning Commission hearing regarding Fairway's variance request. Z While this height wouid not be allowed pursuant to the City of St. Paul's current Ordivances regulating sign height, the height was ailowed at the time because the sign was an e�sting non-confornung height pursuant to applicable Ordinances. 4 ��,�� At the hearing, Fairway did not advise the Planning Commission that the sign was not now, and never had been located on the L&H Properiy. Rather, the Planning Commission was advised of these facts at the hearing only because L&H, through its undersigned counsel, appeared at the hearing and properly so advised the Planning Commission of the true facts. In various subsequent communications between the City of 3t Paul and L&H (both individually and through L&H's undersigned counsel), L&H advised the City of St. Paul that L&H intended to immediately move the outdoor advertising sign onto L&H's Properiy, which was the intended location and since the sign was originally erected, and which would have occurred but for the failure of Fainvay to properly locate the sign and the City of St. Paul's failure to properly require the sign to be located in the location identified in the relevant application process. As a direct result of L&H's honest and forthright disclosure to the Planning Commission which coaected Fainvay's non-disclosure of these facts, the City of St. Paul required Fairway to remove the sign. Fairway removed the sign shortly thereaRer. L&H immediately engaged in negotiations with various outdoor advertising sign companies regazding entering into a replacement outdoor advertising sign lease agreement, as had been previousiy advised by L&H to the City of St. Paul. During those negotiarions, L&H conciuded that the present value of an outdoor advertising sign located on the L&H Property is not less than Two Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($200,000.00). L&H ultimately entered into an outdoor advertising sign lease agreement with Universal. Upon entering into the outdoor advertising sign lease agreement, Universal filed necessary documents and othenvise took such action as was necessary to obtain the necessary permits and approvals from the City of St. Paul for the erecrion of a replacement outdoor advertising sign on L&H Property. Universal's application for the City of St. Paui's approvai of ��,i�� the outdoor advertising sign was initially denied for reasons relating to another sign pemut application simultaneously filed by Midwest. On appeal of the City of St. Paul's denial of Universal's application', the Planning Commission encouraged Universal and Midwest to discuss with one another whether a compromise airangement might be reached. Pursuant to the Planning Commission's suggestion, Universal and Midwest engaged in a compromise dialogue that resulted in a mutually acceptable azrangement allowing both Universal and Midwest to erect outdoor advertising signs. The outdoor advertising signs allowed under the arrangement were less desirable to Universal and Midwest than the signs described in tl�eir respective applications which had resulted in the negotiations. The signs which would be allowed in the negotiated azrangement also would require the parties to obtain variances from the City of St Paul. Both Universal and Midwest submitted appropriate documents and information, and otherwise complied with relevant procedural requirements to obtain the necessary variances. The Planning Commission approved the requested variances, and St. Anthony filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval. ' In connection with the appeal to the Planning Commission, L&H submitted to the Pianning Commission an Affidavit of a principal of L&H regarding the background facts described above. The Affidavit sets forth L&H's position that L&H will suffer damages in excess of verbal $200,000.00 as a direct result of the City's mishandling of the original sigi location and other acfionable conduct unless Universal's request to erect a replacement sign on L&H Property is approved. A copy of the Affidavit is attached as Exhibit A. ` Universal's appeal of the initial decision regarding issuance of the requested pernut was agreed by all concemed to be placed on hold pending the outcome of the separate proceedings relating to the two signs and variances at issue in the instant proceedings. In the event that the variances are not granted and the negotiated arrangements relating to the two signs of Universal and Midwest approved, Universal will pursue the appeai of the original pemut issues. C� �,�, -�� The foilowing discussion demonshates that the Planning Commission's actions aze completely supported by relevant facts and applicable law, and St. Anthony's appeal should be f �� -..1 Standard of Review The record reflects that the Planning Commission's actions and final decision are well supported by relevant facts and applicable law. Describing the reluctance of appellate courts to interfere in zoning decisions of municipalities, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated in Saestetter v. Citv of St. Paul. 529 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. App. 1945), "Where the municipal proceedings are fair and complete, review is on the record before the municipal agency, and this court is reluctant to interfere with the tuanagement of municipal affairs.i The Planning Commission acted well within its province in approvine the variances. St. Anthony first ridiculously azgues that the procedural process by which the Planning Commission approved the subject variances cannot be approved because the Plazuung Commission somehow exceeded the scope of its authority. St. Anthony baldly asserts, "It is the funcUon of the Planning Commission to heaz matters which come before it. It is not the funcrion of the Planning Commission to first suggest and then advocate for the issuance of vatiances." St. Anthonv Memorandum, at Page 7. St. Anthony fails to cite any authority for this asserted ' The decision in Sa sg tetter also is relevant to this proceedings because the Court of Appeals affirmed a variance granted by the City of St. Paul allowing a 90 foot stiucture in an azea limiting building height to not more than 30 feet. The Sa stg etter decision essentiaily eviscerates St. Anthony's argument that the height variances granted by the Planning Commission in this case are too extreme to be ailowed by these variances. ° For purposes of this Memorandum oniy, L&H will assume for the sake of azgument that the Planning Commission somehow participated in the discussions resulting in the 7 ��'�`�� restriction on the operations of the Planniug Commission.' Rather than congratulate the Planning Commission for successfully brokering a creative compromise resolution which is universally acceptable to all parties, St. Anthony criticizes the Planning Commission for "avoid[ingJ a difficult decision." T'he Planning Commission's fundamentally reasonable actions actually demonstrate that the Planning Commission recognized and appreciated the gravity of claims which might be asserted by and against all parties (inciuding the City of St. Paul) in the absence of an amicable resolution. By "avoiding a difficult decision" and encouraging the parties to negotiate a compromise, the Planning Commission effectively eliminated the chance of serious subsequent litigation, and demonstrated its broad vision of the underlying issues. It is the myopic view of St. Anthony, not the coxnmendable foresight of the Planning Commission which should be rejected. In Arcadia Develonment Corporafion v. Citv of Bloomineton. 125 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1964), the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed circumstances in which a planning commission was asked to apply an ordinance relating to sign restricrions which would have created a result which was unacceptable to all parties, including the City. The planning commission recognized the inherent problems in blindly enforcing the statute, and "recommended that the city council negotiated agreement between Universal and Midwest. The record cleazly reflects, however, that the original inquiries regazding the possibility of negotiating a universally acceptable resolution of all issues involving two signs was posed by UniversallMidwest, not any person associated with the City of St. Paul. ' St. Anthony quotes and apparently relies upon Administrarive Code Section 107.03 as imposing the alleged res�iction. St. Anthony quotes that portion of the Section which provides, "The Committee shall, upon proper notification, conduct public hearings on ... the various types of zonin¢ applications that are duties of the planning commission." The quoted language obviously empowers the Planning Commission, but faiis to even attempt to define the scope of the empowerment, much less affirmatively suggest any restrictions on such empowerment. a�} -``� � 'make it possible' for Arcadia (the sign applicant) to have this sign." Id at 849. In other words, the planning commission suggested creativity in finding a resolution under difficult circumstances. The city council subsequentiy disregarded the planning commission's suggestion of creativity, rejected the applicanYs request for variances allowing the sign, and myopically enforced the ordinance. The Minnesota Supreme Court ultimately sided with the planning commission and held for the variance requesting pariy, finding that the city council should have granted necessary variances to "make it possible" for the sign applicant to erect the requested sign, notwithstanding the black letter of the applicable sign ordinance. Applicabie law clearly supports the acrions and role of the City of St. Paul Planning Commission in this matter. There is no procedural defect in the process pursuant to which the variances were granted by the City of St. Paul Planning Commission. The properl�granted variances are whollv consistent with applicable law. St. Anthony next argues that, even if there is no procedural defect in the means by which the variances were granted, the substantive facts and law do not allow the variances to be granted. Again, St. Anthony ignores applicabie law, and disregards the thorough factual record supporting the Planning Commission's decision. There can be no dispute that the outcome of this proceedings must be based upon application of St. Paul City Ordinance Section 66.409 to the relevant facts. This Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a sign variance upon concluding that: (i) the sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site; (ii) the sign is not � The following language describing the requirements of the Ordinance quotes the paraphrasing of this Ordinance as used in the Staff Reports provided to the Planning Commission with the previous proceedings. The Staff Reports accurately describe the requirements of the Ordinance. �,�_`y�� contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the wning code; (ui) the sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations; (iv) the sign will not adversely affect residentiai property through excessive glare and lighting; (v) the sign would not be objectionabie to adjacent property owners; and (vi) the sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding azea The Staff Reports provided to the Planning Commission regarding the variance applications state Staffs view that the proposed outdoor advertising signs aze supported by five of these six criteria The relevant StaffReports articuJate Staffs opinion that the second criterion requiring a conclusion that the requested signs "aze not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code" is not met. T'he Planning Commission examined this particular criterion with a broader vaew of the overall impact upon signs throughout the City of St. Paul and concluded that this criterion in fact is satisfied, stating: The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concem for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of 14 non-conforming signs in other areas of the city where the removal has enhanced the visual envuonment. The Planning Commission agreed with Staff that the proposed variances satisfied all of the other five criteria of the Ordinance, and approved the variances. Only a brief review of each criterion demonstrates that the Planning Commission's decision is strongly supported by the factual record. The si en is unique or there are unusual conditions �ertainine to the needs of the site Both the Staff Report and the Planning Commission agreed that this criterion is satisfied by the unique topographical layout of the subject property upon which the signs will be located (as to the height variances) and the underlying facts relating to the negoriated settlement of issues 10 �� discussed above (as to the distance variances). St. Anthony argues onl}� that the underlying negotiated resolution of issues cannot be deemed to constitute an "unusual condition" satisfying this criterion. St. Anthony again fails to cite any authority for this proposition. Contrary to St. Anthony's bald assertion, the facts relating to the negoriated resolution certainly satisfy this criterion. There is nothing in the Ordinance which even suggests a defined limitation of the "unusual conditions" which may be deemed to support a variance request. St. Anthony's argument that such a lunitarion should be somehow arbitrarily created and imposed is utterly without merit and contrary to the very purpose of variances. In Merriam Park Communitv Council. Inc. v. McDonoueh, 210 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. 1973) the Minnesota Supreme Court reiterated that "A variance provides the opportunity for ameliorarion of unnecessary hardships resulting from the rigid enforcement of a broad zoning ordinance ..." I�.., at A20. St. Anthony's request that a limitation be arbitrarily imposed upon those facts which can be evaluated in support of a variance is contrary to tkris broad remedial purpose. T'hat St. Anthony is a community organized entity ostensibly representing potentially affected residents which is vigorously opposed to the requested variances also is not relevant to the City Council's analysis. Tn Lueer v. Citv of Bumsville. 29S N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1980), the Minnesota Supreme Court made cleaz that the approval or disapproval of adjacent property owners can play no part in the ultimate decision whether to grant a variance, stating: ' St. Anthony's arguments regarding the topographical considerations supporting height variances aze not worthy of significant analysis. The record includes myriad photographs, diagrams, measurements and other objective criteria amply demonstrating the need for height variances as necessary to a11ow the outdoor advertising signs to be visible from I-94. As a practical matter, if the requested sign heights were not necessary for visibility, why would LJniversal and Midwest subject themselves to the onerous process of obtaining height variances? il �� -I `�� The number of persons who aze for or against the granting of a variance is neither a relevant nor a proper consideration in determin;og the merits of an application. One court observed that if this were not true, the result would be a govemment of inen rather than one of law. It is improper for a boazd of adjustment to place weight upon the number of protestants rather than on the merits of an application. Tlie strenuous objection of residents is not a legitimate basis for the denial of a variance. Revocation of a variance is not adequately supported when the principal reason for such action is that 1,000 persons signed a petition protesting the variance. The quality of the protest rather than the quantity of signers must guide the discretion of the boazd Id at 615. There is no suggestion in relevant Ordinances or any other law that an amicably negoriated settlement of claims which avoids liability to all parties (including the City of St. Paul) cannot constitute "unusual conditions" supporting a sign variance. St. Anthony points to no authority supporting this proposition because no such authority exists. The si¢n is not contrarv to the ¢eneral intent of the sien chapter of the zonin¢ code. The Planning Commission found that this criterion is satisfied by the overall effect of granting the requested variances. As a result of the two (2) signs being erected pursuant to the variances, seventeen (17) non-confomung signs in other locations throughout the City of St. Paul will be removed by Universal and Midwest. Since one of the two signs to be erected pursuant to the variances simpiy replaces the sign which has been located on L&H's property for years, the City of St. Paul is effectively allowing the erection of one new sign in exchange for the removal of seventeen other non-confomung signs throughout the city. By granting the variances, the Planniiig Commission effected a net decrease of sixteen (16) non-confomung signs throughout the City. The Planning Commission astutely recognized this beneficial overall effect in granting the variance, stating in its findings and resolution: The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concem for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and 12 �,�-�� advertise business in the city represents a replacement of 14 non-conforming signs in other azeas of the city where the removal has enhanced the visual environment. To the extent that the removal or decrease in number of outdoor advertising signs (particularly non-conforming signs) is an objective to be promoted by Chapter 66, it can hazdly be argued that the Planning Commission erred in concluding that this criterion is met. St. Anthony simply argues that this criterion is not met because the signs to be erected require variances. St. Anthony does not recognize or even mention the overall increase in compliance and decrease in outdoor advertising signs. St. Anthony's "not in my backyazd" attitude demonstrates parochialism which is contrary to the interests of the City of St. Paul and inconsistent with the intent of Chapter 66. The Planning Commission coaectly concluded that the overall effect of significantly decreasing the number of non-conforming signs throughout the City of St. Paul exceedingly satisfies this criterion. The sien will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and re�ulations. The Planning Commission correctly concluded that this criterion is met, as the Minnesota Depamnent of Transportation has no height requirements and allows signs to be as close as five hundred (500) feet to one another. Since no signs allowed by the variances would be less than 500 feet from one another, the Planning Commission correctly found that this criterion is met. St. Anthony does not dispute that this criterion is met as to compliance with statues, rules and regulations, but vaguely suggests that the proximity of MidwesYs sign to the Vandalia street 10 It is uncleaz just how the Planning Commission calculated the figure of 14 replaced signs. The record before the Council indicates that Universal and Midwest will remove in the range of 14 to 17 signs upon final grant of the variances and issuance of permits for the two new signs which are the subject of this proceeding. f�C3 �� _��i�� overpass somehow "raises concems of a traffic hazard." St. Anthony provides no information regazding the nature of its "concem" and there is no indication in the record that anyone else (particulazly those maldng comments in the Staff Reports or at the hearings) shazes St. Anthony's concerns. The record clearly reflects that the Planning Commission did not err in det�*�++�n;ng �at this criterion has been met. The sien will not adversel�affect residential provertv throu,,ah excessive elare and li htin . The Planning Commission correctly noted that there aze no adjacent residenrial properties as the sign location is in a heavy industrial azea. The Planning Commission's resolutions note that the neazest residential property is all the way across the freeway. St. Anthony undoubtedly agrees and stated in its appeal that it has no comment regatding the Planning Commission's finding that this criterion is met. The sien wouid not be obiectionable to adjacent�ro�ertv owners. In finding that this criterion was met, the Planning Comxnission noted the absence of objections from adjacent property owners. St. Anthony agreed, noting that it has no comment regarding the Planning Commission's finding on this criterion. The sien is in keenine with the eeneral chazacter of the surrounding area• The Planning Commission found that this criterion is met, as the signs will be located in "a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regulaz intervals." St. Anthony does not disagee and has expressed no objection to the Planning Commission's finding that this criterion is met. 14 �� _I�''� CONCLUSION Based upon the record before the Council and the discussion set forth in this Memorandutn, L&H respectfiilly submits that the decision of the Planning Commission should be affirmed in all respects and the variances granted. Dated: September 22,1997 LONNY D. � Thomas Reg. No. 170252 'te 120 MidAmerica Bank Building 6949 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, Minnesota 55125 (612)735-9262 ATTORNEYS FOR L&H PARTNERS 15 . STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY _ ��- . •. . ,_ . •� � ) ss. ) �t�1 Affiant, RONALD LEONARD ("�ant"), being first duly swom, upon oath deposes and says that: 1. Affiant has personal knowledge of the facts described in this �davit 2. Affiant and Donald Han�ey ("Harvey") are the owners of certain real property located at 2100 Giibert Avenne, St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Property"). 3. 4. Affiant and Harvey have oti�ned the Properry since apgroximately 1981. An outdoor advertising sign was originally erected on the Properry shortly after Affiant and Harvey purchased the Property. The outdoor advertising sign was erected pursuant to the approval of the City of St. Paul which was obtained only after full compliance with all procedures and substantive requirements imposed by the City in connection with erecting the outdoor advertising sign. 5. The procedures imposed by the City in connection v,nth erecting the original outdoor advertising sign included an inspection of the sign by the City after the sign had been erected. One of the purposes of the City's inspection of the sign after being erected was to ensure that the outdoor advertising sign had been placed by the sign company in the specific location designated and approved by the City. 6. The outdoor advertising sign v��as owned by Fairway Outdoor Advertising Company ("Fairway") and maintained on the Property pursuant to a written lease agreement between Fairway as lessee, and �ant and Hanrey as lessors. 7. In the Summer of 1996, the outdoor advertising sign apparentIy required repairs which resulted in Fairway taking down the sign for a brief period of time in order to make certain repairs to footings. The repairs were effected by Fairway over a weekend and not during business hours. The sign was immediately re-erected by Fairway after the repairs were made. Affiant did not leam of the repairs until after the sign had been taken down and re-erected. 8. The above mentioned repairs appazently involved moving the footings for the sign a few feet from the original location. 9. Affiani and Harvey did not participate in any way in effecting or even approving � 1 '� -� � �� i �� the above mentioned sign repairs. Affiant and Harvey had no knowledge regarding the repairs untii after the repairs were completed. 10. Upon information and belief, Fairway erected the sign after making the necessary repairs at a height which was approximately the sign's original height of approximately fifry (50) feet I1. The City ]ater advised Fairvoay that Fairway was re.�uued to obtain a permit for the sign repairs, movement of the sign and�or re-erection of the sign. The City also advised Fairway that the height of the re-erected sign would require a variance. 12. In reviev.�ing all these matters, �ant discovered that the sign was not located on the Property either before or after the sign repairs were effected, according to a recent survey of the Properry. 13. Fairvvay advised Affiant that Fairway intended to appear before the City in connection with issues pertaining to the repairs, movement and re-erection of the sign. �ant appeared at the hearing before the City only to ensure that Fairway accurately and fully disclosed to the City that the sign was not, and never had been located upon the Properiy. 14. At the hearing, Fain��ay did noi disclose to the City that the sign was not, and never had been located on the Property. 15. The City learned that the sign was not, and never had been located on the Properry only because �ant, through his counsel, appeared at the hearing and advised the City of Fairway's failure to inform the City that the sign was not located on the Property. Affiant, through his counsel, further advised the City that the above mentioned survey indicated that the sign most probably was located upon public property. 16. In various communications with the City, Affiant advised the City that �ant intended to move the sign onto the Property, as was intended ever since the sign was original]y erected, and as would have occurred but for the failure of the City's inspector to discover the incorrect placement of the sign. 17. As a result of �anPs honest and forthright correction of Fairway's non- disclosure to the City regazding the location of the sign, the City required Fainvay to remove the sign. Fairway subsequenfly removed the sign. 18. Affiant immediately engaged in negotiations with other outdoor advertising sign companies w�ith respect to a possible lease or other transaction providing for the erection of a replacement sign. Those negotiations disclosed that the value of the sign on the Properry can be reasonably expected to be in an amount not less than Two Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollazs ($200,000.00). � -. . �' 19. Affiant and Harvey ultimately entered an agreement with Universal Outdoor, Inc. ("Universal"). The agreement with Universal provides for Univenal to erect and maintain an outdoor advertising sign on the Property. 20. Universal filed documents and otherwise acted to obtain the City's pemussion and authority to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the Properry pursuant to the agreement w�ith Affiant and Harvey. _ 21. Universal's request for a permit to erect the outdoor advertising sign was denied by the City for reasons relating to another sign permit application which vvas filed by Midwest Ovtdoor Advertising ("Midwest") after Universal's application. 22. Universal's appeal of that decision is the proceeding in which Affiant respectfully submits this �davit. 23. Based upon Affiant's review of the relevant documents and inspection of the Property, Affiant believes Midvrest's request for a permit is untimely, inaccurate, defective and should be denied for a number of reasons, and Universal's application for a permit should be approved. �ant understands ihat these substantive and procedural issues, however, will be addressed in greater detail by Universal at the hearing pursuant to which this Affidavit is respectfully submitted. 24. Affiant believes ihat Universal's application for a pernut is in fact an application to simply move the sign that ��as required by the City to be taken down by Fairway. That sign was required to be taken down oniy because (i) the City failed to properly inspect and ensure the proper location of the sign as is required by City and State laws and regulations; and (ii) Affiant truthfuily and a�rmatively corrected the deceptive record before the City v.�ith respect to the location of the sign on public properry. 25. If the sign application submitted by Universal is not approved by the City, A�ant and Harvey will suffer damages in excess of Two Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($200,000.00) relating to lost sign revenues. 26. Based upon the facts set forth in this Affidavit, Affiant believes that the City should grant the application for a permit submitted by Universal and deny the appiication submitted by Midwest. 27. In the event that the City denies Universal's application, thereby effectively preventing Affiant from receiving more than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars in sign related income, Affiant intends to look to the City for compensation of those damages. .. -� �. �,� _��t'�� FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT EXCEPT THAT THIS AFFIDAVIT IS SUBMITTED 1N SUPPORT OF UNIVERSAL'S PERMIT APPLICATIO AND 1N OP TION TO MIDWEST"S PERMIT APPLICATION. O ALD LE N Subscri ed and swom to before me this day of April, 1997 � �� Public �r.�: _r,�e:..�l�.?.l.F_�.AC.AN'..� ' -� :_ON'��Y D. Tr10•'v��S _ ' _ , r.�. L�7��Ir. Yf;in� :S:l.c � -' - - . E..'' . , .. . ��•';. . � DIAMOND� LISZT Srt GRADY� P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Richard I. Diamond` Marvin A. Lisz[" Amy Darr Grady September 22, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 �� i �.,�� Suite 210 9855 Wes[ 78[h Scree[ Minneapolis, MN 55344 Telephone (612) 944-1010 Fax(612) 443-5680 RE: Zoning File #97-220: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL Note new file number: File replaces Zoning Files #97-169 and #97-170) City Council Hearing: September 24, 1997 4:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Dear Ms. Anderson: Enclosed please find original and eight copies of Universal Outdoor Inds Response to St. Anthony Pazk Community Council's Appeal of the Plannin� Commission Decision of August 11. 1997 in File I3o 97-220 (Replacin� File No. 97-170). Kindly distribute this Response to each Council member priar to the hearing on September 24, 1997. Your cooperation is appreciated. Very truly yours, �� arvin A. Liszt cc: Universal Outdoor, Inc. MAL/dw Enclosures *CIVlL TRIAL SPEClALISS CERTIFIED BY THE NAIlONAL BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCACY AND MINNE50"IA SIATE BAR ASSOClAS10N *"REAL PROPERTY LAW SPECIALISI' CER'iIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA S"fA7E BAR ASSOCIAIlON �1� . • � �� • �:��5�}�f=i��l� :_.44: � ,! • ��1 _ • ��, � - :1: s_ � • Y � Y ' • , � ^ • , � • * � �' - -- • _ � �. � 1. Introduction �� l / The appeal by the St. Anthony Park Community Council ("SAPCC") protests the granting of variances by the Planning Commission to allow Universal Outdoor, Inc. ("Universal") and Midwest Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Midwest") to construct a total of two outdoor advertisinq signs near I-94 and Vandalia. After its public hearing, the Zoning Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variances. The Planning Commission upheld the recommendation by an overwhelming vote of 15-1. The effect of the granting of the variances is to cause the removal of at least 17 nonconforming signs throughout the City of St. Paul and replace them with two signs near I-94 and Vandalia. Obviously, the SAPCC does not like outdoor signs and, frankly, that is the reason for their appeal. However, the City Council must not be influenced by the SAPCC's dislike of outdoor signs. The only real issue is whether the granting of the variances by the Planning Commission is justified by the facts and circumstances of this situation. When this matter is viewed in that context, there is simply no question that the decision of the Planning Commission must be upheld. 2. The Planninq Commission�s Findings Amply Support the Granting of the variances to IIniversal. � �� ' The law in Minnesota is clear that a municipality may grant a variance from a zoning ordinance where strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship and where the granting of a variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In St. Paul, a variance request must conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Committee and Planning Commission carefully analyzed this provision of the Code and the facts and circumstances of this matter. These two bodies recognized beyond question that the provisions of the Zoning Code 66.409 were met. The Planning Commission's findings are summarized as follows: a. There are unusual circumstances in this matter relating to the existing building and the proposed Midwest sign. In addition, the Planning Commission recognized the unusual circumstances regarding the dispute between the two sign companies and the City's potential liability in the manner in which it handled the granting of the permit to Midwest and not Universal. b. The intent of Chapter 66 of the Code is to strike a balance between a concern for a visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the City. The proposed sign advertises local businesses and the Universal sign will replace at least three nonconforming signs in areas of the City where the Zoning Code now prohibits such siqns. c. The sign does not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes, rules or regulations. d. The sign will not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting since the closest residential property is about 660 feet away across a well lit freeway. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the 2 C ,�� i interstate, the signs are not visible from homes across the freeway. e. The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area since it will be located in a freeway corridor where signs are located at regular intervals. Each of these findings are supported by undeniable facts and circumstances. Clearly, the general intent and character of the Zoning Code is not only met but is exceeded in this situation since the granting of the Universal and Midwest variances results in the removal of at least 17 nonconforming signs throughout other areas of the City of St. Paul. 3. The SAPCC�s Grounds for Appeal are Legally Without Merit. Universal will not in this memorandum discuss each and every ground for appeal set forth in the SAPCC's appeal document. However, a brief review of some of those grounds illustrates that they are without legal or factual foundation: a. Whether the Zoninq Committee, Universal or Midwest Initially Raised the Variance ProposaZ is irrelevant. The SAPCC's lengthy discussion regarding who initially proposed the variances is irrelevant. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the actual variance requests were submitted by Universal and Midwest and not by any commission member. Secondly, there is nothing in any State statutes, regulations, ordinance or 3 1`+ �,t q n' case law which would prohibit a Zoning Committee member from recommending a solution involving variance requests. In fact, Universal would submit that even if a committee member did first raise such a solution, it is well within the province and common sense of the committee to do so. This is especially true in a situation like the one here where the City would potentially have significant liability for the manner in which it handled the initial sign permit application process. b. The SAPCC Position Regarding Siqn Credits is Irrelevant and Factually Incorrect. This appeal involves the granting of a variance to Universal and Midwest. The method of calculating nonconforming sign area credits to be used to build advertising signs pursuant to Section 66.302 was not part of the Zoning Committee or Planning Commission's deliberation and is not properly before the Council at this time. The granting of the variances is an issue separate and apart from the number of sign area credits needed to build a new sign. This issue should not even be considered by this Council at this time. Even if the Council reviews this portion of the Ordinance at this time, it is clear that the City has properly calculated sign area credits since this Ordinance was passed. Section 66.302(b)(6) sets forth the concept that sign area credits from the removal of nonconforming signs may be used to build signs on other lots. This section does not describe exactly how the area is to be calculated. Section 66.200 entitled " General Provisions and Section 66.201 C7 / �n �^ i\� I l entitled "Al1 Signs-Permit Zoning District" are the parts of the Zoning Code containing the provisions governing how the entire sign ordinance should be interpreted. Section 66.201(14) clearly states that, "Only one side of a double-faced sign or V-shaped sign shall be used to compute the gross surface display area, display surface area or sign area of a sign." Any suggestion by the SAPCC that this provision should not apply to sign area credit calculation is simply wrong and ignores the plain and unambiguous language of the Ordinance. c. The Zoninq Committee�s Report Was Far From Inadequate. A review of the Planning Commission Minutes £rom August 8, 1997 indicates that a full discussion was heard regarding the sign variance. Clearly, all commission members knew the feelings of the neighbor group in opposition to the variances. The one Merrian Park Community Council member was not allowed by law to speak at the Planninq Commission meeting on August 8, 1997 since the meeting was not a public hearing. The views of those in opposition to the signs were heard at the public hearings on April 17th, May lst and July 31st. The SAPCC suggests that the feelings of those opposed to the signs were somehow kept secret from the Planning Commission. This suggestion is absurd on its face and defies all common sense. 4. Conclusion On combined votes of 20-1 the Zoning Committee and Planning 5 ��,�y17 Commission have voted in favor of granting the proposed variances. These votes were made with a view toward not only recognizing the rights of Universal and Midwest but also in advancing the spirit and general intent of the Zoning Code. At least 17 nonconforming signs will be removed and replaced by two signs in a freeway corridor where signs are not only permitted but also appear at regular intervals. The actions of the Zoning Committee and Planning Commission are backed by common sense, logic and supported by the factual findings contained in each resolution. The decision of the Planning Commission should undoubtedly be upheld. Dated: September 22, 1997 Respectfully submitted, DIAMOND� LISZT & GRADY, P.A. �'4�-�. � Marvin . Liszt #6384 9855 West 78th Street Suite 210 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 944-1010 Attorney for Universal Outdoor, Inc. @ (`; r. ! �-�.. t , p n � i e �-...� ' ' , s �. • � - . . .m Presented By Referred To Council File # �� Green Sheet # 62178 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date 1 VJHEREAS, Universal Outdoor, Inc. [Universal], in Zoning File No. 97-049, pursuant to 2 Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.408, appealed from a decision of the Zoning Aduiinistrator to 3 deny Universal's application to construct an outdoor advertising sign on properry commonly 4 laiown as 2100 Gilbert Street (south side, east of Vandalia), Saint Paul, MN; and 6 WHEREAS, on Apri117, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning 7 Commission [Zoning Committee] held a public hearing on Universal's appeal at which a11 8 persons present were given an opporiunity to be heard pursuant to the requirements of Saint Paul 9 Legislarive Code §64300(j); 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 39 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public testimony, the Zoning Committee iuianimously voted to lay the matter over until May 1, 1997 for the purpose of obtainnig additional information concerning Universal's sign application from Office of Licenses, Inspections and Environmental Protection staff ; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 1997, the Zoning Coxnxnittee reopened the public heazing on the matter of Universal's sign application and appeal and moved, based upon all the information and testimony received and with the understanding of Universal, that the matter of Universal's appeal be temporarily suspended pending the receipt of a sign variance application which Universal expressed a desire to submit in lieu of the Zoning Committee taking final action on this appeal. It was filrther understood by the Zoning Committee, based upon the testimony, that other sign companies purporting to have an interest in locating signs in the immediate surrounding azea may also submit variance applications; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 1997, in Zoning File No. 97-169, Midwest Outdoor Advertising, Inc. [Midwest] made applicafion for a sign height variance and a sign sepazation variance for property commonly known as X�� Vandalia Street (northeasterly corner of I-94 and Vandalia Street) so that Midwest could construct an advertising sign 68 feet above grade and within 510 feet of the site upon which Universal proposed to erect a sign; and WFIEREAS, on June 30, 1997, in Zoning File No. 97-170, Universal made application for a sign height variance, a sign separation variance from a proposed sign to be located to the west (Midwest's proposed sign, see above), and a sign separation variance from another sign to the east, all for the same properry on Gilbert Avenue described above in Zoning File No. 97-049; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 1997, the Zoning Committee, having deternuned to heaz the matters simultaueously, conducted a public hearing on the variance applications of Midwest and Universal, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.409 at which all persons present were �- . 40 given an opportunity to be heard; and �� — �— � 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3Q 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 WHEREAS, on August 8, 1997, the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Plamung Commission], based upon the evidence presented to the Zoning Committee at the July 31, 1997, public hearing and as substautially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact with respect to Universal's and Midwest sign variance applications: Plamiing Commission: Findings of Fact: Zoning File No. 97-169 (Midwest� q ,� - 1493 1. The applicant proposes to move an existing outdoor advertising sign appro�mately fifty feet to the west and coustruct it at a height of sia�ty-eight (68) feet above grade. Two variances--of m�imum height and of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs intended to be seen from a freeway be 1,000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 1038.82 feet west of an e�sting Adams Company sign and 803 feet east of an existing 3M Company sign. In addition, the proposed site is 509.88 feet west of a sign proposed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that would be 68 feet from grade. The grade at which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadway bed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been conshucted in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attracfive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height requirements of the Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land in the vicuuty is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and V andalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right-of-way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the V andalia Street bridge. It is on this railroad land that Midwest Outdoor Advertising proposes to construct its sign. 3. Midwest Outdoor Advertising filed an application for an outdoor advertising sign on Friday, February 21, 1997. The sign was to be located in the railroad right-of-way just east of Vandalia Street and north of the westbound I-94 off-ramp, 50 feet east from where the sign is presently proposed. The application stated that the sign would be installed at 37 feet above grade. The applicant constructed the sign at its current location and at its current height (58 feet above grade) sometime after being issued a permit by the Saint Paul Office of License, Inspecrions and Environmental Protection (LIEP) on Febniary 25, 1997. (The application stated that it was estimated that the sign would be constructed between Mazch 15 and Mazch 30, 1997.) 2 4 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 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 On Mazch 7, 1997, the applicant was notified of an appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The letter from Robert Kessler to Midwest Outdoor Advertising notifying them of the appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. stated: "If you choose to proceed and q/) _��{Q3 Universal's appeal is approved by the Planning Coxnmission, it would be your � responsibility to remove the sign at your expense." On Apri117, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission met to consider the appeal of the LIEP decision by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The matter was laid over until the May 1,1997 committee meeting. On Apri128, 1997, a letter was sent to Midwest Outdoor Advertising by Robert Kessler notifying them that their sign was constructed in violation of their permit inasmuch as it was 58 feet from the base to the top of the sign--not 37.5 feet as required. The company was futther notified that continued use of the sign would require a variance from the Planuing Commission. (The applicant has maintained that the construction of their sign was consistent with their understanding that sign height was to be measured from the top of the I-94 e�t ramp rather than the roadbed. The fact--and longstanding practice--that the measurement is to be taken from the main roadbed was clarified by a Minor Zoning Amendment adopted by the Planning Commission on July 11, 1997.) On May 1, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Pluming Commission devoted a significant amount of fime to a consideration of the issues associated with which of two sign companies should be pernutted to construct a sign within an azea where the Zoning code would allow only one. Because of different procedures followed by different staff members in the Office of Licenses Inspections and Environxnental Protection, both applicants asserted that they should have been considered "first," and, therefore, been approved. Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution of the appeal znight involve permitting both signs provided that they could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel; the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a vaziance of the code's sepazation requirement by the Planning Commission. Universal Outdoor, Inc. elected to suspend its appeal and file an application for such a variance. 4. The two companies, after the May 1, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting, crafted a proposal that would involve moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they both would meet the State of Minnesota's 500 feet separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-confornring signs removed by Midwest Outdoor Advertising elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Secfion 66302(b) of the Zoning code. That section provides, in part, that: a. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a permitted use; [:� c. The section goes on to state: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconfomiiug sign face credits sha11 comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, pazks, pazkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance requirements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This condition is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standazd 14 by 48 foot v-style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual conditions related to the site that have led to this application include: The advertising sign must be brought into conforuiance with the size and height zequirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and 3 °l�-ly? The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). (1) Topography. The site selected by the applicant and leased from the railroad is depressed to allow for the passage of trains under the Vandalia Street bridge. A sign constructed within the 37.5 feet height limit outlined in the Zoning code would not be clearly visible from I-94. (2) Separation from the proposed Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign. To resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would a11ow in this azea, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and indushy in the ciry. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of 14 non-conforming signs in other azeas of the city where the removal has ei�lianced the visual environment. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues permits for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with staYe statutes. The State does not have any height restrictions although their permits state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. Minnesota Statutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. 0 1 2 3 d. The sign wi11 not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and t4 � 3 Zighting. q 1' This standard is met. The closest residenrial properry is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the yeaz, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 4�4 45 46 47 48 49 50 e. The sign wouZd not be objectionable to adjacent properry owners. T'�is standard is met. While one properiy owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there aze outdoor advertising signs at regulaz intervals. Planning Commission: Findings of Fact: Zoning File No. 97-170 (Universal) 1. The applicant proposes to construct an outdoor advertising sign on private property located at 2100 Gilbert adjacent to the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp from I-94. Three variances--of maximuxn height and two of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs be 1000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 510 feet west of an e�sting Aclams Company sign, thus requiring a variance of 157 feet. It is also 509.88 feet from a proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign, requiring a variance of 157.12 feet. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that would extend 57.5 feet from the grade, 20 feet higher than allowed in the code. The grade on which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadbed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attraetive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and ciTy spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign conforniing to the height requirements of the Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right of way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. In between the railroad and I-94 rights-of-way is a 1 narrow strip of land that is privately owned and on which the Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign 3 is proposed to be conshucted. �,� _4y� 3 4 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 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 3. The applicant first applied for a permit to establish a sign on this site, but appro�mately 160 feet west of this location, on February 10, 1997. It was to be a single sided sign facing east and constructed at 37.5 feet above grade. On Mazch 3, 1997, the applicant was notified that their application was being rejected because of a permit issued to Midwest Outdoor Advertising on Febraary 25, 1997 to allow them to construct a sign east of Vandalia and about 300 feet from where Universal was proposing to establish their sign. On Mazch 5, 1997, the applicant appealed the decision of the Director of the Office of Licenses, Inspection and Environmental Protection, contending that their applicafion was filed before that of Midwest Outdoor Advertising and, therefore, should have been granted. The appeal was heard by the Zoning Committee on April 17, 1997 and on May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making applicafion and being granted a variance of the Code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. The applicant agreed to suspend the appeal pending the outcome of such an application process. 4. The two sign companies subsequently crafted a proposal that involved moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they would both meet the State of Minnesota's S00 foot separarion requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. The new proposed site has led to a request for a height variance in addition to the separation variance. In the original locarion, the dimensions of the available land would allow the conshucrion of only a one-sided east-facing sign. Moving to the east would allow for a v-sign, but, in order to be seen from both directions, the applicant states that the sign would have to be elevated. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 20 foot height variance to allow the sign to extend up 57.5 feet. The proposed sign replaces non-conforming signs removed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. from locarions elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Sec6on 66302(b} of the Zoning code. That section provides, in gart, that: � � c. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a permitted use; The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height requirexnents as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and The advertising sign as zelocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2A� 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 34 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 The section goes on to state: °11-�4� (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residenfial disiricts, pazks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distauce requitements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This standard is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14 by 48 foot v- style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual circumstances related to the site relate to its relationship to an existing building and to its relationship to the e�sting and proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign. While the applicant would not have required any variances at the location they originally proposed, to resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be pemutted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies aze proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and indushy in the city represents a replacement of three non-conforming signs in other areas of the city where removal has enhanced the visual environment. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues pernuts for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state staiutes. The State does not have any height restricfion although their pernuts state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdicfion. Mimiesota Statutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d. The sign will not advet affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting. This standazd is met. The closest residential properry is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the yeaz, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not � 3 visible from the homes across the &eeway. Q7 � � 4 e. The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This staudard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there aze outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 1997, the Plaiming Commission, in Zoning File No. 97-56, pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislative Code and based upon the preceding findings of fact (Zoning File No. 97-169), approved the application of Midwest for the following sign variance at �� Vandalia Street: 1. A 30.5 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 68 feet requested and a maacimum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and 2. An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet (a separation beriveen advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimuxn of 667 feet allowed); and WHEREAS, on August 8, 1997, the Planning Commission, in Zoning File No. 97-57, pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislauve Code and based upon the preceding fmdings of fact (Zoning File No. 97-170), approved the application of Universal for the following sign variance at 2100 Gilbert Avenue (south side, east of Vandalia): 1. A 20 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 57.5 feet requested and a maYimum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and 2. An advertising sign sepazarion variance of 157.12 feet (a separafion between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed); and 3. An advertising sign separation variance of 157 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 510 feet requested and a minnnum of 667 feet allowed); and WHEREAS, on August 25, 1997, the Saint Anthony Pazk Community Council, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the detenuivation of the Planning Commission in Zoning Files No.'s 97-169 (Midwest) and 97-170 (LTniversal) to grant sign variances; and 1 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208 and upon 2 notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Council of the City of Saint 3 Paul [City Council] on September 24, 1997, where all interested parties were given an 4 opporhxnity to be heard; and q,7 �� 5 6 WF�REAS, the City Council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the 7 application, the reports of staff, the record, minutes and resolutions of the Planniug Commission; 8 DOES, HEREBY, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 RESOLVE, that the determivaiion of the Plauning Commission in these matters is hereby reversed based upon the following findings: The Planning Commission erred in deteruiiuiug that there were unusual conditions pertainiug to the specific building sites of each sign. If there were hazdships created by these sites, the hazdships were self-created. First, Midwest leased land from which a legally established billboazd could not have been seen from the freeway ... or from much of anyplace. Midwest also erected a sign which was 21 feet higher than MidwesYs permit allowed. Despite this, the sign is still bazely visible and Midwest is still requesting a sign height variance for a total of 30 feet. Second, Universal elected to move the site of its proposed sign from a place where no height variance was required in order to accommodate an agreement that would allow both Universal and MidwesYs to establish two signs in an area that can accommodate only one sign. Moreover, if the Midwest sign didn't exist, Universal would not have required a separation variance at its original location either. There is room for only one sign of regulation size and height in this general area. Universal has a lease for the land more suitable for this regulation sign. Midwest obtained its permit--for a sign of regulation size and height--but elected to build a sign which was taller than allowed under its permit.. Third, while the sign ordinance provides for sign credits when nonconforming signs aze removed, the sign ordinance also requires that replacement signs conform to the size and height requirements of the sign ordinance. The Planning Commission ened when it determined that granring the requested variances would not be contrary to the general intent of the sign ordinance. Finally, the Plamung Commission erred when it determined tha# the proposed signs would not be objectionable to adjacent properiy owners. The Zoning Committee file included a letter from an adjacent property owner opposing the variances. A second letter was received following the public hearing. Due to the development of the general azea, there aze few adjacent property owners. This point increases the significance of the two letters received in opposition to the ��E.iYF:iYLK�.`ll AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the above stated reasons, the appeal of the St. Anthony Park Community Council is hereby granted; AND, BE IT q1-14 �3 1 FURTI�R RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Midwest, 2 Universal, the appellant, the Zoning Adniiuistrator and the Planning Commission. t�ND BE IT 4 FINALLY RESOLVED, that during the interim period between the Council decision in this 5 matter and the passage of t3us resolution memorializiug the Council's decision, Universal has 6 represented to the Zoning Committee that a"settlement° concerning sign site location had been 7 reached but not yet formalized with Midwest, [which appeazs to make the original appeal of 8 Universal and any subsequent appeal by Midwest moot]. f[I] Requested by Department of: By: Form Appr d by City Attorney gY: -� /,Ti� ��r�, /(- 2S-`17 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY: a�._ n � Sy: Approved by Mayor: Date / i�'j.v �4 �- Hy: � �� — / Adopted by Council: Date ��. , �� \ �.q� \ �,�,N�,� crrY courrcu, Councilmember Megazd December 1. 1997 December 10, 1997 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET �� ° I'1-►�t?3 No 621i8 a�rrnwc� F � ❑ 611YAiMqEY ❑ CRYCEtK ❑wuxu.�aunraoa ❑wu�rJ.�aom,�eero ❑ r�vat�ae��assr,wp ❑ (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATUR� Finalizing Ciry Council action taken September 24, 1997 granting the appeal of St. Anthony Pazk Community CouncH to a decision of the Planning Commission granting variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor, Inc. to locate outdoor adverkising signs at the northeast corner of I-94 and Vandalia Street and at 2100 Gilbert Avenue respectively. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMIITEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IFAPPROYED k199::�P�a�; AMOUM OF TRANSACTION tSONAL SERYICE CANTRAC75 MUST ANSWER TNE FOLLAWING ( Has ihis Peisa�rtn everwaked urWer a conhact fw this dea�eM7 YES NO Has ihis peisoMim ever 6een a eilY empbyee9 YES NO Does fhis P�Mrm P� a sIdII not �armellYP� M anY curteM citY emWoyeeT YES NO Is tlus µvsarJfifin e tergetetl venda? YES NO COST/REVENUE BUOGETED (GRCLE ONE) YES NO /ICTNITY NUMBER in/4ji:1r3S `�.'k.;.i.'...`e! uSa�.d __�. �' _ �JJ� OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY Peg Birk City Attorney 9� - I'{7 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor c�.,torvrs:on 400 City Hall I S West Ke7loggBlvd Saint Paul, Mrnnesota 55702 TeZephone: 672 266-8 77 0 Facsunile: 672 298-S6I9 November26, 1997 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretazy Saint Paul City Council Room 310 Saint Paul City Ha11 RE: Appeal of St. Anthony Park Community Council, (Zoning File No. 97-220) heard on September 24,1997. Dear Nancy: Attached please find an original resolution, signed as to form, memorializing the decision of the City Council in the above entitled matter. This matter should be placed upon the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, ' i.G6/�7G Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney , : 7 • ;,,;�� t: s ` r � 3 1g9� DEPART'MENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMENT Pome(a Wheelocl, Disector CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 WestFourth Street SaintPauI,MN55102 q�-14 �13 G\ Telephane: 612-2666655 Facsimile: 612-22&326I �"s� �� i�fi't�?' August 28, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: ;;;; ; � � i997 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, September 24, 1997 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision granting variances for the establishment of two advertising signs: Appellant: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL File Number: #97-169 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision granting variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising for the establishment of an advertising sign. Address: Northeast comer of I-94 and Vandalia Legal Description of Property: See Survey in File Previous Action: Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 15-1-1, August 8, 1997 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 5-0, July 31, 1997 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the September 10, 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6557 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �"(��- 9�� Nancy Homans City Planner cc: File #97-169 Mike Kraemer Donna Sanders � � `araricn oF rbsuc aenxnva . _ The Saint Paul CiLy Councff will' conduct a public hearing on Wednesday; Septemtier.24; 1997 at 4:30 g.m. in the City Councff Chambers, Third Floo� Citp = Hall-Court House,-to consider the appeal of St Anthony Pazk CommtuuYy Council .= to'a decision of thcPlannin Commission granting variances to Midwest Outdonr - Advpsti�; ��for establishment of- an advertising sign at the Northeast corner of - I-94 and Vandalia Street. - _ , , _ , Dated: September 3, 1997 � �- _ . - - . . . PFfi1VGY ANDERSON � � ' , . . -�- _ _ , _ _. _ -,,.. _ � � -- -ASSistant City Councik Secretary � ->- �� -- - - , � - -.- , ,(SeP4e'mber,6: �k997} � - " _ - ,�, I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pamela Whee7ock, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 WestFounh Street SaintPaul,,NN55102 ��-1y?3 Telephane: 612-266-6655 Facsimile: 612-228-3261 u� �. i August 28, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research O�ce Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: i�� 2 � i3�7 1 would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, September 24, 1997 for the fotlowing appeal of a Planning Commission decision granting variances for the establishment of two advertising signs: Appellant: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL File Number: #97-170 Purpose: Appeal a Pianning Commission decision granting variances to Universal Outdoor, Inc. for the establishment of an advertising sign. '�� Address: 2100 Gilbert Avenue Legal Description of Property: See Survey in File Previous Action: Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 15-1-1, August 8, 1997 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 5-0, July 31, 1997 My understanding is that this public hearing request wilf appear on ihe agenda for the September 10, 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6557 if you have any questions. Sincerely, l �` � ��/ Nancy Homans City Planner cc: File #97-170 Mike Kraemer Donna Sanders ��he; septemb,e zFlall: Eoui to a decisi Inc. for e, D'ated: Se N2'INCIs ltl Ass:staztt. ao2res oi+_g[�sErc a�a�rG Patil City Cpuncii wiH �coaducf a public - hearP � 1997 at4:30 p.m. in the'G�ty Gauncil-Ckamfiet ise, to�onsider the annealof Si: nnth�n., ra�k� � �. - - � I � on� Wed'nesdav. ....�.r�a.uuug .,ommiss:on grannng vaziances to IInivers lishment of an. advertising sign, at 2200 Gilbert Avet;ue. �ber.3, i987 " _ _ iRSON� _::;;�:�.r ` � _ - - � � � rCouncil SecaNCaiy � � � ' - :- ,: "' . . ; ° _`�Septemb�e7 6, 1997) . . . \�PED33VSYSVSHARP.D�NPI-PZONECASE�91170APLCFM ,+ t � & ECO OMIC O MP ENT (.� Pamela Wheelack Director �� _' • �� CTTY OF SA]NT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor rr�r Septembez 11, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota S S 1 Q2 • • 25 West Fourth Sireet Sain[ Pav(, MN55102 Zelephone: 612-266-6655 Facsimile: 6l2-228-326/ RE: Zoning Fale #97-220: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMTJNITY COUNCIL (Note new file number. File replaces Zoning Files #97-169 and #97-170) City Council Hearing: September 24, 1997 4:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Pi1RPOSF.: Appeal planning commission decisions granting sign variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor, Inc. to locate outdoor advertising signs at the northeast corner of I-94 and Vandalia and at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, respectively. PT ANNTtQC; COMMISCION ASTTON• APPROVAL 15-1 (in each case) 70NiNCC .�MNiITTEF RRC'(�MMF.NDATiON: APPROVAL 5-0 (in each case) STARF RF,C OMMFNDATION: DENIAI, (in each case) STTPPORT: No persons spoke. OPPOSITTON: One person spoke in opposition to both applications. One letter was received. The District 12 St. Anthony Pazk Communiry Council, Merriam Park Community Council and University LINITED all opposed the variances in both cases. Dear Ms. Anderson: The ST. ANTHONY PAItK COMMiJNITY COUNCIL has appealed the decisions of the Saint Paul Planning Commission, in separate cases, to grant sign variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor, Inc. to allow the installation of outdoor advertising signs on property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of I-94 and Vandalia and 2100 Gilbert Avenue, respectively. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the requests on July 31, 1997. Each applicant addressed the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variances in each case. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for approval on a vote of 15 to 1 in each case on August 8, 1997. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1997. Please nofify me (6-6557) if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the sites presented at the public hearing, Sincerely, �a�y I�omanp� Northwest Quadrant Staff Attachments cc: City Council members 1 � ' � � • i q t 1 , , n LJ TYPE OF A.PPEAt: Appficat'�on is hereby made for an appeai to the: C Board of Zoning Appeals � City Councif under th� provisions ot Chapter 64, Section 206 , P2ragraph a of the Zoning Code, to appea! a decisipn made by the P1 anni n9 Commi sion on A ugu s t 11 , 19 97 File number. 97- 69 and 97-7 70 (d�te o� decisiorJ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL• Expfain why you feel there has been an error in any requiremen:, pz;r,i;, dec�s�on o- refusai made by Gn admini;trativ> oniciai, or zn e�ror in fact, procedur2 cr imd�ng !nace by the 6oard of Zoning Appea'�s or ihe Plznning Gommiss:on. SEE ATTACHMFNT n LJ .r� r f�„JG-12-1957 11��! =�T F'HUL F'L�;it:.11i, �- E_Ot� - APP4ICATIQA! FOR APPEAL .Department oJPlnnning and .Economic Developm¢nt Znxiirg Seclion 1100 City� Hall Annex ZS 6�'est Fourfh Street Sarnt Paut, MN 55102 Z6b-6589 °l'1-1y �� V1= �G� JJS4 ♦ F.C�_ �� :, � Fafl� ,�n� aim " ``�_ :�fs .fative #�earji � APPELl.ANT Name St. Anthonv Park Commun�v Council � Address g90 Cromwell Ave. � City St. Paul g�, MN Zi 551 14 Daytime phone pRQPERTY Zoning File Name Midwest Outdoor Advertisinq 97-169 & j LOCATION � � -f�dt�ssfLveeE+c�r+- Uni versal Outdnor Tn 9�-� � — — Midwest - NE corner of I-94 and Vandalia, Universal - 2100 Gi lbert Ave., SE side of Vandalia �� A!tach add:GOr,a! shee! d r,ecessary) T St_ nthonV Par�C Community Counc9l q � Ip C . � �� jn:..L......i'e elnnoYi�ro .... �J1L1,4.2�._ � 0 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION • TO GRANT FIVE (5) VARIANCES TO TWO (2) BILLBOARD COMPAI3IES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF (2) BILLBOARDS AT I-94 AND VANDALIA. I. Zoning Ordinance. q .�,1N'I� Saint Paul Zoning Code, Chapter 66, qoverns the erection of billboards in Saint Paul. The last major revision of Chapter 66 occurred in 1987 and provides that the minimum distance between billboards on interstate freeways is 1,000 feet. The height limit for all billboards in Saint Paul, including freeway billboards, is 37.5 feet. Zoning Code §66.214(b). The Zoning Code also provides for "non-conforming sign face • credits." A billboard, which complied with the Zoning Code when erected, and became non-conforming because of a subsequent change to the Zoning Code, is a legal non-conforming billboard. If a billboard company removes leqal non-conforming billboards that company is grar.ted non-conforming sign face credits can be used in the erection of new billboards. These oredits All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b), .. but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing requirements in section 66.21�(b). Zoning Code §66.302(b)(6)(c). Thus the use of non-conforming sign face credits along I-94 could reduce the minimum distance requirement between billboards from 1,000 feet to 667 feet. ' , n, _„ .. �_____,_ � �� a ��- -z . • 1 TI. Background. Two billboards, owned by Fairway and Adams billboard companies • were, until recently, 2ocated on the North side of I-94 between Vandalia and Cleveland. The Fairway billboard was a one-sided billboard showing advertisements to the west bound flow of tra£fic on I-94. The Adams billboard is a two-sided billboard. Neither billboard received a variance from zoning code restrictions. The Fairway bi2Zboard, was remnved when it was found to be in the highway right-of -way. The Adams billboard remains on the property of Ivy League Place at 475 Cleveland Avenue. When the Fairway billboard was removed two other sign companies made application to erect a billboard to replace the one removed. In November, 1996, Midwest Outdoor Advertising first submitted an application for a billboard 72 square foot in sign • area and a height of 15 feet above grade. On February 10, 2497, Universal Outdoor applied £or an permit to erect a one-sided, 37 foot tall billboard on property leased at 2100 Gilbert. Neither the Midwest billboard nor the Universal billboard, as described in their applications, required variances from the Zoning Code. On February 21, 1997, Midwest resubmitted an appZication for a larger and taller billboard. This second application revised biidwest's first application and called for a 648 square foot billboard, 37 feet "above qrade," Again, Midwest's billboard, as described in its second application did not require variances. Midwest's second application noted the use of 648 sauare feet o� non-confort�ing sign face credits. This was necessary because the � G F�LE �" � ��11� 0 %�-1�� proposed site of the Midwest billboard was within 1,000 feet, but • greater than 667 feet, from the existinq Adams billboard to the east. The City, office of License, Inspection and Environmental Inspection (LIEP) approved the second Midwest billboard application and issued a construction permit. On February 24, 1997, Universal completed its application by submitting additional information and materials as requested by LIEP. On Maxch 3, 1997, LIEP denied Universal's application because of the proximity of Universal's proposed billboard to the proposed Midwest billboard for which LIEP had issued a permit. On March 5, 1997, Universal appealed the decisions to grant Midwest's billboard application and to deny Univezsal's billboard . application. LIEP wrote to Midwest informing that company of Universal's appeal and that any billboard erected was erected at Midwest's sole ris!c. Despite the pending appeal, and LIEP's warning, Midwest constructed a two-sided billboaxd 68 feet above qrade! Midwest's billboard is 30.5 feet higher than allowed by the zoning code, 31 feet higher than indicated in Midwest's construction application, and 31 feet higher than allowed by the construction permit. When this violation of the Zoninq Code and construction pernit became known to LIEP, that office wrote a letter, dated April 28, 1997, to Midwest telling that company to reduce the billboard in kteight or seek a variance allowing the greater heiaht. The matter of Universal's appeal was before the Zoning • 3 � No '�� FILE 9 �•ZZ.o --___ � Committee on April 17, and May l, 1997. The Zoning Committee has • never decided the matter of Universal's appeal. On May 5, and June 18, 1997 Universal and Midwest, respectively, applied for variances which would allow the construction of two two-faced billboards. Midwest appZied for a height variance of 30.5 feet and a distance variance of 157.12 feet, reducing the distance between its billboard and Universal's proposed billboard to 509.88 feet. Universal applied for a height variance of 20 feet and two distance variances of 157.12 and 157 feet. The distance variances would reduce the distance between the Universal billboard and the Midwest billboard to 509.88 feet and the distance between the Universal billboard and the Adams billboard to 510 feet. In effect two billboards were squeezed into a space where one billboard was removed. The Zoning Committee heard the matter of the variances on July 31, 1997. The Zoning Committee (five members voting) voted unanimously to allow all five variances. The Zoning Committee recommended to the Planning Commission at the Planning C.ommission's August 8, 1997, meeting that the variances be allowed. The Planning Commission, at the August 8th public meeting, at which no public testimony was a2lowed, voted to allow a11 five variances. �O /1 t,�� . �� F �`� 9J• _�� •. 0 q �_�,��3 • III. opposition. The Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development (PED), Saint Anthony Park Community Council, Merriam Park Community Council., Bniversity United, and an adjoining land owner; Ivy League Place, all oppose the issuance of any variance for any billboard on the North side of I-94 between Vandalia and Cleveland. These entities do not necessarily oppose the construction of a billboard to replace the removed Fairway billboard. They oppose the issuance of variances from Zoning Code restrictions. IV. Grounds for Appeal. a) Errors in Procedure. � i. The Zonina Committee Inaoprooriatelv ProDOSed _the Var�ances to Resolve Universal's Anpeal. The Planning Commission Resolutions allude to the critical issue o£ who initiated the concept of allowing both billboards to be erected. The only issue before the Zoning Committee at its April 17, 1997, meeting was Universal's appeal of the issuance of a billboard construction permit to Midwest and denial of Universal's application to erect a billboard. "Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal • Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution of the appeal miqht involve permitting both signs provided that they could meek the 50o foot senaration reguired by state law." Resolution, Zoning File #97-169, p. 3. "The appeal was heard by the Zoninq Committee on Apri1 17, 5 �� 'j.� /�•220 �' 1997 and May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve • permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law." Resolution, Zoning File #97-170, p. Z• These statements are misleading and give a false impression of this critical issue. It was Zoning Committeemember Gordon who first proposed, at the April 17th meeting, that both billboards be erected making it unnecessary for the Zoning Committee to decide Universal's appeal. He asked Ms. Lane of LIEP "Can we permit both signs?" To which Ms. Lane responded the Planning Commission could "always grant variances." Later in the April 17th meeting Zoning Committeemember Gordon asked Mr. Cronin of Universal "You would be satisfied with a• resolution of this matter that provided £or Midwest and Universal to have a sign?" Mr. Cronin's reaction was not enthusiastic. He responded: "As long as they [Midwest] built their sign as applied for and permitted by law." That is, provided there be no height variance. Since the April 17th Zoning Committee meetinq Cor.unitteemembers Gordon and Vaught have championed the idea of issuing whatever variances might allow the erection of both billboards. Comnitteemember Vaught again raised the idea of variances at the May lst Zoning Committee meeting. He asked Ms. Lane of_LIEP whether the cor�nittee would have the ability to vary the requirements of the Zoning Code to allow both biliboards. Zoning • 6 Z �� FoLE �--__ • ZZo �� • Committee Minutes, May lst, 1997, p• 4- Universal's Mr. Cronin was more direct at the July 31st Zoning Committee meeting. He stated that it was his understanding "that the Zoning Committee had asked the two companies to find a way to fit both signs." Zoning Committee Minutes, July 31st, p. 1. Further, Committeemember Vaught stated at the July 31st meeting that it was incumbent on the Zoning Committee to clean up a "problem created by the division of LIEP." Zoning Committee Minutes, �uly 31st, p. 2. Committeemember Vaught has been very direct in his criticisms of Mr. Ressler who heads the LIEP office. It is the function of the Planning Commission to hear matters which come before it. It is not the function of the Planning Commission to first suggest and then advocate for the issuance of • variances. The Committee shall, upon proper notification, conduct public hearings on ... the various types of �oninQ apolications that are duties of the planning commission. Administrative Code, 107.03. Here, the issue before the Zoning Committee at the April 17th hearing was Universal's appeal and nothing more. Had the Zoning Committee ruled on Universal's appeal, as was their duty, the issue of variances would never have arisen. But rather than ruling on Universal's appeal, Committeemembers Gordon and Vaught sought to avoid a difficult decision by suggesting the erection of both billboards. The Zoning Committee tabled �Jniversal's appeal at its April 17th meeting at the urging of committeemembers Gordon and Vaught. Subseguer.tly these same . Comr,iissioners advocated for what was, in fact, their idea: the � '�� Ft�.E 9�??_0 issuance of all variances needed to construct two two-sided signs. The Planning Committee Resolution allowing Universal's three variances gets close to the truth. (Remember Universal's billboard construction application was for a one-sided, 37 foot tall sign requirinq no variances.) "Plhile the applicant wouid not have required any variances at the location they original2y proposed, to resolve a dis�ute between two comnetinQ companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sian that the zonina code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity." Resolution, Zoning File #97-170, p. 3-4. By first suggesting, and then advocating for the issuance of variances, the Zoning Committee abandoned all pretext of being an • impartial decision-maker. Midwest's and Universal's applications . for variances would not have been in front of the Zoning Committee had that committee not strongly suggested the sign companies submit the applications. When the variance applications were eventually submitted there could be no doubt the Zoning Committee would grant them. Advocacy of the issuance of variance is an abuse of the Zoning Committee's and the Planning Commission's discretion. ii. Zonina Code Standards were ImproneTlv Applied. The Zoning Code specifies certain standards that must be met before a variance to the Zoning Code can be issued. Section 6 of each Planning Co��ittee Resolution apply these standards to each applicant's variances as a unit rather than applying the standards 8 �� • r �� °�� 9� a , , _�y�� to each variance requested. Each standard is applied equally to • height and separation distance variances. Each standard must be applied independently to eacri of the five variances. For example: a site location which was unusual and justifies a heiqht variance does not necessarily justify a separatior. distance variance. iii. Zoning Committee Renort to the Plannina Commission was Whollv Inadequate. The Zoning Committee's report to the Planning Commission on August 8th prior to the Planning Commission's issuance of the variances was wholly inadequate. Inadequacies include: * The Zoning Committee Chair's report did not mention any opposition to issuance of the variances. When the representative • from Merriam Park Community Council rose to speak on this point she was told to be quiet and sit down. * The Zoning Committee`s report contained no discussion of applying zoninq Code standards to the variances. (One member of the Planninq Commission made it clear he did not know what standards to apply to his decision.) * Again, Commissioners Vaught and Gordon advocated for the issuance of these variances as a way of fixing LIEP's "mistake." b) Error in Fact. Neither Midwest nor Universal has sufficient non-conforming sign face credits to allow the construction of the proposed two- sided billboards. LIEP has misapplied a provision of the zoning • code such that a billboard company need remove as little as one- 9 �� half the non-conforming sign face square footage needed to erect a • new billboard at two-thirds the distance separation. According to LIEP's interpretation, a billboard company could take down a one- sided, non-conforming billboard and use those credits to erect a two-sided billboard where each side of the new billboard is the same dimensions as the one side removed. Non-conforming sign face credits can be used to double display surface area and reduce the required distance between billboards by one-third! This doubling effect is possible by LIEP's misapplication of a provision of the Zoning Code. Only one side of a double-faced sign or V-shaped sign shall be used to compute the gross surface display area, display surface area, or sign area of a sign. Zoning Code §66.201(14). The maximum gross surface display area of business signs, for example, is 75 square feet. Zoning Code §66.205(1). The maximum �. gross surface display area for a billboard along I-94 is 700 square feet. Zoning Code §66.214(b). When calculating these limits only one side of a two-sided sign is measured. The term "nonconforming sign face credit" is omitted from the above provision. Yet LIEP interprets the provision to apply to non-conforming sign face credits. We contend the LIEP office �isapplies the above provision which misapplication results in insufficient non-conforming sign face credits being required for the subject billboards. LIEP has read the term "non-conforming sign face credit`" into the above provision. This is an abuse of that office's discretion. ZO ��N� • 10 �`,� C ♦ c Q� _�Z` q ,� _ �y �3 • c) Errors in Findings. The Zoning Code specifies the standards which must be met before the Planning Commission can qrant a variance. See g66.409. Again, each of these standards must be applied to each oP the five subject variances. The Planning Commission did not do this. i. "Unique sign or unusual conditions pertainina to sian needs for a specific buildinq or lot.!' * Universal's Heiaht Variance: This standard is not met. No one suggests that these billboards are unique. They are standard highway billboards. Nor are there any unusual conditions pertaining to the specific lot or construction site which would support a height variance. On the contrary, the existing Adams billboard, built 500 feet east of the � proposed Universal billboard site, is a two-sided billboard clearly visible from I-94 at a height of 37 feet. Indeed, LSniversal's billboard application is for a billboard 37 feet tal1. * rt,,;. � �S Two Dxstance Variances: This standard is not met. The Planning Commission did not apply this standard to Universal's distance variances. There are simply no "unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot" which justify either Universal distance variance. The only justification mentioned by the Planning Commission is that the two sign companies have agreed that each be granted distance variances to resolve their dispute. Resolution, Zoning File #97-170, p. 3. - That one sign company does not object to, or even encourages, � the issuance of a variance to another siqn corpany is not a �� t� 9�.2 -.`io standard to be applied by the Planning Commission to the issuance of variances. � * M�dwest's Heiaht Variance: This standard is not met. Midwest has constructed their billboard at a height that allows both sides of its billboard to be seen from I-94. If Midwest had been restricted to the 37 foot height, the west face of the billboard would not be visible from the west because of the Vandalia overpass. Rather than limit their billboard to a one side, billboard Midwest seeks a 30.5 foot height variance on top of the 37.5 feet height allowed by the Zoning Code. The resulting 68 foot height is nearly double the height allowed by the Zoning Code and nearly double the height of the Adams billboard approximately 1,000 feet to the east. In order to find unusual conditions pertaining to the site of � Midwest's billboard it is necessary to conclude that overpasses along I-94 are unusual. I-94 was constructed beneath the level of neighboring roads requiring many overpasses. We disagree with the Planning Commission that an overpass is an unusual condition. * M�d west's Distance Var�ance: This standard is not met. Regardless of whether the overpass might justify a height variance, the overpass cannot justify a distance variance. Again, the only justification nentioned by the Planning Commission is that issuance of the variance would resolve a dispute between the sign companies. That consideration is irrelevant. /Z �� , �G �� , z • iz � q'I _�y� 3 ii. �,�t,.ary to the General Intent nF the Chaater • *�;vPrsal's and Midwest's Heiaht & Distance Variances: This standard is not met. The general intent of Chapter 66 regarding non-conforming sign face credits is to encourage removal of billboards which violate provisions of the 2oning Code and replace those billboards with billboards which do comply. To encourage the use of non-conforming sign face credits the Zoning Code allows a one-third refluction in the distance requirement. All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits sha11 comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b), .. but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing requirements in section 66.214(b). Zoning Code §66.302(b)(6)(c). It is the intent of the Zoning Code, through the use of non- conforming sign credits, to bring Saint PaUl billboards into • greater compliance with that Code's provisions. This intent is defeated if the billboards built with non-conforming sign face credits do not themselves otherwise conform with height and distance provisions. In the words of the Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development "The intent of the code is to move toward overall conformance with the provisions of the sign ordinance. Granting [these} variances would move the city away from the balance intended in the code." Zoning Committee Staff Report, Suly 24, 1997, p. 4. u /�� I/�� . e � j �F 13 � �2� iii. S�'eate a Hazard F7e make no comment other than to note the west face of • Midwest's billboard is now close to the Vandalia street overpass. The proposal is to move it 50 feet closer. This proximity alone raises concerns of a traffic hazard. iv. Violate State S atutes Rules or ReQUlations. We make no comment. v. Not Objectionable to Adiacent p"ooertv Owners• * Universal's Aeiaht =nd Distance Varian�es: This standard in not met. It is first necessary to note the owners of property adjacent to the proposed site of the i3niversal billboard. The railroad borders the North side of the property and I-94 borders the South. The railroad is an interested party because it is leasing space to Midwest for its billboard. There is • no west side. The East side is bordered by Ivy League Place. Ivy League Place has lodged a timely, written objection. The objection reads in part: "��7e have an Adams advertising sign on our property that is in compliance with the City's ordinance and feel that both Midwest outdoor and Universal Outdoor should likewise be held to the same standards." vi. Adverselv Affect Residential Propertv• We make no comment vii. In keeoina W'th the General Character of ttte Area. We make no comr.ient. � �oA� � �� G �o • � 9� z �Z°/ -- ��-iN�� v. Conclusion. • The Planning Commission has no authority to issue any variance which fails any of the above standards. As has been shown the Midwest and Universal variances, each, fail at least.one Zoning Code standard. Thus the Planning Commission does not have the authority to issue any of these five variances. • . /��! �� ol� 9 15 �� Correspondence Received After Zoning Committee Public Hearing � � � • • � ATERTOWER �SSOCIATES - L 1 SSO Vandalia 5treet St. pAUI, MN 5511d August 7, 1997 Mr. David McDonneli St. Paul Planning Commission 25 W. 4`" Street �`1100 St. Paui, MN �5102 Re: Sign Vaziance Heazing - I94 & Vandalia Dear Aave, q� -1y�l3 (612)b46-280[ Fax: 642-256� 1 just retumed from a vacation and discovered in my mail that 1 have missed a hearing retating to Outdoor Advertising Sign Variances adjacent to my business property I want you and the Commission to know that I am vehemently opposed to grantin� the variances as have been requested. The Midwest Sign is immediate]y adjacent to my building. it is 20' too high, where i1 blocks the view to private signage on my building. lt is also too close to the next nearest sign, which requires another vaziance. I am the property owner most affected by this illegal, ill-placed, monstrosity of a sign. My opposition is based on the practical consideration as already noted, but also on the principle of granting variances to ordinances very judiciously. Sign ordinances, especially, are designed ta guarantee some environmental and aesthetic decorwn to our neighborhoods. This pazticular situation is a mistake that shou[d be secognized as such, and not aifow a variance. Many thanks for your and the Commission's consideration. P(ease say "NO". Sincereiy, l G. chard� Partner GRP/dt�r . � . � , � 707RL F•�� a �..14' 13 � Ptanning Commission Resoiutions P{anning Commission Minutes August 8, 1997 � � ��r �� city of saint paul planning comm�ssion resolution file number 9�-5 date Au�st $ 1997 C� WF�,REAS, MIDWEST OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, file #97-169, has apptied for two Sign Variances under the provisions of Section 66.409 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow an existing advertising sign to be relocated: 1) a 30.5 foot sign height variance requested (a sign height of 68 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet aitowed) on progerty located at X3�,Y VANDALIA STREET, legally described in the file; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on 7uly 31, 1997, at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said apglication in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the 5aint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Corrunittee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant proposes to move an existing outdoor advertising sign approximately fifty feet to the west and construct it at a height of sixty-eight (68) feet above grade. Two variances-- of maximum height and of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs intended to be seen from a freeway be 1,000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 1038.82 feet west of an existing Adams Company sign and 803 feet east of an e�cisting 3M Company sign. In addition, the proposed site is 509.88 feet west of a sign proposed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that would be 68 feet from grade. The grade at which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadway bed. �� moved by Field �� seconded by �A�l� in favor 15 a�4�,t 1 (G°isser� (Kramer abstained) � s� �� L`D Zoning File #97-I69 Page Two of Resolution 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height requirements ofthe Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much ofthe land in the vicinity is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right-of-way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. It is on this railroad land that Midwest Outdoor Advertising proposes to construct its sign. 3. Midwest Outdoor Advertising filed an application for an outdoor advertising sign on Friday, February 21, 1997. The sign was to be located in the rai(road right-of-wayjust east of Vandalia Street and north of the westbo�nd I-94 off-ramp, 50 feet east from where the sign is presently proposed. The application stated that the sign would be installed at 37 feet above grade. • The applicant constructed the sign at its current location and at its cunent height (58 feet , above grade) sometime after being issued a permit by the Saint Paul Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) on February 25, 1997. (The application stated that it was estimated that the sign wovld be constructed between March 15 and March 30, 1997.) On March 7, 1997, the applicant was notified of an appeal fifed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The letter from Robert Kessler to Midwest Outdoor Advertising notifying them of the appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. stated: "Ifyou choose to proceed and Universal's appeal is approved by the Planning Commission, it woutd be your responsibility to remove the sign at your expense." On April 17, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission met to consider the appeal of the LIEP decisioa by Universat Outdoor, Inc. The matter was laid over until the May 1, 1997 committee meeting. On Apri128, 1997, a letter was sent to Midwest Outdoor Advertising by Robert Kessler notifying them.that their sign was constructed in violation of their pernut inasmuch as it was 58 feet from the base to the top of the sign--not 37.5 feet as required. The company was fur[her notified that continued use of the sign would require a variance from the Planning Commission. (The applicant has maintained that the construction of their sign was consistent with their understanding that sign height was to be measured from the top of the I-94 e�cit . ramp rather than the roadbed. The fact--and longstanding practice--that the measurement Z�N�NG F�� Z2� o i u r L_ Zoning File #97-169 Page Three ofResolution � is to be taken from the main roadbed was clarified by a Minor Zoning Amendment adopted by the Planning Commission on July 11, 1997.) On May 1, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission devoted a significant amount of time to a consideration of the issues associated with which of two sign companies should be pernutted to construct a sign within an area where the Zoning code would allow only one. Because of different procedures followed by different staff members in the Office of Licenses Inspections and Environmental Protection, both applicants asserted that they should have been considered "first," and, therefore, been approved. Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution of the appeal might involve pemutting both signs provided that they could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance of the code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. Universal Outdoor, Inc. elected to suspend its appeal and file an application for such a variance. 4. The two companies, after the May 1, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting, crafted a proposal that would involve moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they both wouid meet the State of Minnesota's 500 feet separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-confomung signs removed by Midwest Outdoor Advertising elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66302(b) of the Zoning code. That section provides, in part, that: a. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a pemutted use; b. The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height requirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and c. The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: � `��- a�� 2� Zoning File #97-169 Page Four ofResolution (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face crediYs shall comply wiYh the size aad height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, parks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance requirements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicanPs request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as £ollows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needr to the site This condition is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14 by 48 foot v- style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual conditions related to the site that have led to this application include: (1) Topography. The site selected by the applicant and leased from the railroad is depressed to allow for the passage of trains under the Vandalia Street bridge. A sign constructed within the 37.5 feet height limit outlined in the Zoning code would not be clearly visible from I-94. • (2) Separation from the proposed Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign. To resolve a dispute • between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfui(y Iocate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning cade. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concem for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of 14 non=confornung signs in other areas of the city where the removal has enhanced the visual environment. c. The sign will nof create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues pernuts for ali signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restrictions althoagh their pernuts state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. Minnesota Statutes require that signs be located no • closer than 500 feet apart. ,� —�� Z ��'N� �'�� 9 . �.-�?--� �� , {�d� � . Zoning File #97-169 Page Five of the Resolution d The sign wi11 not adversely affect resirlential property through excessive glare and lighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. e The sign would noi be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advert+sing signs at regular intervals. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paui Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for the following Sign Variances to allow an e�sting advertising sign to be relocated to X�'Y VANAALIA STREET is hereby approved: 1. A 30.5 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 68 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed). '�� _� � ��g� 9 z � �,� city of saint paul � planning commission resolution file number 97-57 �te P.ugust 8, 1997 • �� _ WHEREAS, ZJNIVERSAL OUTDOOR, INC., file #97-170, has applied for Sign Variances under the provisions of Section 66.409 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow an advertising sign: 1) a 20 foot sign height variance requested (a sign height of 57.5 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet from a sign to the west requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed); and 3) an advertising sign separation variance of 157 feet requested (a separation between advertising signs of S 10 feet from a sign to the east requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed) on property located at 2100 GILBERT AVENLTE, legally described as see file; and WI�REAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 31, 1997, at which alf persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings offact: 1. The applicant proposes to construct an outdoor advertising sign on private property located at 2100 Gilbert adjacent to the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp from I-94. Three variances-- of maximum height and two of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs be 1000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 510 feet west of an e�cisting Adams Company sign, thus requiring a variance of 157 feet. It is also 509.88 feet from a proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign, requiring a variance of 157.12 feet. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is moved by Field � secorxied by . in favor 15 a!'ta��t 1 t�isser) ��,. �� G F! —�E . _� � (Kramer Abstained) Zoning Fi(e #9?-170 Page Two of the Resolution intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that wou(d e�ctend 57.5 feet from the grade, 20 feet higher than allowed in the code. The grade on which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadbed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side ofthe westbound VandaIia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-44 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount ofprivately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height requirements of the Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land is publicly owned and associated wiYh the I-94 and Vandatia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right of way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. In between the railroad and I-94 rights-of-way is a narrow strip ofland that is privately owned and on which the Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign is proposed to be constructed. � The applicant first applied for a permit to establish a sign on this site, but appro�cimately 160 feet west of this location, on February 10, 1997. It was to be a singie sided sign facing east and constructed at 37.5 feet above grade. � On March 3, 1997, the applicant was notified that their application was being rejected because of a pernut issued to Midwest Outdoor Advertising on February 25, 1997 to allow them to construct a sign east o£ Vandalia and about 300 feet from where Universal was proposing to establish their sign. On March 5, 1997, the applicant appealed the decision of the Director of the Office of Licenses, Inspection and Environmental Protection, contending that their appiication was filed before that of Midwest Outdoor Advertising and, therefore, should have been granted. The appeal was heard by the Zoning Committee on April 17, 1997 and on May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance of the Code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. The applicant agreed to suspend the appeal pending the outcome of such an application process. 4. The two sign companies subsequently crafted a proposal that involved moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they wo Id both meet the State of � ��/�� '�E��, -� . q�_1�1'�3 � Zoning File #97-170 Page Three of Resolution Minnesota's 500 foot separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. The new proposed site has led to a request for a height variance in addition to the separation variance. In the original location, the dimensions of the available land would allow the construction of only a one-sided east-facing sign. Moving to the east would allow for a v- sign, but, in order to be seen from both directions, the applicant states that the sign would have to be elevated. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 20 foot height variance to allow the sign to extend up 57.5 feet. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-conforming signs removed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. from locations elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66.302(b) of the Zoning code. That section provides, in part, that: a. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a pernutted use; b. The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height • requirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and c. The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, parks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance requirements in section 66214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This standard is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14 by 48 foot v- style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual circumstances related to the site relate to its relationship to an existing building and to its relationship to the e�sting and proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising • sign. While the applicant would not have required any variances at the location they originally proposed, to resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to �� F �L E 9 � z �,o --�---_ � Zoning File #97-170 Page Four of Resolution which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfuily locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. T'he proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of three non-conforming signs in other areas of the city where removal has enhanced the visual environment. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Staiutes or rules and regulations. • This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues pernuts for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restriction although their pemuts state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. � Minnesota Statutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d The sign will not adversely affect residential property through ezcessive glare and lighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and offramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. � The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to ihe proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the sumounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway comdor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals. ZONING FILE 9'=_0 � � - - - q� -14�� . Zoning File #97-170 Page Five of Resolut'son NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 6y the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for the foilowing Sign Variances to allow an advertising sign at 2100 GILBERT AVENTJE is hereby approved: A 20 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 57.5 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and �� • 2. An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed); and 3. An advertising sign separation variance of 157 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 510 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed). ��I�OB�� LE 9� z �?o �'1-I�l'�� • Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting ofthe Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, Au�ust 8, 1997, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissionen Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Geisser, Maddox, Nordin, and Treichel, and Messrs. Chavez, Present: Field Jr., Gordon, Gurney, Johnson, Kong, Kramer, McDonell, Nowlin, Vaught and Wilson Commissioners Mmes. *Faricy and *Wencl, and Messrs. *Mardell, and *Sharpe Absent: *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Pla�ning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Patricia James, and Roger Ryan, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; Fred Ocwsu, City Clerk; and Tom Beach from the Department of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. • I. Swearing in of Jennifer Engh Fred Owusu, City Clerk, swore in our latest Planning Commission appointee, Jennifer Engh. Ms. Engh stated that she is a resident of Irvine Park. Currently, she is serving as the Assistant Commissioner for Tax Policy at the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Her entire life has been involved in serving at different levels of government: she's worked at the U.S. Senate; the White House; the Minnesota Legislature; she's lobbied; worked in the Carlson Administration for five years at the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development; and now at the Department of Revenue. II. Chair's Annouucements Chair McDonald announced that there will be an orientation for ne�v Commission members immediately followin� today's Planning Commission meeting. He announced that the public hearing on proposed zonina regulations for large metal shredders will take place at the next Commission meeting, Friday, August 22, 1997. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford reported that he has had a few calls in the past week in response to the Land Use Opportunities Paper, which the Nei�hborhood Planning and Land Use Committee has been working on very hard for the last several weeks. The issue paper has been broadly • distributed in the community. It projects many very important concepts for a new land use plan. It encompasses many ideas that the Commission has talked about, and included some �zo��NG ��L� 9��Z�E principles for future development in the City that come from the Saint Paul on the Mississippi River Development Framework. • IV. Zoning CommiEtee #97-146 James F Thomas - Sign Variance at 1941 Grand Avenue. Commissioner Field explained that the appticant proposes to place a mural on three sides of his building, and there is some signage associated with the mural. Mr. Roger Ryan presented information on vazious aspects of the wine glass and LIEP's determination that it is a part of a sign. Mr. Ryan explained that part of the complexity of Yhis case is distinguishing between murals and signs. Murals are not regulated by the Zoning Code. Scenery murals ue a permitted use. However, if a mural is placed on a business bnilding, and it has sign elements painted on that mural, then the entire mural is considered the sign, which means the entire mural would then be considered in the calculation of the mvcimum amount of sign area that one is allowed on a lot. In this case, a vineyard is being painted on the building as well as a wine glass and some identification signs. The sign vaziance, in this case, is for 1,238.5 square feet; 119.5 square feet are allowed. Total square footage of the mural is 1,358 square feet. MOTION: CommissionerFie[d moved approva! of a requested sign variance for I,238.5 square feet at I941 Crand Avenue. •. Commissioner Field reported that the Zoning Committee approved the requested vaziance on a vote of 5- I, and he was the dissenting vote. He added that the sign code defines a SIaR flS: The use of words, numerals, figures, device, design, or uademark for the purpose of which is to show or adveRise a person, firm, profession, business, product or message. He went on to say that the applicant, at the hearing, stated that the purpose of the mural was to promote his business, and so, gauging the entire mural to be a sign, Commissioner Field couldn't vote for approval. He added that he has a grave concem about the number of murals on Grand Avenue. Part of the sign code is to protect open space and areas characterized by unique environment, historicat and azchftecturat resources. He said that these murals, in his opinion, are inconsiste�t with Grand Avenue. Commissioner Vau�ht commented that he read the same si�an code and noted especially the part that says the Planning Commission has the authority to vary the requirements of the sign code, He added that he found the mural to be completely nonoffensive. He supports the variance. ' Commissioner Field rebutted. He sees this as a much bigger issue. He fmds this to be a proliferation of murats, �vhich aze advertisin�. He stated that cleazly, in his mind, if these were billboards, they �voald not go up, and yet, they have the character of a billboard. He • 2 ZONiNG F11E 9.�Zo' q'1- I y'l3 feels that this mural issue needs to be gotten under control before the character and quality . of Grand Avenue suffers. He reported that he has asked the Zoning staff to get murals on the Zoning Amendments as soon as possible. Commissioner Nowlin asked what were the factors considered in deciding whether or not to support the variance? Commissioner Vau�ht responded that the issue at that particular Zoning Committee meetina had nothing to do with the broader mural, but had to do with whether the wine glass to be placed on the side of the mural, if we approve this, ought to be an allowed variance from the provisions of the sign code. Commissioner Nowlin stated that he would support the request for a variance. He is concerned that in this case, the Commission is not considering anything other than subjective aesthetics in deciding whether or not to grant a vaziance. Commissioner Chavez noted that there was a problem with this case from the very beginning. The issue was whether they actually have or do not have a sign with the mural. They could keep the sign they had and paint around it because the statute says they can. At the second meeting, another issue appeared. It was staffls interpretation that the wine glass was a sign, and therefore, the entire mural had to be counted. He concluded that the reat issue is statute. T/:e motion on t/ee tn approve a request for a sign variance that would allow a mural • with a total sign variance of 1,238.5 square feet at 1941 Grand Avenue carried on a voice vote of IS to 2(Field, Gurney). #97-043 Michael P Voto - Nonconforming use permit to allow a 4 unit building at 1947 Roblyn Avenue. Commissioner Field informed the Commission that the Merriam Park Community Council voted to not support this nonconforming use permit. Testimony from the City Fire Marshal identified the properry as at one time being a four plex, then a triples through a series of doors being locked and unlocked. The applicant indicated that he bou�ht the home understanding that it was permitted as a triplex, but understanding also that he could apply for a nonconformin� use permit for a fourplex. The City Fire Marshal testified that from a life safety perspective, the property complied with all the requirements for a fourplex. On a vote of 4-2, the Zoning Committee voted to approve the request. MOTION: Commissioner Fie1d moved approval of tlte requested nonconforn:ing use permit to aZlow a 4 unit building at I997 Roblyn Avenue. Commissioner Chavez informed Commission members that the first motion that came out of this case ended in a tie vote, so a second motion was drawn up; it was approved. • Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission that he was part of the 3-3 vote; he had voted to suQport the staff recommendation for denial. Then, he said he made the motion to � ZoI�t�G FlLE g .z� -�----- i approve, which then passed 4-2. He added that he turned his decision around because he • was really torn about the project. He stated that it is c(early an anomalous property. A statement by the Fire Marsha(, who said given the quality of the maintenance and upkeep on the place and the square footage that if, in fact, the Commission would allow this use, he would have no hesitancy whatsoever about approving the Certificate of Occupancy, swung his decision. Commissioner Gordon asked to hear what the reasons were for the m o who dissented from approval. Commissioner Chavez responded that during the testimony it was pointed out that there had been a problem there before. He said that he, personally, didn't think that the appticant was very up-front about what had occurred. He said that the applicant had bought the property with a full understanding, and he had been wamed about noncompliance more than once; and Commissioner Chavez did not feel it was right for him to now come to the Committee and be approved for his noncompliance. Commissioner Field added that there was a history that this property was being used as a fourplex over a continuous period of time. Some members ofthe Zoning Committee took issue with whether it met the 10-year standazd for having been used in a nonconforming fashion. Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission why he voted against it at first. He said that he didn't recall any testimony that indicated this particular applicant was involved in what appeared to be a pretty unsavory practice on the part of the previous owners of • property. He said he appreciated the applicanYs candor in admitting that he knew at the time he purchased the property that it was not a legal 4 unit use, thereby he argued the hardship issue, which was of his own making by purchasing it. At that time, Commissioner Vaught said, he could not convince himself that there was a legitimate hardship, which is a required finding, since the applicant had created it himself. Tl:e motion on the floor to approve tl:e requested nonconformin; use permit to allow a 4 unit building at 1947 Rob[yn Avenue carried on a voice vote of I S-2 (Chavez Nordin). #97-165 Tene Lv - Special condition use permit to allow outdoor sales of used automobiles on the northwest comer of University and Oxford. Mr. Rvan stated that a letter had been received from the Thomas-Dale Community Council. They had reviewed the application and recommended support of the requested special condition use permit, with the provision that the signage on the lot «'ould be reduced to meet the sign requirements of the sisn code, which is 350 square fe:t of signs on the lot. UnfoRunately, the letter was misplaced and did not get to the Zoning Committee for them to consider. The letter was later sent out �vith an explanation by i�fs. \ancy Homans. She also spoke to the applicant, who said that he wishes to be accommodating to the neighborhood, and so he has a�reed to paint over the existing signa�e on the norrh edge of the property. He will maintain the sign on the west edae of the property. Therz is a lar�e fence on the north side of the property and also one on the west side of the property upon which the two sio s are painted. • 4 zon�rNG F�iE 9� � q�-iy�� • MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of tl:e requested special condition use permit, with several conditions, to allow outdoor sales of used automobiles on t/:e northwest corner of University and Oxford, w/:ic/: carried unanis:ously on a voice vote. #97-169 Midwest Outdoor Advertisina - Two variances to allow an existing advertising sign to be moved on the northeasterly corner of I-94 and Vandalia. �97-170 Universal Outdoor. Inc. - Three variances to allow an advertising sign at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, south side east of Vandalia. Commissioner Field explained that the two above cases were tied to a matter of old business: a Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision on a sign. Commissioner Field stated that he will present both of them together because that is the way they were heard at the Zoning Committee meeting. Universal Outdoor, Inc. applied for a sign permit at 2100 Gilbert Avenue. They were informed they needed additional information and proceeded to get it. In the interceding period of time, before they could complete the application, Midwest Outdoor Advertising came with an application for a sign at a close by location, which was approved. Universal Outdoor, Inc, in their appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision, indicated that they had filed the applications consistent with al] prior customary procedures, and felt . that they still had a valid application going at the time Midwest submitted their application. At the time of the hearing, it was indicated that there was a possible compromise which could be reached that might satisfy both companies but required that both companies apply for variances. They came back and so the two cases were joined together since the primary issue is permitting the two signs to be 509.88 feet apart versus 667 feet which is prescribed when appropriate sign credits are developed. Typically, the City code requires that they be ' 1000 feet apart, but when sign credits, which are granted when other signs are taken down are generated, they can go to 667 feet. On a vote of 5- 0 the Zoning Committee approved the new sia s with Commissioner ICramer abstaining. Commissioner Kramer stated that he will be abstainina from the vote on this issue today also. Commissioner Vaught commended these hvo companies for being abte to sit down and work together. He added that two reasons why he was able to vote in approval of these signs were that: 1) the state �vould approve both of these; and 2) these two billboards aze replacin� seventeen other billboards removed by the t�vo companies. Commissioner Geisser commented that it seemed to her that Sain2 Paul is endin� up with an extra billboard. She said she had thouoht that it was the Planning Commission's intent to . try to rid the ciry of billboards as much as possible. She is concemed because these are lar�e signs, and there are already many signs in that area. She said she would like to see Z��6�VG �iLE 9� � fewer billboards. She cannot support these. Commissioner Gurney explained that a certain number of signs need to be taken do�vn in • order to get a sign credit. And although there is another billboazd being added to this paRicular location, there are several locations around the city where these billboards have been taken down. Commissioner Field reiterated the explanation of sign credits and added that the freeway is a better place for those signs than in the neighborhoods. Commissioner Vaught echoed Commissioners Gurney and Field, and added that there is no increase in square footage of biilboards. In fact, it is a substantial decrease in the number o£ billboards. He noted that the thing that tipped him over was that he thinks the City has some culpability in the way this process operated. He does not think it was proper, and it worked to the detriment of both companies. He stated that there is some curative intent in his vote. Commissioner Gordon stated that, generally speaking, he agrees with Commissioner Geisser that Saint Paui ought to have fewer rather than more billboards. He thinks that is what is happening in this case. He will support the motion. He is motivated by the equities of this situation. He noted that he is also concerned about the potential liability of the City. Commissioner Chavez questioned whether the Commission could legally vote on both of these cases as one case. MOTION: Cammissio�:er Vaugl:t moved to divide the question , to vofe on the crues •� separately. Commissioner Field seconded the motion. Commissioner Nordin brought up how this tivould work if the Commission passed one, but denied the other. She said that she would really like to see only one billboard there. So, if the vote is divided, she needs more information to make a decision. Commissioner Vaught, seeking to help Commission Nordin with her decision, informed her that the Universal application was submitted first, but was not processed first. The Midwest application was submitted second, but was processed first. The Universal application was complete reasonably soon after submission, but the Midwest application was still granted and Yhat si�n was erected. So, the sign thaYs currently there is the Midevest sign, buY iT's a result of the second application. The motion on the floor to divide the question ofMidwest and Universal carried unanimously on a voice vote. Tl:e motion on the floor to approve the requested sign variances to a11ow an existina advertising sign to be moved onto the nortlteasterly corner of I-94 and Vandalia Street by Midwest Outdoor Advenising carried on a voice vote (�'ramer abstaining}. The motion on the floor to approve ihe reguested sign variances to allow an advertising sign at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, southside east of Vandalia Street by Universa[ outdoor, Inc Carried on a voice vote (%ramer abstainin�. • 6 ZoNING F1 E 9� q� -1y�3 Commissioner Field read the agenda for the Zoning Committee meeting on August 14, . 1997. V. Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development Committee Commissioner Maddox announced a meeting at 4 p.m. on �Vednesday, August 13, on the citywide application of the Mississippi River Development Framework. VI, Neighborhood Planning and Land Use Committee Commissioner Geisser announced that the metal shredder study materials are beir copied and will be sent out. Copies of the NINRRA Plan are available today. VII. Communications Committee No report. VIII. Task Force Reports No report. IX. Old Business No report. • X. New Business Commissioner Vaught requested that staff inquire whether the Graduate Club has paved their parking lot, or that their additional living unit is unused, since their recently acquired permit stipulated that the additional living unit not 6e used until the parking lot was paved. District 6 Plannine Council request for public hearino on a site �lan for proposed Clean Soils Storage yard south of Maryland and west of 35E between the railroads - Staff report, Commission determination. (Tom Beach) Mr. Tom Beach with the Zoning Section of LIEP, explained that Clean Soils wants to have a storage yard for soil that's contaminated with petroleum that will be stored there temporarily and then hauled off to a processing site. The site is located on railroad property south of Maryland between Jackson and 35E, the same site that was proposed for a school bus site by Comfort Bus about a year ago. There was also a request for public hearing on that request. This site plan shows an area for the storage of the contaminated soil, an area for storing contractor's equipment and aga egate. The aggregate would be for sale. The site plan sho�vs a chain link fence. No buildinQS are proposed. The site has no street fronta�e. The access is proposed north of Maryland. There is no • sewer or water on the site. ' Z �� i�.� /� � The main issue raised here has to do with the impact on nearby property of storing contaminated soils. There are residents within a couple hundred feet area. There's also a • city sYOrm water holding pond located directly south of the site. The applicant has not yet identified the processing site. The applicant's history in Saint Paul includes having an operation where he was actually processing the soil in the earIy 1990s on Como near Dale on the old Maxon Steel site that generated a number of complaints. After that he has been operating in South Saint Paul. Currently, he's under a court order to shut it down and get the soil out of there. Commissioner Gordon asked what the nature of complaints with respect of the operation in the early 1990s, and what is the enforcement aspect with respect to the applicanYs representation that he intends to store the contaminated soils there for only a short period of time? Chair McDonell interjected, for the benefit of the new commission members, why this site plan is coming before the Planning Commission. He noted that normally site plan reviews are delegated to staff. The Planning Commission mighY consider holding a public hearing regarding a site plan if there are one or more of the following issues present: 1) it is a major project; 2) are there important policy issues raised, and 3) does the site plan have a major impact of the surrounding neighborhood? Mr. Beach added that in the early 1990s, the applicant was processing soils. He would cook the soils. Then it was brought up on a conveyor belt and dumped into the cooker. The vehement neighborhood complaints were about odor, dust, and noise. The he moved to South Saint Paul down by the River. He encountered a number of compfaints about the •. same issues there. The State Attomey General's been involved there. He had to stop processing the soil in December of 1996. He's was given until June of 1998 to cleaz out all the soil, but some soil is still there. He seems to have been an enforcement prohlem. Mr. Beach stated that conditions can be put onto a site p[an, but if they are not met, there is an enforcement problem. MOTION: Conimissioner Geisser moved that tke P[anning Commission hold a public hearing regarding this case. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nowlin. Commissioner Chavez questioned the terminoto�y used by Clean Soils about the soil being not contaminated and yet the MCA is makin� them move it off of the present site. Commissioner Kramer asked what zonin� classiftcation does a hazardous waste storage faci[ity� fit into, and why doesn't it need a special condition use permit? Mr. Seach responded that if the applicant were processing the soil, it would require a special condition use permit for outside processin� or for a recycling center. As lon� as the soil is just stored there, iYs considered just outside stora�e, whtch is a permitted use in an I- 2 zoning district. NIr. Beach added that the Minnesota PoI[ution Control A�ency wiIl need to issue a permit for this operation, but they will not review the permit until the local unit of govemment hzs dealt with it fsst. � 8 zoN�N� ��E 9� � � �-14`13 Commissioner Kramer asked �vhere this use would be first allotived? • Mr. Beach said that it would have to be industrially zoned property, probably I-1. Commissioner Kramer commented that this site plan issue raises an important policy issue: Where is Saint Paul going to allow storing of contaminated waste in the City? Saint Paul allows processing of it with a required special condition use permit, but to store it in the open, we don't require a special condition use permit? I think thaYs something we may want to look at down the line, too. Commissioner Vaught asked if site plan reviews conducted by staff were appealable. Mr. Beach answered that site plan reviews conducted by staff are appealable to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vaught asked if, in this case, staff conducted the site plan review, which types of staff would be involved with the review? Mr. Beach responded that the main issues in this case is po(lution. He would look at and consult with some of LIEP's environmental people. Then Public Works would look at it in terms of sewer and water availability. Commissioner Vaught asked if there is any opportunity for public input when staff conducts a site plan review? � Mr. Beach answered that the district would be notified, they then coutd hold any neighborhood meeting that they think is appropriate. If the district has a comment on it, it would come back to him and he would pass it on to whomever needs to consider it. Commissioner Vaught asked if there would be any direct, face to face contacY between the concerned persons in the community and those who would be ultimately making the decision? Mr. Beach responded that in this case, there was a meeting in district 6, which he attended. The applicant did not attend, so there was not as much discussion as there would have been otherwise. Commissioner Vau�ht asked Mr. Beach if staff has already conducted the review? Mr. Beach answered that an i�itial investigation has been done, but there still are a lot of questions left to ans�ver. Commissioner Vau�ht clarified himself and asked if is there an analogue to a Planning Commission site plan review in the staff site plan review process? Mr. Beach responded that there has already been one meeting with the committee and the applicant, where some questions were raised that aze still unanswered. • Commissioner Johnson stated that he is would stron�ly encourage a public hearing at the 9 ZOfVI[V� ��LE � Planning Commission level on this issue. He added that he has a great deal of expertise • working in the area of hazardous waste having been a 12-year employee of the Minnesota Pollution ControI Agency. For four years he worked in the specific area of petroleum contaminated soil, and he is fully conversive with the hazardous waste rules involved. In fact, he wrote the most recent versions of the siting criteria involved. He said that what they discovered at the State of Minnesota was that most district councils, counties, cities, etc., do not have the espeRise to judge these things. Petroleum contaminated soil is a unique waste that can be nonhazardous, special, or hazardous, and iYs difficult to telt which. Commissioner Gurney noYed that he had need to drive past ihe applicanYs Maxon Steel site many times during the 18 months that he was there, and he remembers his eyes watering for about 1 1/2 blocks later from the steam that �vas coming off the machinery. He thinks this could have an extreme adverse impact on the neighborhood. T/ae motion on tl:e floor to hold a public hearing on the proposed Clean Soils Storage Yard sauth ofMaryland and west of 35E between the railroarfs carried unanimously on a voice vote. Commissioner Gordon urged staff in their communication with Mr. Poucher to encourage him to be prepared to respond specifically to the concems raised in the letter by the District 6 Planning Counci(, Commissioner Kramer asked staff to include pages from the Zoning Code that lay out the 10 or 12 criterion to be considered in site plan review for Commissioners. Commissioner Vaught cautioned Commissioners about prejudging this case before the �. evidence is provided. Commissioner Engh asked if an official from the MCA could be invited to attend the upcoming public hearing. Mr. Ford commented that there aze rivo possibilities conceming Commissioner Engh's request: 1) that we request some testimony at the pubtic hearing; and 2) that ,typically, the Commission would refer all the comments made at the public hearinQ back to a committee. If the committee �vanted to call on some other expertise, they could. Mr. Johnson informed Commissioners that it is the policy of the Minnesota Pollution Control AQency to �ladly send people out to explain their policies in this matter, so that all we need to do is request it and they will have someone there. b4r. Beach noted that he has been in contact with the MCA staff and he will pass alon� that request. bIOTION: Commissioner moved September 12, I997, as tlze date of tJte pub[ic hearing for the site plan review for the proposed Clean Soils Minnesota Inc'storage yard Commissioner Sramer seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. Chair McDonell reminded the new Commissioners of the orientation meetin� immediately following this meeting. , �o Z�►�=�G �itE ��.�� 1� -1y� • LJ � XI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 a.m. Respectfully submitted, � Ken Ford Planning Administrator \planningUninutes.fan �� Approved (Date) Carole Faricy Secretary of the Planning Commission � Fl�� s� Z2v -------' q�-1y� � Zoning Committee Minutes April 17, 1997 May 1, 1997 July 31, 1997 � ! ��_��{�� • � • PRESENT P5SE�iT : MINUTES OF THE ZONING CONG4ITTEE CITY COUNCZL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, N,ZNPIESOTA ON APRIL 17, 1997 Mme. Faricy; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kram=_r and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Wainer, Assistant City A*_torney; Mmes. Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Planning Division. Wencl, excused Gurney Time: 6:28 - 8:35 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. �� oear nrrmnnno rur �inn �'lh rt- AvPnuP Gourhside east of Vandalid• #97-049• A�neal; Appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a permit for an advertising sign. Commissioner Kramer disclosed a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from participating in the discussion and vote. Commissioner Gordon disclosed a potential conflict of interest, which he no longer believed Co be a con£lict. Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, deemed there to be no conflict. Kady Dadlez, PED Zoning Office staff, reviewed the staff report and presented one slide. Staff recommended denial of the appeal of the zoning administrator's decision to deny a permit to Universal Outdoor inc. for a permit for an advertising sign, based on findings 2 and 5 of the staff report. Copies of an Affidavit of Ronald Leonard, owner of the property upon which Universal wishes to erect their sign, were distributed. The St. Anthony Park Community Council did not intend to take a position on the appeal. Commissioner Vaught asked for an elaboration of the specific deficiencies of the application by Universal. Wendy Lane, LIEP, reviewed these. 1) Demonstration of avai�able sian credits A demolition permit is required before sign credits can be issued; a sign not conforming with the current sign ordinance is removed. The square footage of that sign, those credits, are banked and can be used toward building other signs that are in strict conformance with the current ordinance. A log book of the sign credits is kept by LIEP and the sign credits must be used within 5 years. Universal had 528 sign credits on record and needed additional credits to erect a sign. Universal received a demolition permit on February 24 for the demolition of another sign which would allow them to erect a new sign. � Z�N�� .� �:2ZD ( 2j Mnr detailed site ��an Ms. Lane was unable to speak to what was lacking, however agreed there was a site plan but it was not in • sufficient detail. 3) Srr„�r„ral drawinas. Ms. Lane said no structural plans drawn by a registered engineer were submitted to show that a structure of that size was not going to fall over. 4) Fees for demolition and buildina nermits. The fee to establish the additional sign credits was not paid. Commissioaer Vaught asked Ms. Lane if she would characterize the above as substantial deficiencies. Ms. Lane responded that it was the opinion of the director of LIEP, Robert Kessler, that the deficiencies were substantial. She said that the sign ordinance doesn't give much direction as to what constitutes the first application and reported that sta£f is having difficulty in determining how to deal with that and that LIEP is looking for direction from the Planning Commission in that regard. Ms. Lane reported that she was in the process of dra£ting written policies for LIEP and LIEP intends to implement them following the outcome of this decision. Ms. Lane noted that the sign ordinance requires specific items needed, i.e. structural drawings and filing fees, for a completed application and advised that the deficiencies would have been apparent had Universal referenced the ordinance. Commissioner Vaught asked why staff took 8 days to notify Universal that the � application was incomplete. Ms. Lane responded that John Aardwick was the staff person who reviewed Universal's p1an, and who typically reviews most . billboard permit applications and demolition applications. Given Mr. Hardwick's other responsibilities, it appeared to be a matter of workload and getting to the task. However, Ms. Lane reviewed that representatives from Universal spoke with Mr. Hardwick in person on February 10 and that Mr. Hardwick reviewed the basics o£ the additional requirements at that time. Commissioner Vaught reviewed that Universal had a completed application on February 24. Midwest's completed application was submitted on February 21, however the permit wasn't issued until February 25, the day after Universal's completed application was received. Commissioner Vaught referred to a spacing requirement, noting a reference made to arterial streets, indicating that somehow the sign couldn't be seen from the freeway therefore the spacing requirement shouldn't be from the freeway. Ms. Lane said that Universal's application referenced the permit that was originally issued to Midwest in November, 1996, for a sign o£ 72 square feet that was never built. However by the time Midwest submitted its revised application to replace the 72 square foot sign with the 648 square foot sign LIEP felt the arguments made were not relevant and never made a determination as to whether the 72 square foot sign was intended to be read from I-94 or not. • z ��G F6LE S= �'zz° � �c�—�� Commissioner Vaught asked that wh<n sitting in a qsasi-judicial capacity, . whether in that capacity they must consider Mr. Kessler's decision aad find error with the d=cision in order to cnange it, or�whether the committee may conduct a d_ novo review and make a decisioa with respect to tne underlying issues. bir. Warner responded that the committee can do a d: novo review. � Commissioner Gordon asked that if the appeal were graated, whether Universal riad the credits needed to put up the requested sigr.. Ms. Lane responded affirmatively. Commissioner Gordon rePerenced the sCaff report which noted: ��fees for demolition and building permits" and asked whether they were different fees. Ms. Lane responded that they were. She said that the fee for a demolition permit of a sign is $42. The fee for construction of a new sign is $200, and those fees were not submitted with the application. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Midwest came in wiCh the required fees for permits and demolition and permits and with a detailed site plan and whether Chey had sufficient cxedits. Ms. Lane responded affirmatively. Commissioner Gordon asked how many applications on average does LIEP get per year for such signs. Ms. Lane said that perhaps about 12. Commissioner Gordon asked whether any other applications have been denied for � those reasons. Ms. Lane said that LIEP has reczived applications that did not meet their requirements and were denied. Generally it wasn't a formal denial but just a verbal communication explaining why they couldn't issue permit or asking for additional information. Commissioner Gordon referenced a mattress sign on the building immediately north of the sign erected by Midwest, noting it is quite close to the Midwest sign and asked if the location of that sign was germane to the discussion. Ms. Lane said that it was not, that it was a business sign, not an advertising sign, and that the separation requirements are between advertising signs. Commissioner Vaught asked that when the Midwest sign was approved on February 25, whether Ms. Lane knew whether staff issuing that permit knew that the issuance of that permit would prohibit the Universal sign from being constructed. Ms. Lane said that the issuing party did know. Commissioner Chavez, in referencing the Midwest permit of November 8 1996, asked how long that permit would have been good for. Ms. Lane responded that all building permits are good for 180 days and construction must commence within 18o days. Commissioner Chavez asked for an explanation as to why Midwest was required to submit a new application. Ms. Lane responded that Midwest needed a new building permit because they decided to build a larger sign. Commissioner Vaught asked if Midwest had built the originally requested sign • whether the Universal sign would have been allowed to be built. Ms. Lane 3 �� "'^� ...�_�( f responded that Universal had questioned thaG in their application, however LIEP never made that determination. • Commissioner Vaught questioned that in the event the Universal application had been complete, given the fact that Midwest had a valid building permit, that it might have been a Conclusion that LZEP may have not been abie to issue Universal a permit to build their sign unless or until the building�permit that Midwest had from November had expired. Ms. Lane responded that such a decision was never made, but that LIEP might we11 have issued the permit. She reviewed that the permit issued to Midwest in November was for a 15 foot high sign, and that site is in a ho1e, and was only 72 square feet, and she believed that Midwest's proposed sign would have been very difficult to have been read by I-94. Ms. Lane reported having spoken with the person who issues building permits for the State Department of Transportation, who issues building permits along state highways and freeways, and asked him what he thought about that sign, whether it could be read from 2-94. Ae said that they would have asked Midwest to put up a sign of that size and run down the freeway and see if it could be seen. However, Ms. Lane seriously doubted that it could have been read from I-94 and if not, then the Universal sign could have been legal. Commissioner Vaught clarified that despite the fact that the Universal sign would have been close to the Midwest sign, it was more the orientation to I-94 which is important. Ms. Lane said that it is based upon whatever street that the sign is read from. Commissioner Vaught clarified that space requirements exist if, and on2y if, both of the signs which are potentially subject to them can be read from the � same reference street or highway. Ms, Lane agreed. � Commissioner Gordon asked that if Universal's appeal were granted, whether that would mean that the Midwest sign would have to be taken down, and i£ so, who would pay for that. He further asked if the committee had the authority to approve tfie Universal sign, in addition to the Midwest sign. Ms. Lane responded that when the appeal came in that a letter was sent to Midwest informing them of the appeal, and that if they proceeded that they did so at their own risk. If the appeal were to be ultimately decided against them, that Midwest would need to remove their sign at their own expense before construction started of a Universal sign. She noted that there is a provision in the zoning ordinance which states that when an appeal is filed on a decision of the zoning administrator that with respect to any permits that have been issued, that no work can commence. However, she noted that there isn't such a provision in the sign ordinance. Ms. Lane further explained that initially it was believed by LIEP that Midwest would not be able to go forward and build their sign because of the appeal pending. But, because that provision is not in the sign ordinance, LIEP had to inform Midwest that they were proceeding at their own risk, but LIEP did not have the authority to stop them from construction. Ms. Lane, in responding to whether the committee could grant both signs to exist, said that the committee would have the ability to grant variances, however a variance would require a different application. She also stated that she was uncertain whether the separation from the Midwest sign would meet the State requirements for separation of signs. • 4 z�1V11��; ��E -� q�-1y�3 Commissioner Gordon said that the sign in questioa has two faces and asked • whether th= committee would have the authority to give one fzce to Universal and one to Midwest. Ms. Lane responded that LIEP Considers it to be one sign structure whether the sign is on one side or both sides, so they would sti11 be required to meet the separation requirements, whether single-sided or double-sided, so it would require a variaace. Michael Croain, 8809 W. Bush Lake Road, Bloomington, represe,ting Universal Outdoor Advertising, spoke. Mr. Cronin reviewed that Universal Outdoor Advertising was previously Naegele Outdoor Advertising, and that they have had a lot of experience building signs in Saint Paul and working with the intricacies of the ordinance. He reviewed that their appeal had three major points: 1. In a case where the City has to control the densiCy of uses as well as the other standards and may have to choose between granting one of many potentially qualified permits, the best way he suggested to do that is when a qualified application is received that that application is simply processed first to the end, rather than jumping between applications. 2. Mr. Cronin claimed that Midwest built their sign to a height of 58 feet above grade, however based on their permit were to build a 37 foot sign, where only a 37 1/2 foot sign is permitted. Mr. Cronin further suggested that Midwest didn't build their sign exactly where they said triat they were going to build it on their application. Universal � believes Midwest's sign to be an illegal sign, built 20 feet too tall, and Mr. Cronin suggested the sign should be taken down, and since Midwest did not abide by their permit that i3niversal should have their application approved. 3. Mr. Cronin suggesCed that now that the sign is built they can see that a 37 1/2 foot sign built in a hole probably couldn't be seen from I-94, therefore Universal raises the question can it be read and where does Midwest go from there. Mr. Cronin distributed a map prepared by Universal. On this map he reviewed the area in question, pointing out the existing signs. He reviewed that the City regulates a select group of uses not only by zone and district and setbacks and heights, etc., but the City also regulates them by density so there are spacing requirements. He noted that this space was filled by the Fairway sign, previously which had been there for a number of years. Mr. Cronin reviewed that last summer or fall the City learned that the Fairway sign which had been permitted to the property at 2100 Gilbert, which is Universal, was built on City property which was also built too tall, and when that sign was removed, that decreased the density in this location and provided the opportunity for a sign somewhere in the vicinity of Vandalia. He said that the owners of the properCy at 2100 Gilbert started a process of trying to select a sign company and they finished that process up in January, and Universal filed their application in February. Mr. Cronin referenced his handout entitled ^Instructions for Billboard � Applications," which is on the back of the building permit of the sign permit 5 ""�. Z��a ��L� �Z20; application. Mr. Cronin reviewed that there is no question that Universal is a qualified sign builder. He reviewed that Universal did submit on February • 10 a survey showing the lot dimensions of where they wanted to put the sign; the location of that survey on that structure, as there was a Q1=stion as to whether or not they could overhang a now vacated street, with Mr. Hardwick saying that they could not overhang any public right-of-way, so they located the sign exactly on the survey. The survey showed all the street and alley locations as well as the right-of-way and the type, size and height of the billboard. Mr. Cronin reviewed that on February 18 they received a phone ca11 requesting further information: that the City wanted an exact statement of how far it is from the Universal proposed site, back to the Adams sign and from the proposed site to the 3M sign. He said that sometimes this is required, sometimes it is not, and this was not brought along on February 10. Secondly, the Ietter indicated a need for the structural drawings of the proposed structure. Mr. Cronin said that Universal has signed engineering drawings of similar structures on file with the City, and that sometimes the City wants a new set, specifically for this location, and sometimes the file drawings are adequate. He said that was on a Wednesday, and it took a few days to get the sign drawings up from Chicago. In regard to the zoning germit fee, he said that typically they pay the fees when they pick up the permit, and Universal looks upon the indication that the fee is outstanding as a reminder to not forget the checks when the permit is picked up. Mr. Cronin said that Universal believed they had a qualified application on February 10 which met all of the original standards. Also, they believe that 8 days, when notified of the need for further information, that they clearly worked hard to bring back the additional information that was needed and which • was supplied by February 24. He claimed that on February 24 the City may have had two completed applications, but somehow Midwest's permit was granted and . Universal's was denied. Mr. Cronin said that as Ms. Lane pointed out, there is no ru2e on that, that it's clear that the first application filed, or the first qualified application, or the most complete application, is accepted. Universal has never had a similar experience as this. Universal believes that as long as the City is making policy and precedence that the clearest and the best in these conditions would be that the first qualified application received be worked through until the end. Mr. Cronin pointed out that Universal had sign credits, they have signs they can take down as they have in the past. He said that they trusted that they were moving forward. He said if Mr. Aardwick had called them on February il with a request for additional information they would have had them in prior to the Midwest application being filed. He said that Universal believes they were acting in good faith, they ha3 the ability to build the sign, they were qualified to build the sign, and they had met each of the requirements as they were laid out for them. He suggested the best process the City could follow is first come first served. Mr. Cronin reviewed the Midwest application, daCed 2/21/97. He reviewed that the overall height above-grade is specified as 37 feet. He questioned the completeness o£ what Midwest submitte3 as structural drawings. He noted that the application said "about 23 feeG to the bottom of the sign." Mr. Cronin reviewed that you take a 37 foot sign, have a 13 1/2 foot sign face on it, and � DR,Q��, 6 ZOtVlNG �iLE `��.zz� � �i `l - I y'1'� the base of the structure is about 3 feet; and that means that the bottom of . the sign is about 23 feet above grade which is a very importaat number for tork and wind loa3, as well as it tells the City zoning staff that the sign is going to be 37 feet ta11, and is in compliaace with the ordiraace. Mr. Cronin noted a survey that Universal had done, which indicates that the sign was built at 58 feet, not the 37 feet specified on the permit. Universal believes that du_ to the illegal sign that Midwest's permit should be invalidated ar.d that tk:e sign should be removed. Mr. Cronin spoke to the visibility of the existing signs, and said that he did not believe if the sign were reduced to 37 feet, that it would be visible as it would be down in a ho1e, because the 58 foot sign is barely visible (this is travelling east on I-94). Travelling west, the outline of the sign is just visible from the ramp. Mr. Cror.in referenced the section in the code which states "the maximum height of any sign in St. Paul is 37 1/2 feet." In the section speaking to spacing, "the spacing between signs sha11 apply to advertising signs on the same side of the same street". Regarding the issue of does it read to Vandalia, does it read to I-94, to University, to Victoria -- Cronin said, in effect you could have signs closer than 1000 feet if they read to different streets. He reviewed that the spacing between signs shall be measured by the nearest points of the sign to the property lines and the right-of-way which they are intended to be read. Presumably in Universal's case that is I-94, as they wish to be on the property zt 2100 Gilbert. • Mr. Cronin continued, the determination of advertising signs to be read from a roadway should be based upon, but not limited to the following: angle of the sign to the roadway; the duration o£ the view; again this is a 58 foot sign, and if lowered the whole length of its face and then some, is there any view at all; the distance the sign is from the roadway. He said Universal will be right on the right-of-way. He said the size of the sign relative to the roadway is not important now as Universal will have 672 and Midwest has 648, but is very important to the 672 square foot sign that was back in November, which is clearly not what is seen on freeways, and any obstructions to the view. It was Universal's opinion that at 37 feet the sign would be totally obstructed by the bridge, the ramps going up and down, and the trees. For those reasons Universal asked the committee to set the precedent that the first qualified application, as long as people are moving forward on it, is the one that prevails. Secondly, Universal asked that the City tag the Midwest sign. They believe that Midwest has lost their chance to build a sign at that location and that the sign was not built according to the provisions of their permit or permitted by code, and should therefore be removed. Thirdly, tiniversal believes that a 37 1/2 foot sign at that site would not read to I-94. There was a handout summarizing Mr. Cronin's report. Commissioner Chavez asked whether Universal employs their own people to erect their signs or whether they contract that done. Mr. Cronin said that since they have become Universal they have had a crew that comes from Chicago that builds their signs to their specifications, but for the past forCy years Naegele built their own. . ' ZOt�i�G ��L�' q��zz-a � Commissioner Chavez asked whether Mr. Cronin could attest to the fact that every sign that either Naegele or Universal has put up has always been done to • the specifications outlined and that no mistakes have occurred. Mr. Cronin said that in the past thirteen years thaC he has never known their company to be more than a couple of feet off. Commissioner Gordon clarified that Universal's position is that once_an application has been filed that that application should be processed, regardless of how de£icient it is. Mr. Cronin responded that as long as it is a qualified application, which means that it meets the criteria that's outlined on the back of the application when it is submitted, and that the applicant clearly has the ability to provide the sign credits or whatever else is required, and as long as the applicant is purposefully moving forward on that application, the City should give the applicant the courtesy of working - it through, Commissioner Gordon reviewed that Mr. Cronin was talking about complying with the instructions, and asked if the demonstration o£ available sign credits is part of complying with the instructions. Mr. Cronin responded that it is not part o£ complying with the application instructions, and should not be what is necessary to start, however demonstrating the ability to do it before the end. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the detailed site plan is part of the instructians as he read them. Mr. Cronin agreed that they were. Gordon asked about the fees for demolition and building permits. Mr. Cronin responded that fees are always paid when the building permits are picked up, and are not a part of the application. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Cronin how long he believed the City should give • � the applicant in order to come into compliance. Mr. Cronin suggested an arbitrary period of possibly 14 days could be given to respond to any request � made by the staff. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal was told of the deficiencies of their application on February 10. Mr. Cronin reviewed that they were told what their sign credit balance was and that they would have to bring that in, and Universal faxed the sign credit location to Mr. Hardwick the next day, explaining that it was the sign they intended to take down aad file the demolition permit on. The sign was not taken down, and is not usually taken down until they're certain of the outcome. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Universal was more concerned with the Midwest sign coming down, or the Universal sign going up. Mr. Cronin responded that if the City does not enforce the ordinance and the Midwest sign is permitted to remain at the existing height that the sign would create a problem with the State regulation. If enforcement is done, and the sign is in conformance, it appears that both signs could be located th=re, and could comply with State requirements. Universal would be satisfied with a resolution o£ the matter that provided for both Midwest and Universal to have a sign as long as Midwest's sign is built as applied for and permitted by code. No formal complaint has been made to the City reqarding the Midwest sign. He said that this hearing was the fo-mal complaint. 8 9� ZON�1�� FiL� a� -i�c�� Commissioner Gordon asked why Universal waited until February 2a to respond to • the additional requests. Mr. Cronin noted that there was a w_ekend in that tim= period, and it took the time to get what they needed fron their Chicago office, which arrived on Saturday, and was fil>_d with the City on Monday. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal had any comment regardir.g the timing on the Mid application. Mr. Cronin respoaded that when Ur.iversal apolied on February 10 that they asked if there was a competing applicatioa and they w=re told that there was not whicn he believes to be the case. Ee said that they believed that there application would continue to proceed fo= until it was completed. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal was allowed to install a 37 1/2 foot sign whether that would be a meaningful sign for them. Mr. Cronin said that it would as they are along the right-of-way, and not down in the hole. He said that the face heading west would be very good, the face east may not be as good, and they may want to request a variance in a year. Commissioner Vaught asked if Universal knew prior to February 25 0£ the pending Midwest application. Mr. Cronin said that he didn't think that they did. He said that Paul Rademacher is an employee of Universal who dealt directly with Mr. Hardwick. Mr. Rademacher responded that when he delivered the application on February 24 that Wendy Lane told him that Midwest had filed an application, and that he believed that was the first time that anyone from Universal knew that an � application had been submitted by Midwest. Marvin List, attorney for Universal Outdoor, said that regarding whose application is dealt with first, that the only rational way to do it is process the first application received through completion. Doing it any other way, he suggested, leads to the issues at hand and to litigation. By coming up with a test that the first one who has submitted is dealt with in a reasonable fashion as long as they are proceeding in good faith, and if that application is accepted or not accepted, then the second application is dealt with. Mr. List referenced the application of Midwest and said it is critical to look at that application in one regard. The signature of the applicant has the boilerplate language that certifies that the applicznt certifies that all of the information is correct and that all pertinent State regulations and City ordinances will be complied with in performing the work for which this permit is issued and it indicates that the sign will be 37 feet. However, he said it's not 37 £eet. Mr. List said that Universal's surveyor indicates that it's 20 plus feet higher than that and that it was not built to the provisions of the ordinance. He said that it was his guess that it may have never been intended to be built at 37 feet because if it w=re built at 37 feet virtually no one would see it along I-94. It is their position that a tough line be taken with respect to that permit, as it's not built properly and it's not what they certified in the application to the City would be done. Commissioner Vaught asked if Mr. List had any evidence, other than • circumstantial evidence that would indicate that th= sign wasn't intended to 9 � � 9 � �p�� be built at 37 feet. that they have as to surv=yor. Mr. List said it was his guess, however the evidence its construction is information from a registered Comm,issioner Vaught asked of Mr. List, if he saw Universal's concern to be nore the process and how the process works, or is it their cor.cern to build the billboard. Mr. List responded that it is both. He said they see thz process to be im�ortant as a situation like this could a:ise again, and he said the process leads to the conclusion that they obtain the permit for the reasons that Mr. Cronin indicated above: they had the information indicated on the apolication; there was an 8-day delay in ir.forming them that they needed more. Ae pointed out in other situations the plans aren't required as they are on file with the City, and sometimes they are requested, where other times they are rot. He reviewed that once notified that they were required they were obtained immediately and transmitted to the City. He noted that Universal acted in good faith, and the process is importan[. Secondly, he said that they want their sign built there and believe they deserve to have it built there, because the sign that was built in the nearby location is not in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Vaught asked whether Mr. List agreed with the rationale that Universal's sign should be allowed to be built where proposed because the ordinance snecifies the orientation of the street, and the Midw=st sign can't really be seen from I-94. Mr. List agreed. Commissioner Vaught noted that the photograpus seemed to indicate that the Midwest sign couldn't even be seen from 58 feet. Commissioner Gordon said that perhaps the Midwest sign was appealing to the traffic on Vandalia. M:. List indicated that Midwest was present at the meeting and could perhaps ad3ress tfiat. He said he thought that Mr. Schroeder, the generaZ manager of Midwest, may testify that he could live with both signs if they are pointing in different directions. However, he said there may be a problem with State approval as they may not comply with State regulations in that instance. Mr. List reviewed that the Midwest sign is not proper and shouldn't be there. fe reviewed that staff notified Midwest before the construction of the sign that they would be erecting the sign at their own risk, and felt the fact that biidwest may have to dismantle their sign should not be a consideration. Commissioner Gordon questioned the process proposed by Mr. List where a person comes in with a reasonably close application and the City continues to process that apolication until somebody eventually coacludes that the applicant is not going to be able to successfully conclude it. He said that this might create more problems. Either standard would involve a judgment call. With respect to the issues of impropriety o£ the Midwest Sign as exceeding the height limit ar.d the issue of whether Universal is entitled to a sign, he asked Mr. List if he saw those as separate issues. ��N1NG F�L� 9�•Zw 10 � U �� Od) • � �� q'1-�`I'1 � Mr. List responded that the ordinance should be enforced and th_ Midwest Siga � should be removed, in which event he said that th= Universal a:plication should tfien be granted. He said that the result Universal was looking for could be reached without determining what the process should '�e when competing aoolications come in because Universal claims the sign built if Midwest was improperly built and therefore they believed should come do.r... That would just leave Universal's application. � � Commissioner Gordon auestioned whether the Universal applica:ioa would sti11 be pending. Mr. List responded affirmatively, saying that U^iversal appealed from the denial, and considered their application to still be p=nding. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. List whether IIniversal would hav> any opposition to seeking a variance so that both signs could exist. Mr. List said his only concern would be whether there were State requiremeats that could not be met. Commissioner Gordon asked i� Universal's surveyor's report showing Midwest's sign to be 58 feet in height was in a written report. Mr. List submitted the report for commissioners' review, and for the record. The survey was done by Sundee Land Surveying. Lonny Thomas, 6949 Valley Creek Road, attorney for the land owaer, said that they were much more concerned about the sign then they were about the procedure. He said he represents two retired persons that have about $200,000 of their retirement funds tied up in the outcome of these proceedings. � Commissioner Vaught noted that the committee had seen his clieats' affidavit, and asked Mr. Thomas to provide a summary rather than to review it in its entirety. Mr. Thomas said he was present to note that there are equities that are a part of this process. He reviewed that about one year ago he testified and pointed out something that a sign company at the time, had no intentioa of representing, but had to be disclosed in the property owner's view. In the communications that followed Mr. Thomas' office discussed their intention to put up a replacemeat sign and they immediately set out to do that. One year later he said he can't say that he can point to any communications or relationsriip between Midwest and Fairway, but noted that Fairway was very angry when he decided to testiPy before the committee and tell the City that the sign was not where it was supposed to be, and Fairway was r.ot going to disclose it. Mr. Thomas noted that was a year ago, and that suddenly an application goes in days before the company they're doing business with, and his client has $200,000 riding on the outcome. Mr. Thomas said he has a lot of unanswered questions. Commissioner Vaught asked for any evidence Mr. Thomas might have regarding any collusion that might exist. Mr. Thomas' response was that they have questions. He said h2 has no doubt that if Fairway was asked waat the relationship is between Fairway and his client, there would not be kind words as they w=re not happy with Fairway's decision. Commissioner Gordon asked if it was possible for the Universal sign to be 500 • feet from the Midwest sign, and asked factually, based on th=_ knowledge of the 11 Zo�� 9� � properties involved. He reviewed that the staff report indicates the distance � between the existing Midwest sign to where Universal wishes to place their sign would be 350 feet. He further asked if Universal could locate their sign 500 feet from the existing Midwest sign, physically and still be on the property they have control over. Mr. Thomas responded that they had just gone through the process of vacating Gilbert Avenue to help accommodate that, and he would believe the answer to be yes, but would need to confirm that. Mr. Cronin reviewed that the spacing between the 3M and the Adams signs is fxxed, and said he didn't think there was enough room for Universal to move east because of the Adams sign, nor did he believe there to be enough room for Midwest to move west because of the other sign and still meet the City's distance requirement. He said that the building also becomes a factor, and that the best location for Universal is the location that they applied for. Peter Remes, President, Midwest Outdoor Advertising, 1103 Homer St „ spoke in opposition. Mr. Remes reviewed that this is their second billboard located on I-94 in Saint Paul. Ae said the discussion had been a bit slanted and reviewed his version of the facts. He said that: 1) Midwest applied for a 648 square foot sign on February 21, 1997. He said that previous to their application they had removed 9 advertising signs within the city and received their nonconforming sign credits. 2) Midwest then, with their nonconforming sign credits applied for their � permit, with their site plan, with their structural permit and the other documents needed for the application. Mr. Remes said that Midwest is aware of the process for applying for applications within �. the City of Saint Pau2 and believed that Universal is aware of the same process. He said that to make application within the City of Saint Paul and not complete the application to be a clear indication that the aoplication was not conplete, and therefore should not be given precedence over an application that is complete. 3) �r. Remes noted that the City of Saint Paul has a code which mandates what is needed in a sign permit application an3 he refereaced it. He noted that section 66,?04 under permits, titled: a, und=_r application, states in part "...structural pZans a-e require3 �or all free-standing signs greater thaa 50 square feet..." Given this langaa?_, h_ didn't s=_= any aainiguity in what exactly is r_=eded within th= ap?lication. He said that Midwest has had applications with structural p'_aas or, file for the many various signs that th=y have built in Sain� Paul and sti11 uaderstand that th=re are sets needed for every applica=ion. a_) Mr, Remes spoke to the sign that Midw_st built at a cosc of over $�1,000, including the cost of their laad lease. He said it was correct that they were notified by the City that if they built a sign, the sign would be bu?lt at their own risk. However, h_ said th_y were notified only 2a hours before they fia3 their excavator cet th=re d-gging the hole for their sign. They had purchased the_r sig� • structure, they had entered into their lease agreement wich their 12 ��1�!'l �� FI LE 9�.2z.o -----�_ � ('1-1��7 • landowaer, they had paid virtually all of the costs associated with building the sign. He noted too that there had been a good deal of talk about the height of the siga that was built. He said that their inter.tion in building the sign was to be 37 feet above tne roadway. Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, said that the City is or. ample notice that there is a potential violation as to how high the Midwest sicz is. He said that LZEP enforcement staff can take whatever enfozcement ac[ion they would like to, and that if the committee erished to hear Mr. Remes' explanation for the heig:t o£ the sign, triat it would be interesting but he didn't know how it would pertain to the appeal and the allegations made by Universal. Commissioner Vaught said that he was prepared to potentially make his decision on a very narrow issue which may be what orientation to what street is what sign, and with that the case, it seemed that the height might have some relevance, if only tangential. Commissioner Gordon said if the committee had made the ruling at the outset that the height of the sign should not be addressed he would be more comfortable not allowing such testimony, but as Universal was permitted extensive testimony regarding it, he felt that Mr. Remes should also be given the same opportunity with respect to that issue. Mr. Remes said that Midwest had a survey done showing the location of the sign in reference to the property that they lease. (A copy of the survey was distributed). Also showing the top of the billboard, the height of the � billboard, and also showing the roadway, and the elevation of the roadway. The elevation of Che Z-94 exit ramp he said is at 123.11. The elevation of the top of the billboard is 152.47 and said that puts the billboard at an overall height of 29 feet. Their intention was to build the sign at 37 feet and with his calculations believes they actually fell short of their target of 37 feet. I-ie said that the zoning code, the ordinance pertaining to advertising signs, section 66.21A.g. under height says: `�The height of advertising signs may be measured t'rom grade or surface of the roadway, whichever is higher.° Mr. Remes reviewed that in reference to the height of the sign, Midwest knew that the height of the sign would be measured £rom the exit ramp of Z-94 which is classi£ied as the interstate, as it is part of the I-9� system. They also knew that the westerly bound face of the sign would be reading towa=d. the traffic on th= interstate ramp, and that is where they gezred it to, and they have committed a sign to a client who is looking for interstate ex.it ramp trzffic as they come of: I-9� and turr or. to Vandalia Stre=_t. Cnair Field asked if the exit ramn is east bound or west bourd, with Mr. Remes indicating thz ramp to be westbound. Commissioner Gordon asked if Midwest took their grade from the I-95 ramp. Mr. Remes responde3 afzirmatively, and noted that the grade of the ramp on the survey cistr:buted which shows the gradR of the ramp at 123.11 aad the elevation at tne ton o£ the billboard at 152.47. Chair Fie1c asked for clariiication tnat Midwest wanted the sigaa for the � westbour,c t-z°�ic ramp, a.d 'ne reviewed by looking at tre orie::ation of the 13 � Z0�1�G FJLE �•ZZv �� ----_. �� sign that the traffic is past the billboard when it gets on the ramp noted. • Mr. Remes disagreed, stating that the billboard is visible as traffic drives up the ramp to Vandalia Street. Ms. Lane clarified that Mr. Remes was speaking of the exit ramp, not the entrance ramp. Mr. Remes noted that Universal speaks o£ the value of this location,-however noted that Universal presently has approximately an 85 percent market share within the Twin Cities, the remaining divided up amongst about 7 other companies. Midwest has one other billboard location on I-94 and he suggested that this location means more to their company than it means to Universal, being they have numerous billboard locations along I-94. Mr. Remes said that Midwest feels they have done everything procedurally correct and have done everything they've been asked to do by the City o£ Saint Paul and by the State of Minnesota and have filed their permit application in a timely manner, complete with all the necessary documentation. They have understood this process over the years, and believe there to be no question or grey area about what the procedures are, but are clearly put forth and documented in the legislative code and he challenged any necessity for discussion o£ what is needed and what the timetables are, and what completes an advertising sign application. Finally, he noted that Midwest did have an application for this location given to them back in November, 1996 for a 72 square foot sign and they also maintained a State permit since that time as well. Commissioner Chavez asked Midwest if they contract out the installation of the signs or whether they have their own crew. Mr. Remes responded that Midwest builds their own signs and agreed with the statement offered by Chavez that all o£ their signs are in comp2iance. In reference to violations of other � advertising signs within the City of Saint Paul he said that there exist numerous violations by other companies. Commissionez Gordon asked that if a complaint was filed that the Midwest sign was too high that Midwest would reject that based on his description above. hlr. Remes agreed and said that to be what the ordinance allows for, and that is what their intention was for in building the sign. He said that at 37 feet it would be very difficult to see the sign, and that only the top third of the sign would be visible. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Gordon Mr. Remes established that he would like to keep his sign, and had no objection to Universal installing a sign nearby, and had no problem with a variaace pernitting Universal to put up a sign. Comnissioner Gordon asked how it was that Midwest came to file their anplication on February 21. Mr. Remes responded that Midw_st filed th=_ir appiication in November, 1996. At that tin=_ they had 72 square feet of noncon�orming sign credits in the City bank. From that day fo-ward he said they worked very vigorously trying to qualiry and remove oth=r nonconforming signs with?n the city of Saint Paul, and took down approxima�ely 12 signs cf which 9 they aoplied toward this new application. he said that this process tak_s time. Tne signs must be evaluated by them internally to s=e if they are conforr„ing or not, th=n must b_ reviewed by City st�ff to evaluate whether the City fir_ds them nonconforming, and then their company must go out and take the sia:s nowr, ard h= of£ered that he has records of when their r_onconfo-ming sigas were submitte3 with th_ c"ity of Saiat Fau1 wnich he said he could submit to the conmittee shoaing as evideace that th_ whole process was started quite � 1S ��8�� F1LE �zo�' � • some time ago. Commissioner Gordon asked if Mr. Remes was stating that the process generally started in November, 1996 or that Midwest specifically applied for a sign at this location in November, 1996. Mr. Remes responded that Midwest applied for a sign at this location in Novemb=r 1995 znd receive3 a permit for this location. He said if he would have done what Universal did, he wo•i1d have submitted his application for 640 square feet, stating he didn't have his credits yet, but asked that the City hold his application and not permit anyoae else to apply because he was working on it. However, he said that isn't what he did. He went out and evaluated the signs that he could remove from the city; had the city staff person go out and evaluate them and then once their approval was received went out and began pulling the signs down and it took some time to remove the 12 or so signs. Once they were approved, Midwest went back and made application for their second advertising sign permit on this location. Commissioner Vaught asked when Mr. Remes learned of the issue of the height of their existing sign. Mr. Remes responded that he had just learned of the issue from Mr. Cronin's testimony at this meeting, and said that based on their interpretation of the zoning code that it is not an issue. Commissioner Vaught noted the Midwest survey was dated March 17. Mr. Remes noted that two surveys were done. The original survey was done showing the sign location and where it was built. He reviewed that Mr. Robert Kessler, LZEP, wrote a letter to him requesting more information on this survey, � showing where the cat-walks were, the height of the sign, the placement, the footings, constituting additional information. Midwest then submitCed the letter to the surveyor asking the surveyor to add the requested information to the survey and Mr. Remes received the updated survey on April 16, 1997. Commissioner Vaught asked for confirmation that at the point that Midwest received Mr. Kessler's letter that Midwest proceeded to erect the sign at their own risk, Midwest had not yet begun construction. Mr. Remes responded that was correct. Midwest received the letter and called the City of Saint Paul for their footing inspection. Chair Field, in referencing biidwest's application, noted that at the bottom in the plan review remarks that it references 23 foot to bottom o£ sign and Field said h_ interpreted that to mezn from the g:ound to the bottom of the sign He then asked Mr. Remes if he'd care to persua3=_ him otherwise, that it wouldn't be, aad asked staff to ass�st in that, as staff apoarently wrote notes on this apolication. Mr. Remes responded that the first time he saw those notes is when he received a cooy of the appeal. He said he assumed those notations were made when the insgector inspected th=ir footings when th=y were building the siga, although he's not certain of that. h]s. Lane respond=_d tha* the notations were made by LIEP's structural engineer, the oae who would have reviewed the structural plaas that were submitted for the sign from tue applica:t, so iC's not based on the field inspection bu� on his review o= th_ structural plans that were submitted prior to the issuance o� the permit. • 15 ��r�W �� --�!^! 1 I Chair Field asked whether the structural design of a sign of 37 feet in total • height be different than the structural design of a sign of 58 feet in actual height from ground to the peak of the sign, as opposed to the roadbed. Ms. Lane responded that she would imagine so, speaking as a non-engineer. Chair Field asked if the plans discussed were at the committee's disposal. Ms. Lane said that they were. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the relevant inquiry was what was applied for and approved, which would be 37 feet above grade, and approved on February 21. Chair Field said that is why he desired seeing the structural plans to witness what was intended, as the testimony was that they probably would be different, Commissioner Vaught asked Ms. Lane whether the City always requires structural plans when an application is received for an advertising sign. Ms. Lane responded that they do not. Structural plans are required. In some cases they will have structural plans on file £or a specific type of a sign. If they are on file they do not ask for another set. She responded to a question from Vaught that yes, staff has accepted applications without structural plans and have considered them either qualifying or complete. Commissioner Vaught asked if it is the general practice of Saint Paul that the various fees which are required are paid when the permit is picked up, or when the application is submitted. Ms. Lane responded that staff will accept the � fees either way but do not process them until the permit is actually issued, which is generally when the applicant brings in their check. � Commissioner Vaught established that sta£f has in the past accepted � applications without the fees being paid at that point, and have actually gone through the who2e process of doing everything but issuing the permit. Ms. Lane agreed. Commissioner Vaught asked if she had any sense of what the more common practice is. Does someone submit the checks when the applications come in or whea tne permits are picked up? Ms. Lane responded that generally, when the permits are picke3 un. Com^isaioner Vaught reviewed that what Mr. Cronin said in his testimony is not inaccurate with respect to what genera'_ly hGop=ns. Ms. Lane agreed. Co-missioner Vauc;�t referred to the instructioas on the back of the apnlication form, and asked if that was accurate. Ms. Lane said it was and conce3=_3 that it doesn't say anything about structural plans. She also added that the back of a11 of their permit application forms gives a summary of what is rernsired. She said that more detail is included in the actual ordinance. Com-`_ssior.er Vaught said he might be sotnew�at sympathetic to the idea that if an tp�licart pretty much complies with what's on the back of th_= permit apalica_ion that it s=ems to be a reasozable apnroach. Ms. Laa= pointed cut that a11 0£ the sign comnanies are license3 ard as a part • �E Z��C� ��1.E 9�—.�?o __ ��--J�-r�� . of their license they are responsible to know what the ordinance says. Commissioner Vaught said he was looking more for a course of practice, as opposed to what it says, for what the City does. The ordinance says to submit structural plans but staff has indicated that applications are accepted without structural plans, but that they process them and issue permits on occasion without th=m. And the ordinance also states that fees be paid but staf£ has indicated that fees sometimes don't get paid when the applications are submitted and are not considered incomplete, and that is also stated on the back of the application. Vaught noted that by the time the end of the process is reached, with the exception of the structural plans, which sometimes staff never requires because they already know what they are, staff has required that everything be done that the ordinance requires. Ms. Lane agreed. Brian Hates, 1985 Grand Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Bates said that his interest was to see that neither sign was built. He said that for the past couple of years he has been approaching different community groups trying to obtain interest in ridding the city of billboards entirely. He said that one thing he heard from both Universal and Midwest is that they would like to see the sign ordinance enforced, which Mr. Bates concurred with. He said he believed that both Midwest and Universal are being a bit disingenuous about the issue of height. He said that the sign ordinance does read that the height can be measured from grade or surface of the roadway, whichever is � higher. He noted that when it says "of the roadway�� that it means of the roadway of which it is meant to be seen, which is I-94. He said that certainly Midwest's existing sign, the west face of iC, can only be seen from I-94, and cannot be seen from the ramp, so it would be measured, not from the hole, not from the ramp, but would be measured from I-94. Mr. Bates referenced Chat the landowner who spoke on behalf of the appeal, pointed out that there is an existing billboard on that site currently, so there is currently a certain amount of income. He said the primary issue which hasn't been made real clear, and has been referred to as the sign credits, and said the deal is that on I-94, is that you cannot have a sign within 1000 feet of another sign. If the proper sign credits are available, that distance can be shrunk to 2/3 of that to 665 feet, and fie said that it's important to note how many signs there are right i� that 2 or 3 block area between working fron the east and going west, betwee^ Prior and Cleveland there are 2 signs; if you include the Midwest sign thz= has already been built, there are 2 signs betweea Cleveland and Cretir. and then the-e is the 3M sign west of Cretin, so there are 5 signs th=re now. There are 5 signs in 3000 feet. Normally, with no credits, you could just s�ueeze in e signs within 3000 feet. He said that anyone suggesting that a variance mignt allow 6 signs he said that is an extreme egregious variance azd would recessitate that some of the distances between the signs be less than 500 feet, probably �50 feet. Mr. Bates said that the distances between t�= existing sians now are a11 less than 1000 feet, and range from as low as 60C feet to as hign as 9D0 feet. Mr. Bates said that that zo=ing lot is not o° suf£icient dimension that any l sig_^_ can be built th=re. I�e noted that there is on= existing sign on the site now that shouldn�t have bee� built there. Mr. Bates referenced ia the zoning • code, Cnaptez 66.21S.b whic: states: "TCe zoning lot on which the advertising 17 Z�NIN� �ILE 9 -� ? .u� � signs between 400 and 700 square feet°... (bath Universal and Midwest signs fall within that range). Mr. Bates said there is a minimum of 660 feet perpendicular to the right-of-way of the highway and 13,02D feet in length, for the zoning law itself. He�said that the lot uader question was zor.ed T-1. He said that immediately on the north side of the railroad tracks it is I-2. He said that the zoning lot is a railroad strip property and is very narrow and he guessed that it is approximately 150 feet deep, and is nowhere near the 660 feet required. Ae said that no signs should be built there. The one sign that is there should be removed. Mr. Sates submitted a picture which shows the narrowness of the site. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Bates had filed a complaint with respect to the Midwest sign with the City, with Mr. Bates indicating that he had not. Mr. Cronin said he didn't know if the City administrators would have allowed the ramp to be used as the basis for the height or not. He said the issue to him is that on the building permit it said 37 feet above grade. The note by the City engineer said 23 feet to the bottom. Commissioner Vaught said i£ the ramp isn't used, and I-94 isn't used because of the evidence that it can't be seen from the freeway, then maybe Vandalia should be used, which is higher than the ramp. Mr. Cronin said another alternative would be to use the grade of the railroad road. Commissioner Vaught said he'd read the particular code provision that gives the alternative and he thought it was pretty clear and clearly allows the grade at the bottom of the sign or the grade of the roadway, whichever is higher. He said either it can be seen from the freeway, in which case it's oriented to the freeway, in which case it may be too high, but the Universal sign can't be placed there because it's too close; or it is the grade of the ramp, in which case, according to the survey submitted by Midw=st, if it is correct, that it is a conforming sign with respect to height, or the grade of the only other roadway in the area which is Vandalia, which is higher than the grade of the ramp, at that point, which also means that it is not 58 feet. He said a choice has to be made that in tw� cas_s it is conforming; or choose the other in whicn it prohibits the Universal sign from being cor.structed because it is too close. Mr. Cror.in said he b_lieves it to be ciear thzt th=_ roadway cs=_d fo= measurenent is the roadbed of I-94, whicn he said in this cas_ is about the same level as the railroad road bed, within 5-10 £eet. I:e said that if Midwest's sign was intended to be read to Vandalia tnat it co�.:ldn't be that large of a sign, as Vandalia doesn't p=rnit that siz= of a sig� to be erected along it, aad he said that he also thinks that the orientatior_ of the sign is basically parallel to Vandalia, and doesn't believe that ori=ntation to Vandalia to be the ir_tent. � � Comnissioner Vaught asked what h� is to nak< of the photograncic evid_nce fron Universal that the Midwzst sign ca�not be seen frer I-9S. Mr. Cronin said he ca�'t see why the Midw=st sig,^. was built wh__e it was, as U^_iv2rsal would not have built a siga in that location. hz felt that if Midwest had built their • � �r�� Fi�E .Z� 18 QR �Fr �(�-l�f'�� sign in accordance with his permit that it is improbable. He said if Midwest is allowed to build it according to their permit it would be interesting to see if he would in fact build it. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Croain agreed or disagreed with the proposition that the ramp is also to be considered a part of the road. Mr. Cronin responded that in his understanding of the ordinance that he would say that is not a reasonable interpretation. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal has ever taten elevations off of a ramp. Mr. Cronin said that is not the way that Universal operates. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Cronin saw any alternative available whereby Midwest could have its sign as built and Universal could have their sign. Mr. Cronin responded that no, he did not see that as an alternative because there is no provision in the State regulations for a variance. He said that they have a rock hard, 500 foot spacing between signs reading to interstates. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught asked within what timeframe must the committee act on appeals such as this. Mr. Warner responded that within a reasonable period of time, and he thought that certain cases coming out of places like Mendota Heights would suggest contemporaneously, or by the next meeting of the � committee with a written resolution setting forth the reasons for the committee's decision. Commissioner Vaught noted that the staff report indicates the deadline for action to be May 3. Ms. Dadlez responded that the source of that deadline to be the 60 day law. However, Mr. Warner said it didn't apply in this matter, because it was an appeal, and that the code is very clear that appeals from decisions of the zoning administrator require a fairly contemporaneous finding to grant or deny the appeal. The next meeting of the zoning commitCee was scheduled for May 1, 1997. Commissioner Vaught said he would like to speak to Mr. Hardwick and Mr. Kessler, LIEP, to hear wha= they had to say about what they did and how they did it. Commissioner Vaught moved postponement to the May 1 zoning committee meeting, and requested that sta££ request Messrs. Kessler and Hazdwick to be present. Mr. Warner found this postpoaement to be acceptable, to provid= for additional information to help the coc.mittee cone to a rational decision. Commissioner Gordon seconded the motion. Conmissioner Gordon said he didn't hav� a particular d=sire to speak with the ir.dividuals Vaught wanted to speak to, however he said h= saw eauities on both • sid=s. He said he would lik= to see wzetnAr or not there is a way to accommodate both sides, ar_c 'r_e sunported the notio.. for layover to determine 19 ZO�r�� FeL� �.z� � ____ whether that was possible. Commissioner Vaught requested staff to ascertain from the State how it views various issues, specifically with respect to the Midwest sigr. zad the highway it is oriented toward, and speci£ically with respect to the proposed Universal sign, and whether or not inasmuch as the State would be forthcoming,� as to whether or not there is any construct under wnich they would permit both the Midwest sign where it is and the Universal sign where Universal wishes to put it. Vaught said he saw this as the biggest problem with resolving this as he said he was willing to be equitable about it. Mr. Warner, reviewed that the public hearing was closed, and he reviewed that the layover was to allow the committee to gather additional information from staff. Commissioner Vaught said he wished to allow for the possibility to ask questions of either the applicant or those in opposition, and requested that the motion be amended to a11ow for reopening of the public hearing. C� Mr. Warner said it would be appropriate to hear from the appellant and if the appellant was not strongly opposed to reopening the public hearing which would require renotification, then reopening the public hearing would be reasonable. Mr. Warner asked the committee to bear in mind that this matter is not one which is affected by the 60 day requirement, but is an appeal, and it is appropriate to layover if additional time or information is desirable. However, he noted that regarding the public hearing, the public testimony has been heard and that is done, the opportunity has been given. If the appellant � has no problem with laying the mattet over with the possibility that they would be asked questions, then it shouldn't be a problem. However, if they are reluctant to do that, Warrer said he saw a problem with laying it over for ' the purposes of taking additional testimony, but not laying it over for the purpose of getting additional information from staff which would be appropriate. Commissioner Vaught said a reason he believes it appropriate, is that although his advisement was not to go too far with the height of the Piid�est sign if not necessary, the apnellant has made that one-prong of their two-prong pos±tion, that Universal's siga should go up; and Midwest�s sicn should come dow::. Ae said he saw *_hem as s=parate issues, but as vastly related. He said in looking at the documen� tnat d=_als with the structural pl��s of the sign he said �� couldn't read it, anc h=_ said if he was able to cons�lt with someone prior to th> next meeting that would cause him to ask a que�_ioa with respect to wn=_tner or not some notaticn on thos= plans might indicat=_ tzat the measliremert of the sign was to be gra3=_-level, as opposed to =oadway level, he would want to be free to ask that question. z�n��nr� ��L� Z 20 �--- l � - _ �� I�� • Comnissioner Vaught requested that the chair ask the applicant whether or not they object to reopening the public hearing at the next meeting. Marvin List, representing Universal, responded that Universal ha3 no objection to reopening the public hearing at the next meeting. Commissioner Gordon wished to clarify that in the interim period the committee requested that sta£f look at whether or not there existed any options or alternatives that would permit both signs to exist, and he also encouraged any persons who have interest and wish to submit any alternative to do that. Chair Field noted that implied in the motion is the request that Messrs. Hardwick and Ressler attend the May 1 meeting. Commissioner Vaught said that with respect to the committee's activity from this meeting to the next, he noted the City Council has a rule which gags them from talking about matters, looking at matters in a quasi-judicial sense, to see that such discussions become part of the public record, and he asked if this was pertinent to the Zoning Committee in this case as it was a quasi- judicial matter. Mr. Warner encouraged committee members to observe that as we11 because of the Zoning Committee acting in a quasi-judicial manner in this case. The motion carried on a voice vote of 5 to 0(Kramer, abstained). � Drafted by: Submitted by: Approved by: �o.�.►�e`_�P�-�A?r—__ , \"� 6�`-�C� Donna Sanders Kady Dadlez Litton Field Chairperson . • t � ZC)�Vi�� FtLE � � z� x • MINUTES OF THE ZONING CONC2ZTTEE CITY CO(NCIL CHAMBERS, SAIDiT PAJL, MIri.IESOTA ON MAY 1, 1997 PR^�: Mme. Faricy and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gurn=y, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. 4larner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of th� Planning Division. AR�S�.NT Gordon, excused Time: �:20 - 5:40 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. LTNTVFRC�T Oi1TD00R THG • 2100 Gilb . Aven�-o Gov hside .as of Vandal'a: #97-Q�9 Ang .�.: Appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a permit for an advertising sign. The appeal by Universal Outdoor, Inc. at the April 17, 1997 meeting was laid over to this meeting, with the public hearing to be reopened. Wendy Lane, LIEP, reviewed that it was asked at the last meeting how the State � would regulate Midwest's sign if it were reduced in height to 37' and could only be viewed from the exit ramp of I-94. Ms. Lane has been informed by the State that if a sign can be viewed at all from I-94, even only from the exit ramp, that the sign would require a State permit, and all other signs to be read from that same freeway must be 500 feet away. Ms. Lane reported that Universal has identified a location 500 feet from the two existing advertising signs, however it would require a variance. Ms. Lane reviewed that the committee at its last hearing requested that both John Hardwick and Bob Kessler, LTEP attend this meeting. Mr. Hardwick was present and Mr. Kessler was unable to attend. Commissioner Faricy reviewed the timetable of events: Universal applied for their sign on February 10 and were notified by John Hardwick, LIEP on Februazy 18 to complete thzir application; Midwest submitted their application on Friday, February 21; and Universal completed their application on Monday, February 24. Commissioner Faricy asked that if two con£licting applications are received ae approximately the same time, how a decision is made by LIEP as to which application receives precedence. John Hardwick, LIEP, responded that as the responsible person for reviewing and issuing sign permits in LIEP for the past 15 years, that past practice has been to process a permit to a conclusion once it has been submitted. Any subsequent permits would be placed on hold until a final determination had been made on the £irst permit submitted. Hardwick said given his past practice, although not a written policy, he would have processed the Universal � Advertising permit to completion, either approval pr denial, before accepting another permit for a location that would conflict with Universal's location. , ��V � 9�� = Commissioner Faricy asked whether it was normal procedure to contact an . applicant to notify them of an incomplete application, as he did with Universal. Mr. Hardwick responded affirmatively, He reviewed that he m�t with a Universal representative on February 10 when they submitted their application, and at that time informed Universal of additional information needed, and then as a follow-uo by phone on February 18. Commissioner Chavez asked whether it was common for LIEP to have two companies submit applications for the same location and whether both ap�lications would typically be accepted. Mr. Hardwick responded that it is commonplace because the City is so built-up with advertising signs that when a location becomes available many sign companies wi11 compete and submit applications for the same location or a location close enough to prevent other sign companies from erecting signs. Commissioner Vaught asked Mr. Hardwick to review what was specifically dzficient with the Universal application. Mr. Hardwick reviewed four deficiencies: 1) A more exact site plan was needed; one that showed a location £or the proposed sign to an object that was measuzable by an inspector going out into the field; 2) Structural drawings were needed; Co a21ow the str�ctural engineer in � LIEP to review those drawings to ensure proper footings are in place; 3) A letter £rom the property owner at a location on Winifred Street where Universal proposed to be moving a sign in order to obtain sufficient nonconforming credits to erect the sign at the proposed location; and a) Fees were needed for both the proposed demolition at the other location and for the new sign at this location. Commissioner Vaught asked whe[her Mr. Hardwick on February 10, cited all four specific deficiencies with Universal. Mr. Hardwick couldn't recall the exact conversation, however said it was on February 10 that Universal representatives were made aware thaC their application was incomplete. Mr. Hardwick reviewed that he was specific outlining the four deficiencies in the February 18 telephone communicaCion. Commissioner Vaught reviewed the individual deficiencies of the application. 1) He asked if a more exact site plan wasn't a substantial item and could be easily remedied, with Mr. Hardwick in agreement. 2) Regarding structural drawings, Vaught reviewed that Universal claimed at the April 17 meeting that it is not unusual that at the time an application is submitted that structural plans are not submitted, and that Ms. Lane confirmed that there are times when plans that are of sufficient detail for the type of sign are already on £ile in LIEP because of a previous application, that structural plans may not be � required at a22. Mr. Hardwick responded that LIEP has in the past kept some z ZONi�+� FlL� � u� � �-; � f - � L 1 � C • structural drawings from the major advertising sign companies on file. However, LIEP's current structural engineer has expressed concern in that the draaings that are submitted and that have been kept on file are generic drawings, and it is the structural engineer's opinion that he did not wish to be in a position of determining what size footing is required for what size sign, a�d that is the applicant's responsibility. Mr. fiardwick noted that L3niversal was aware that they needed to submit structural drzwings when they submitted their application on February 10. hir. hardwick said triat every permit application that has been submitced within tnz last 5 years has been required to have structural drawings wich it. Commissioner Vaught asked whether the struccural plans submitted on February 24 by Universal were sufficient structural plans from Universal. Mr. Hardwick was not aware whether LIEP's structural engineer ever reviewed those plans, however they were stamped by a registered engine°r, and there was nothing to lead him to believe that the structural plans would not have been sufficient. 3) Commissioner Vaught referenced the letter from the Winifred Street property owner with respect to the sign credits, and asked whether it's a common occurrence that an application is submitted without it and then submitted within a reasonable period of time thereafter. Mr. Hardwick responded Chat it is common for an application to be submitted without the letter of waiver, and this matter was resolved on or befoze February 24. 4) Commissioner Vaught spoke to the fees. He reviewed testimony from Universal that it is not uncommon not to submit the fee when th= application . is submitted but to pay it when picking up the permit, and asked if thaC is a common practice. Mr. Hardwick agreed, and said that those fees were paid on or before February 24. Commissioner vaught summarized that with respect to all four of the issues addressed above the cited deficiencies were all remedied by submission from Universal by February 24. Commissioner Vaught said he saw two weeks compliance as a reasonably short period of Cime, and one that is an acceptable period of time in which to remedy noted defects in an application. Mr. Hardwick reviewzd that no writ[en policy exists, but agreed that two weeks is not an unreasonable amount of time and is typical for processing a sign application. Commissioner Vaught reviewed that Mr. Hardwick had testified that he normally followed an apolication through to the issuance of a permit or denial, before considering another permit apolication, but was not the case in this circumstance. Mr. Hardwick concurred that the procedure followed was not typical of the way that he has processed sign p2rmits in the past. He noted thzt he wasn't involved in the issuance of the permit for the site in question. PTendy Lane, LIEP, spoke. Ms. Lane clarified eaz'lier testimony by Mr. Hardwick that a fee was not paid by Universal on or bzfore February 2�, and pointed out that a fee is not paid until a permit is issued. Since no p°rmit was issued to Universal the fee was never paid as the cneck was never cashed. • Commissioner Vaught asked whether checks are submitted and held in advance 3 � zo[V�NG F�L� � i _ �, 6 until the permit is issued. Mr. Hardwick reviewed that some companies submit , a check with their application while others wait until they pick up the permit, and that either one is acceptable. Commissioner Vaught noted that the deficiency related to the fee doesn't constitute a deficiency as it followed the standard operating procedure. Ms. Lane agreed. Ms. Lane reviewed that the application for the Midwest sign was processed by Robert Kessler, the Director o£ LZEP, who chose to get involv:d with this case because of some past problems. Siace no written policies existed, it was his d>_cision to consider the application that was complete as having precedence ovzr the application that was incomplete. Ms. Lane agreed that was a departure from the past practice by Mr. Hardwick. She pointed out that LIEP is currently in the process of establishing written poZicies. Commissioner Chavez reviewzd testimony from thz April 17 meeting that an application was made by Midwest in November, 1996, and asked whether Mr. Hardwick was familiar, with Mr. Hardwick indicating that he was. Commissioner Chavez asked if that application process was handled in the typical way. Mr. Hardwick responded that he was not involvec3 in the issuance of that permit, and that Ms. Lane was. Commissioner Chavez asked if a permit was good for one year. Ms, Lane responded that once a permit is issued that construction needs to begin within 6 months. Chavez asked Ms. Lane if the November Midwest application was • handled in the typical fashion. Ms. Lane agreed that it was. Commissioner Vaught referenced three letters in Mr. Kessler's signature: 1) an original letter to Universal indicating that the first complete application was processed; 2) a letter to Midwest to build at their own risk; and 3) a letter of LIEP's conclusion that the Midwest sign as constructed does not conform to the code with respect to the height requirements and the conclusion that the affected roadway was in fact Highway 94, not the exit ramp from I-94 to Vandalia. Ms. Lane in response to an inquizy, said that she drafted all of the letters at the request of Mr. Kessler. With this review complete, reference was made back to Ms. Lane's initial remarks regarding the location identified by Universal that would be 500 feet from the two existing advertising signs which would meet the state requirements, however would require a variance from the City. Commissioner Vaught asked whether the committee would have th= ability to vary the City requirements, with Ms. Lane responding affirmatively, how=ver a separate application would be required. Marvin List, Attorney for Universal Outdoor Inc., the appellar.t, spoke. Mr. List distributed copies of a survey Universal conducted since the previous meeting which showed the Midwest sign that was recently constructed, He described that 519 feet to the east of that is the existing building and Universal's proposed sign location, and another 504 feet to the east of the proposed sign is the existing Adams outdoor sign. Mr. List reiterated that • Universal could locate a sign more than 500 feet away from the two existing , 4 I Z�N1�lG FILE �2zn � ��: ��-lu�'� . signs which would comply with the State la.r requiring S00 feet spacing requirement, bur Universal's proposed sign location would not comply with City spacing. Mr. List indicated that Universal would like to resolve their a�oeal by requescing and being granted a permit to construc� the propos=3 sign indicated on th= survey, which would require a variance under the City cod°. He said triat neither Universal nor Midwest are oppose3 to the other cor.�pany located nearby. This solution would require two variances: 1) a spaci:�g variance; and 2) a height variance. Zf constructed at the 37 foot requirem=:�t the sign would not be visible, hencz the 20 foot variance. Mr. List presented some conceptual photos of the proposed sign. Chair Field review=d that the matter under consideration by thz committee was an appeal of the zoning administrator's decision, and said that what was presenced by Mr. List appeared to be a counter proposal. The Chair asked legal counsel for direction. Mr. Warner suggested that the committee could proceed by temporarily suspending the appeal to see if the plaz proposed by Mr. List could accommodate the needs of all concerned. Mr. Warner reviewed that Ms. Lane had indicated that Univzrsal can meet the State's separation requirements, however will require a variance from the City. Mr. Warner advised that Universal might temporarily suspend their appeal; file an application for a variance and await the outcome of the varia:�ce. If the variance is granted and Universal gets their sign, it would mace the issue of the appeal moot. He anticipated that Universal may wish to przserve their right to come back i£ the variance were not granted. � Mr. List agreed with Mr. Warner's overview, and agreed that while Universal proceeded with a variance request that they wouldn't want to waive rights regarding the appeal at this time. As the committee was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in this matter, Commissioner Vaught asked Mr. Warner to confirm that the committee was not bound by the State law as it relates to processing zoning cases within the 60 day period. Mr. Warner confirmed that. Vaught reviewed that with the concurrence of the appellant that the committee could table or suspend immediate consideration of the appeal to allow the process outlined. Jean Weigum, 1647 Laurel Avenue, spoke in ooposition. Ms. Weigum addressed concern over the apparent interest in making two business representatives happy, and asked what about those persons who live in the area who aren't happy. She reviewed that the district council meC and discuss�d billboards and passed a resolution proposing a moratorium on all new billboard construction and the gradual removal o£ all of the billboards in the eity. Ms. Weigum said the neighborhood doesn't want any more billboards, that they are unattractive, and detract from the gateway to the city. She said there are reasons for having distances between signs, and asked the committee to say no to the billboards. Commissioner Vaught respond=d that not allowing a sign would be unlawful. The best scenario he could see from Ms. Weigum's perspective would be that only • one sign be constructed. 5 ZON�N� ��LE ' � � � ,� Ms. 4Jeigum reviewed that she understood that th= MidNest sig:� was constructed illegally and is too high, and the committee ne=d not grant a variance, and said if the sign cannot be read, it would not be built. Peter Remes, Midwest Outdoor Advertising, 1103 Homer Street, spoke briefly regarding sign credits, the result being that in his opinion m.o:e billboards are coming down then going up. There was no rebuttle from the appellant. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught moved that further consideration of the appeal by Universal be temporarily suspended pending submittal by Universal of a variance request, and the final determination of the variance request by the planning commission. It was acknowledged that Midwest may also plan to submit a variance request during this time. Commissioner Wencl seconded the motion. Commissioner Kramer indicated a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from the vote. Ms. Lane reviewed that LIEP does not receive a lot of applications for new signs, but aren't seeing a lot of signs coming down either, however said she felt more signs are coming down than going up, The motion carried on a voice vote of 5 to 0(Gurney and Kramer absta3ned) Chair Field asked that the height of billboards be looked at in future minor zoning text amendments, and how they relate to the grade of the road as ooposed to the height of the sign itself. Drafted by: 1 )�-"w°----�w.zttt,6--�-� .�� Donna Sanders �� ittqd by:�� p' � y \ v` � �tN Kady Dadlez 6 �Z % �� . , • � r 1 L_J MINUTES OF THE 20DIING CONMITTEE CITY COLNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MZPINESOTA ON JULY 31, 1997 �(�t - i �t`� � PRESrNT: Mmes. Faricy and Wenc1; M2ssrs. Chavez, Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attor.ney; Mm=_s. Homans and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Zoning Office staff of PED. �S��;T Gordon, excused Gurney Time: 4:52 - 5:28 p.m. The meeting was chaired by.Litton Field, Chairperson. The committee unanimously voted Co hear Midwest Outdoor Advertising, #97-169 and Universal Outdoor, I$c., #97-170, together. For the purpose of _ __ recordkeeping individual minutes were prepared separately. =- �DWFST Oi7TDOOR ADV RTI N.• nor hPast corner of 2-94 and Vandalia: �7-169• Sign variance. Two variances to allow an existing advertising sign to be moved. 1) A 30.5' sign height variance requested. A sign height of 68' requested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed. 2) An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12' requested. A separation between advertising signs of 509.88' requested and a minimum of 667' allowed. Nancy Homans, Zoning Office of PED, Northwest Quadrant, reviewed the staf£ report and presented slides. Staff recommended denial of the application for a variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs, based on finding 6.b of the staff report. The Merriam Park Community Council, the District 12 St. Anthony Park Community Council, and University ONITED voted to oppose the sign variances. One letter was received in opposition. Commissioner Kramer disclosed a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from the vote as well as from any discussion. Commissioner Vaught asked if the City wzre to approve the requested variances whether the State would issue a sign permit. Nancy Homans deferred the response to the applicant. Roger Ryan, Zoning Office staff, noted that the minor zoning text amendment amending trie sign ordinance to reauire applicants to obtain a State permit for an advertising sign be£ore they can apply for a City permit for an advertising sign, has not yet been enacted. Peter Remes, 1103 Homer Street, the applicant, was available to respond to questions. Mr. Remes reported that he had already reczived a sign permit from the Sta�e. No one spoke in support. � � 1 FlL� �-- ! Z��' Brian Bates, 1985 Grand Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Bates commented that • notfiing is unique about the Midwest Sign exceot that Midwest built their sign when the City told them not to. He disagreed with the staff report that findings 6 a, c and e were met, and asked that the committee revise the findings accordingly and deny the requested variances. He directed the committee's attention to a letter in opposition from an adjacent property owner and the call received by staff from a second owner. He suggested that ehose contacts constitute objections by adjacent property owners and should lead to a finding that condition 6e is not met. Peter Remes, the applicant, responded that he had a valid City permit when he installed the Midwest sign. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught reviewed that prior to the installation of the Midwest sign that LIEP had cautioned Midwest of circumstances pending and that if they were to install their sign that it would be at their own risk. Mr. Reme� agreed that was correct:... " Commissioner Vaught made a motion encompassing both the Midwest and Universal requests together. The motion below reflects the Dtidwest Outdoor Advertising action. Commissioner Vaught moved approval of the application for a variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs, Commissioner Wencl seconded the motion. � Commissioner Vaught said he disagreed with staff finding "6b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code." and felt that on balance that test to be met, and within the general intent of the sign code. He said he saw the removal of the nonconforming signs to be positive, with two signs replacing 17 nonconforming signs. The unique topography of the site further justifies the requested variances, He further stated that he did not see a material difference between the Midwest and Universal signs and the neighboring Adams sign. Vaught furth=r concluded that this problem was created by the Division of LIEP, and that approving the requested variances is the most equitable solution. He added that he did find Midwest at fault for installing their sign despite the words of caution £rom LIEP. Commissioner Chavez said he supported the motion with some difficulty, and specifically found the argument of height from the ground to be somewhat disingenuous, as did Commissioner Field, who added that he fouad the freeway corridor to be a more appropriate place for advertising signs than some of the other locations where nonconforming signs were removed. 2 Z�{�1R1� �i'�� -_ ��-Iy'?2 • The motion for approval carried with a unanimous voice vote of 5 to 0(Kramer abstained)_ (*7,_�n�=: Due to technicaZ difficulties there is no audio recording of the meeting, and is the reason for the brief minutes.) . Drafted by: Submitted by: Aporoved by: ,,'/ �� v,�.y„_ S� ��Cl�n� �dD�'r'.�a�Je� � � Donna Sanders Nancy Homans : iel� Recording Secretary Northwest puadrant Chairperson� � � � L��trd\d � �54. (� t 3 • � U MINUTES OF THE ZONIhG CONIMITTEE CITY COU`NCIL CHI�NBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON JULY 31, 1997 pRESENT: Mmes. Faricy and Wenc1; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Homans and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Zoning Office staif of PED. P3SENT: Gordon, excused Gurney Time: 4:52 - 5:28 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Fie1d, Chairperson. The committee unanimousl� voted to hear Midwest Outdoor Advertising, and Universal OuCdoor, Sne., #97-170, together. For the purpose of recordkeeping individual minutes were prepared separately. #97�169 TiNNERSAL OLTTDOOR. INC.: 2100 C,ilbert AvPrn�e• southside east of Vanda��a• #9�-170: Sign Va_ria�. Two variances to allow an advertising sign. 1) A 20' sign height variance requested. A sign height of 57.5' reguested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed. 2) Two advertising sign separation variances of 157.12' and 157` requested. A separation between advertising signs of 509.88' and 510' requested and a minimum of .667' allowed. Nancy Homans, Zoning Office of PED, Northwest Quadrant, reviewed the staf£ report and presented slides. Staff recommended denial of the application for a variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs, based on finding 6.b of the staff report. The Merriam Park Community Council, the District 12 St. Anthony Park Community Council, and University UNITED voted to oppose the sign variances. One letter was received in opposition. Commissioner Kramer disclosed a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from the vote as w°11 as from any discussion. Commissioner Vaught asked if the City were to approve the requested variances whether the State wou2d issue a sign permit. Nancy Homans de£erred the response to the applicant. Roger Ryan, Zoning Office staff, noted that trie minor zoning text amendment amending the sign ordinance to require applicants to obtain a State permit for an advertising sign before they can apply for a City permit for an advertising sign, has not yet been enacted. Michael Cronin, representing Universal Outdoor, Inc., said that he appreciated th= staff findings and intent o£ ordinance, but understood that the Zoning Committez had asked thz two companies Co find a way to fit botn signs. He directed the committee to page 7 of the staff report (the applicant's attachment to their application) where the unique conditions of the site are discussed. The topography of the area and the placement of the neighboring building that blocks the "right hand read" of the sign require that the sign ZOtV1�G FILE � Zw be higher than a2lowed by the ordinance. He further suggested that the S committee distinguish between replacement signs that replace a single existing sign and those that replace multiple smaller signs. In this case, where the proposed sign wi11 replace multiple signs, he suggested that the replacement sign does meet the intent o£ the zoning ordinance. Mr. Cronin asked the committee to approve the sign variance, or for approval of their previous appeal. Mr. Cronin responded to Commissioner Vaught's question above, that no, Universal has not yet received a State permit. No one spoke in support, Brian Bates, 1985 Grand Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Bates disagreed with the staff report that findings 6 a, c and e were met, and asked that the committee revise the findings accordingly and dzny trie requested variances. He directed the committee's attention to a letter in opposition from an adjacent property owner �nd the call received by staff from a second owncr. He suggested that those`contacts constitute objections by adjacent property owners and should lead to a finding that condition 6e is not met. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught made a motion encompassing both the Midwest and Universal requests together. The motion below reflects the Universal Outdoor, Inc. action. Commissioner Vaught moved approval o£ the application for a varxance of the �� height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs. Commissioner Wencl seconded the motiqn. ' Commissioner Vaught said he disagreed with staff finding "6b. The sign is not contrary to the generaZ intenC of the sign chapter of the zoning code.° and felt that on balance that test to be met, and within the general intent of the sign code, He said he saw Che removal of the nonconforming signs to be positive, with two signs replacing 17 nonconforming signs. The unique topography of the site further justifies the reguested variances. He further stated that he did not see a material difference between the Midwest and Universal signs and the neighboring Adams sign. vaught further concluded that this problem was created by the Division of LTSe, and that approving the requested variances is the most equitable solution. He added that he did find Midwest at fault for installing their sign despite the words of caution from LIEP. Commissioner Chavez said he support the motion with some difficulty, and specifically found the argument of height from the ground to be somewhat disingenuous, as did Commissioner Field, who added that he found the freeway corridor to be a more appropriate place for advertising signs than some oE the other locations where nonconforming signs were removed. '�oNJJ�� -�_ Z ��'� �1 _ ��1��7 � The motion £or approval carried with a unanimous voice vote of 5 to 0(Kramer abstained). (NotP: Due to technica2 difficulties there is no audio recording of the meeting, and is the reason for the brief minutes.J Drafted by: Submitted by: Approve�: / ;. ��«--5..�.�-- �/(Q-r,�9�� . Donna Sanders Nancy omans itton Fi Recording Secretary Northeast Quadrant Chairperson � • 2�� A _ �E ��. ,_ _, 3 �,�� • Midwest Outdoor Advertising Appiication for Variances Zoning Committee Staff Report � � • i • APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPEC710NS, A��D ENVlRON,tfENTAL PROTECTION - ' 3�0 S1. Peter Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, N1N.i5102-1 2h6-90/)8 ' ZO��t� �1LE �_?1� APPLICANT PROPERTY Name blidwest Outdoor Advertisinq Company Address 110"� HomPr StrePt City St. Paul StateMN Zip 55116 DaytimePhone 690-5444 Properry interest of appticant (owner, contract purchaser, etc ) Les see Nameofowner(ifdifferentJ Soo Line Railroad Address/Location I-94 @ Vandalia Street Legaldescription Unavailable (attach additianal sheet ifnecessary) �,' Lotsize Railroad R/W Present Zoning IND PresentUse Railroad ProposedUse TN�+u"fllSifl�i S��4n Zoning otfice use dnTy � �p� � Fite aum6er. ' � i� Fee: � '2�5,bT3 Tentative fiearing date: � 34 `� Seetion{s): b /o• 2 ( �- �t�� : 3a2 C+��C3� Ci€yagent �•�- 1. Variance(s)requested. To allow existing advertising sign to be moved approxi- mately 50' to the west of existing location and to be built at 68' overall height��-� -(y,� �2c.� oF -�,.F 5��6*'�. `�e, w�ax�rvwvr 1�-�� V�k#"ad 'ts 37.5' -C'or-a vaalawe,�. �4�uest �.S' -� Vps� n ��SC�I� �' .nesrted �o,�, -I'� Ye� .u`r�l 5e� o�h �m d� �ro �I 2. Wh�hysical characteristics of the propErty prevent its �eing used for any of the permitte use in your zone. (topography, size and shape of lot, soi4 conditions, eta) The property slopes downward from the roadway. �5i�"� � F-e-S�• �� \m� �c�d.�o3�`a», ltis�v� vlov�coK{dv�w�.n9 S� �Jtv�'� is �7'� - t� QroQoud �e�v.m.�,`o,-� � 509.88' -�r a Joxio.nce �PSre� i57 .lZ�. 3. Explain how the strict appiication of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or eptional practicaldifficui5eso�exceptionalunduehardships. The OTdindnce dllOws for Sign to be 372 from roadway or grade, whichever is higher. To build the sign at 37'- from the adjacent freeway surface would result in limited visibility of the advertising sign. —`-��;� �3 ��,�c� '�j � m p�j'(i y Q 'kp �K�-� WC�S'�' -� [Z -i-LSL,� CASHIERSUSE�tJLY � Yo poud i,Cnv� a� s�� - to -i*�e �si� . 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose �$�.I.�jl��]pQ�:_i j�IL�� _�_R'i _' oftheZoningOrdinance. This is recommended compromise 4^ev i�n.a�� ._� suggested at Zoning Commission to facilitate 3��;".� a?�5.�: continued sites by Universal Sign and Mid�aest iF:_;v; i�;I ¢?2�•C� Outdoor . �fib+G� � _=� additional sheets if ApplicanFs si �� Date � �a % � ZONZNG_COMQITTEE REPORT —_�--__ FZLE # 97-169 1. APPLZCANT: MIDWEST OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DATE OF FiEARING: 07/31/97 2. CLA33ZFICATZOtt_ Sign Variance 3. LOCATION: XXX VANDALIA STREET (northeasterly corner of Z-94 and Vandalia) 4. PLANNING D23TRZCT: 12 5. LEGAL DESCRZPTION: see file 6. PRE3ENT ZONING: 2-1 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §66.409��66.302(b) 7. 3TAFF ZNVE3TIGATION P.ND REPORT: DATE: 7/24/97 BY: Nancy Homans 8. DATE RECEIVED: 06/30/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 08/29/9'7 A. PURP03E: Two variances to allow an existing advertising sign to be relocated: 1) a 30.5' sign height variance requested (a sign height of 68' is requested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed); 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12' requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88' is requested and a minimum of 667' is allowed). • B. PARCEL 3ZZE: Railroad right of way C. EXI3TING LAND VSE: Railroad right of way D. SURROUNDING LAND VSE: North: Industrial (I-2) East: Industrial (I-1) South: Freeway/Residential (R-3) West: Industrial (I-1) E. ZONZNG CODE CITATION: Section 66.409 of the zoning code states, "The planninq commission shall have the autriority to grant variances from the strict applications of Chis chapter for unique signs or unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot, provided such signs would not be contrary to the general intent of this chaptei', would not create a hazard, would not violate Minnesota State Statutes or rules and regulations developed pursuant thereto, would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners, would not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting and provided that the signs would be in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. The commission may not grant a variance that would permit the sign within a zoni.ng district which is not otherwise permitted in that zoning district under the provisions of this chapter." F. HISTORY/DZSCUSSION: 1. A 1997 appeal by Universal Outdoor, Inc. of the Office o£ License, � Tnspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) decision to gzant a permit to Midwest Outdoor Advertising to locate a sign in this vicinity while an applicatioh by Universal Outdoo=, Inc. was undei consideration. (97-049) zo��n�� l�.� ' I #R�—t�n9 �� z 2. A 1996 case involved a tequest by Faitway Outdoor Advertising for a • height variance to allow an existing 50 feet high advertising sign--that ieplaced a previous 50 foot high sign--to remain. The application was withdrawn when it was discovered that the sign was located on public right-of-way. The Fairway sign was located between the currently proposed locations of the Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal outdoot signs. (96-111� G. DZSTRZCT COUNCIL RECOM[�NDATION: 1. The Meriiam Park Community Council has submitted a resolution opposing the proposed variance. 2. A recommendation had not been received from the Disttict 12 Community Cour.cil at the time this staff report was piepared. H. FINDING3: 1. The applicant pxoposes to move an existing outdoor advertising sign approximately 50 feet to the west and construct it at a height of 68 feet above grade. Two variances--of maximum height and of distance between signs--are requested. The Zoning Code requires that outdoor ac3vertising signs intended to be seen from a freeway be 1,000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits which reduce the required distance by one third. Zn this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 1039.82 feet west of an existing Adams Company sign and 803 feet east of an existing 3M Company sign. In addition, the proposed site is 509.88 feet west of a sign proposed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The Zoning Code al.so requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs ' be no higher than 37.5 feet from the giade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway Yrom which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant pioposes a sign that would be 68 feet from grade, The grade at which the sign is proposed to be constructed is highet than the I-94 ioadway bed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now xoom, given state and city spacing requirements, for no moie than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of piivately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height tequirements of the Zoning Code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land in the vicinity is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right-of-way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass undet the Vandalia Street bridge. It is on this railroad Zand that Midwest Outdoor Advertising proposes to construct its sign. 3. Midwest Outdoor Advertising filed an applzcation for an outdoor advertising sign on Friday, February 21, 1997. The sign was to be located in the railroad right-of-way just east oE Vandalia Street and north of the westbound I-94 off-ramp, 50 feet east from where the sign is presently proposed. The application stated that the sign would be . installed at 37 feet above grade. ZOiV1�C �1L �'�� . -i�R � - l�aq � �C"i�jc 3 - - � The applicant constructed the sign at its current location and at its . current height (58 feet above grade) sometime after being issued a � permit by the Saint Paul Office oE License, Znspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) on February 25, 1997. (The application stated that it was estimated that the sign would be constructed between March 15 and March 30, 1997.) On March 7, 1997, the applicant was notified of an appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The letter from Robert Kessler to Midwest Outdoor Advertising notifying them of the appeal £iled by Universal Outdoor, Inc. stated: "If you choose to proceed and Universal's appeal is appioved by the Planning Commission, it would be your responsibility to remove the sign at your expense." On April 17, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission met to considei the appeal o£ the LIEP decision by Universal Outdooz, Inc. The matter was laid over until the May 1, 1997 committee meeting. On April 28, 1997, a letter was sent to Midwest Outdoor Advertising by Robeit Kessler notifying them that their sign was constructed in violation of their permit inasmuch as it was 58 feet from the base to the top of the sign--not 37.5 feet as required. The company was further notified that continued use of the sign would require a variance from the Planning Commission. (The applicant has maintained that the construction of their sign was consistent with their undezstanding that sign height was to be measured from the top of Che I-94 exit ramp rather than the roadbed. The fact--and longstanding practice--that the measurement is to be taken from the main roadbed was clarified by a Minoz' Zoning Amendment adopted by the Planning Commission on July 11, � 1997.) On May 1, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission devoted a significant amount of time td a consideration of the issues associated with which of two sign companies should be permitted to construct a sign within an area where the Zoning Code would a11ow only one. Because of different procedures followed by different sta£f inembers in the OPfice of Licenses Inspections and Environmental Protection, both applicants asserted that they should have been considered "first," and, therefore, been approved. Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution oE the appeal might involve pezmitting both signs provided that they could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance o£ the code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. Universal Outdoor, Inc. elected to suspend its appeal and file an application fot such a variance. 4. The two companies, after the May 1, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting, crafted a proposal that would involve moving hoth siqns fXOm their originally proposed locations in order that they both would meet the State of Minnesota's 500 £eet separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. . ��I �{' F�� 9� z z #� 9� - l t��1 �tri�. 4 5. The proposed sign rep2aces non-conforming signs removed by Midwest • Outdoor Advertising elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66.302(b) of the Zoning Code. That section provides, in part, that: (1). The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advettising signs are a permitted use; (2}. The advertising sign must be brouqht into conformance with the size and height requixements as set foxth in Section 66.214(b); and (3). The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two- thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: {6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requi=ements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing tequirements from residential distticts, patks, parkways and schoo2s in section 66.214(k), but nee@ comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance reguirements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request £or a sign variance to con£orm to the provisions o£ 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This condition is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14x48 foot v-style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual conditions related to the site that have led to this application include: (1) Topography. The site selected by the applicant and leased from the railroad is depressed to allow for the passage of trains undet the Vandalia Street bridge. A sign constructed within the 37.5 feet height limit outlined in the Zoning Code would not be clearly visible from I-94. {2) Separation from the proposed Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign. To resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the Zoning Code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is not met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 0£ the Zoning Code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desixe to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. • Z��vtt�� r�.E ��; I � �t�-t�q �aq� 5 �'�'�� That balance is st=uck in the specific p=ovisions of the code. • Particularly salient in this instance are those provisions related to the replacement of nonconfoiming signs. (See Finding #5 above) The code, for instance, allows those signs that replace nonconforming signs to locate closer to othex signs than would otherwise be permitted. Signs that replace non-conforming signs are allowed to be 667 feet from other signs. Without nonconforming sign credits, the required separation would be 1,000 feet. This applicant not only proposes to take advantage of the incentive provided in the code, but asks for a variance to further reduce the required separation. The code also, however, in a number of instances underscores the intent that the new signs--those that replace the nonconforming signs--adhere to the size and height requirements of the code. The intent of the code is to move toward overall conformance with the provisions of the sign ordinance. Granting this request for two variances would move the city away from the balance intended in the code. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues permits for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restrictions although their permits state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. C� Minnesota 5tatutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d. The sign will not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 60C feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. e. The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals. ` � 2. 3TAFE' RECOD4 Based on finding 6.b. above, staff recommends denial of the application for a variance of the height and separation =equisements associated with outdoor advertising signs. ZQ�lIi�G F��E 9��-O� �� 1��' � Universal Outdoor, inc. Apptication for Variances Zoning Committee Staff Report � � Mf.Y-02-1997 09�Z2 FR�M CITY OF ST PAUL LIEP TO AAPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE � OPFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS, AND . ENYIRON�YfENTAL PROTECTION � � ' ` � 3S0 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 ca` SaintPaul,MNS.i102- ± � 266-90U8 � � 3�'`��/� APPLICANT \ I PROPERTY Address 3_ �5 � R� � S'�2eE� NE Ciiy__ �AAttt�ol+3` Statef�Zip DaytimePhone 8�.9^/400 Ptoperty interest of appiicant (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) ��A3E Name of owner (if different) C.7 � PRo�,t�i�_S' �j � a � �.i ,, � ,, S '�'e}� es'�e� . 3. Expiain how the strict appiication ot the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance wou�d result n peculFdr or exceptionai practical diKculties or exceptional undue hardships. Present ZoninqT" � Present lSse Mt(e�tw��S see a�F�a�t,act CASHIERS USE ONLY Address/Location 0�� Gi�btA� �1Ve�c%>C. Legaldescription (attach additiona! sheet if necessary) Lot size Proposed Use 1. Variance(s)requested: �p��-�� ,�., - ('(n� t'e�uVe� `'--e��' ��'�' Q `� JQ '� { ' s �' r � Si� a� -�- �l.w�e ��di Uf-- T-�{4, uSUa� V�crnCav� 5�� GV'e4-�'iC� �b7� S��ra�i�» r�� . Y�ct, � � fraw, -t'�- �a�oscd J✓l�ctux's'1 3,�,-, ta -rre u.scs�i c�.�-d'slo' a-,apas� ��„-. -t�,.a !-��+rs s: - 6,-r� a�s� �Q 1^0;� y'�"�"� . � .. � 2. What physical characteristics of the property prevent its being used for any oYthe permitted uses in your zone7 V (topography, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) ��•� �J �SO Y' �. (�0.�� /vK[� See u.t�kct,ec( 1�`e,`�„a ��A {� �&� '�s 371'a , 4. Explain how the granting of a variance wiil not be a substantiat detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. See ��{�,.�I,cd • additional sheete if Applicant's 98697082 P.002 ..,. .,....:: .c;i:�:-,a�e;;_r.:.�.. Jbi25f47c•oo�t31��v6�i; i'•_ERu 1 � ): �� : ^,t`c �n 4"c'•0 �-anI.�:;Cc �� ,;.yu S+JFTT= �t�25, 00 �H�=."r: T iI: �t�2i.OL Ci-iA�iC�= s,Gt� Date S-S- �7 ATTACHMENT TO THE APPLICATION OF UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR, INC., A7 2100 GILBERT AVENUE FOR VARIANCES REDUCING THE REQUIRED SPACING BEfWEEN BILLBOARDS AND tNCREASIIJG 7HE MAXIMl1M HEIGH7 OF THE PROF'OSED BlLLBOARD FROM 371/2 F7'. TO 571/2 FT The requested variances are the minimum and ma�dmum necessary to permit constructiort of a bitlboard at a new site at 2100 Gilbert that was chosen in response to the discussi�n of the Zoning Committee of the City Planning Commission at ihefr meetings ot April 17 and May 1, 1997. Please refer to the record and minutes of those meetings for the background on the unusual conditions pertaining to the proposed sign on this specific lot. 1. The genera{ intent of the sign code is to permit biliboard type signs in industrially zoned areas along I 94. Because of the relationships of the existing sign in the area, the topography, the Vandalia bridge over 194, and the vegetation, the need to strictly enforce the minimum spacing of 667 ft. is mftigated. The requested 57 1/2 ft height is the minimum height necessary to locate a biilbaard intended to read form I 94 on the the lot and meet the other conditions imposeci by State statute and the discussion of the 2oning Committee. 2. A billboard in this isolated location and this height will not create a hazard for the public on locai streets or I 94. 3. The biilboard as proposed will be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes and rules providing regulation of Outdoor Advertising. 4. 7he character and uses of the adjacent sites are typica! of those where bil(boards are compatibly sited. 5. No residential property is located to be affected by glare of lighting from this biilboard. � • 6. Biliboards are in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. MBys,,�� zoN�� E ��- �o�\ \� � �� ZZ • 5. LEGAL DESCRZPTION: see file ZONZNG COM4ITTEE STAFF REPORT • s===—=�_--___—_--- _s FILE # 97-170 1. APPLXCANT: UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR� INC. DAR'E OF HEARING: 07/31/97 2. CLASSSFICATION: Siqn Variance 3. LOCATION: 2100 GILBERT AVENUE 4. PLANNING DI3TRICT: 12 6. PRE3ENT ZONI2IG: I-1 r 1 LJ 7. 3TAFF INVE3TIGATION AND REPORT DATE: 7/24/97 � ��,�a�� 66.409, �66.302(b) BY: Nancy Homans 8. DATE RECEIVED: 06/30/97 DEADLINE POR ACTION: 08/29/97 A. PuRPOSE: Three variances to allow an advertising sign: 1) a 20' sign height variance requested (a sign height of 57.5' requested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed); and 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12' requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88' from a proposed sign to the west and a minimum of 66"J' allowed); and 3) an advettising siqn separation variance of 157' requested (a separation between advertising signs of 510' from a sign to the east requested and a minimum of 667' allowed). B. PARCEL SZZE: 72,865 square feet C. EXI3TING LANp USE: Tndustrial D. SURROUNDING LAND VSE: North: Industtial (I-2j East: Zndustrial (I-1) South: Freeway/Residential (R-3) West: Industsial {I-2) E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 66.409 of the zoning code states, "the planning commission shall have the authority to grant variances fxom the strict applications of this chapter for unique signs or unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot, provided such signs would not be contrary to the general intent of this chapter, would not create a hazard, would not violate Minnesota State Statutes or rules and regulations developed pursuant thereto, would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners, would not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting and provided that the signs would be in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. The commission may not grant a variance that would permit the sign within a zoning district which is not otherwise permitted in that zoning district under the provisions of this chapter." F. HISTORY/DIBCU3SION: . 1. A 1997 appeal by Universal Outdoor, Inc. of the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LZEP) decision to qrant a pezmit to Midwest Outdoor Advertising to locate a sign in this vicinity ZONING CODE REFERENCE Z�NINt� FILE 9�•2zo� ��'il - l��% . �ct° � Z ' while an application by Universal Outdoor, Inc. was under consideration. (97-049) • 2. A 1996 case involved a request by Faizway Outdoor Advettising for a height variance to allow an existing 50 foot high advertising sign--that replaced a previous 50 foot high sign--to remain. The application was withdrawn when it was discovered that the sign was located on public right of way. The Fairway sign was located between the currently proposed locations of the Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor signs. (96-111) G. DI3TRICT COVNCIL RECOh44,NDAT20N: 1. The Mexriam Park Community Council has submitted a resolution opposing the ptoposed variance. 2. A tecommendation had not been received from the District 12 Community Council at the time this staff repo.et was prepared. A.�FINDZNG3: 1. The applicant proposes to construct an outdoot advertising sign on private pioperty located at 2100 Gilbert adjacent to the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp from I-94. Three variances--of maximum height and two of distance between signs--are requested. The Zoning Code requires that outdoor advertising signs be 1000 feet apaxt unless they have the benefit of sign credits that zeduce the required distance by one third. Zn this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 510 feet west of an existing Adams Company sign, thus requiring a variance of 157 feet. It is also 509.88 feet from a proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign, tequiring a variance of � 157.12 feet. The Zoning Code also tequiies that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher, The applicant proposes a sign that would extend 57.5 feet from the grade, 20 feet higher than allowed in the code. The grade on which the sign is proposed to be constructed is highet than the i-94 roadbed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discoveied that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who iecognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign confoiming to the height iequirements of the Zoning Code can be seen ftom I-94. Much of the land is publicly owned and associated with the I- 94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right of way north of the freeway is, foi the most part, a tiench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. In between the railroad and I-94 rights-o£-way is a narrow strip of land that is privately owned and on which the Universal Outdooi, Inc. sign is proposed to be constructed. 3. The applicant first applied for a permit to establish a sign on this site, but apptoximately 160 feet west of this location, on February 10, . 1997. It was to be a single sided sign facing east and constructed at 37.5 feet above grade. ZOlVI�G FILE •ZZO k �y+ �qc 3 a�'�`�� On March 3, 1997, the applicant was notified that theit application was • being rejected because of a permit issued to Midwest Outdoor Advertising on Feb=uary 25, 1997 to allow them to consttuct a sign east of Vandalia and about 300 feet from where Universal was proposing to establish their siqn. On March 5, 1997, the applicant appealed the decision of the Director of the Office of Licenses, Inspection and Environmental Protection, contending that their application was filed before that oE Midwest Outdoor Advertising and, therefore, should have been granted. The appeal was heard by the Zoning Committee on April 17, 1997 and on May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance of the Code's separation requirement by the Planning Conanission. The applicant agreed to suspend the appeal pending the outcome of such an application process. 4. The two sign companies subsequently crafted a pzoposal that involved moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they would both meet the State of Minnesota's 500 foot separation requi=ement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. The new proposed site has led to a request for a height vatiance in • addition to the separation variance. In the original location, the dimensions of the available land would allow the construction of only a one-sided east-facing sign. Moving to the east would allow for a v- sign, but, in ordei to be seen from both directions, the applicant states that the sign would have to be elevated. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 20 foot height variance to allow the sign to extend up 57.5 feet. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-conforming signs removed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. from locations elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66.302(b) of the Zoning Code. That section provides, in part, that: (1�. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a permitted use; (2). The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height requirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and (3). The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two- thitds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214ib) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, • patks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds oE the spacing distance requirements in section 66.214(b). ZolV�� E �2Zo �._ � `#�y1 I u �9� � 6. Tha ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to confozm to • tha provisions of 66,409 0£ the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This standard is met. The siqn is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14x48 foot v-style outdoor advertising sign. While the applicant states that the topography of the site and the relationship of the proposed sign to an existing building require that the sign be built 20 feet highez than the code allows, the Adams Company sign built at the east end of the same building at a similar grade and at the required height is clearly visible from I-94. The unusual circumstances re].ated to the site relates to its relationship to the existing and proposed Midwest Outdoor Advextising sign. While the applicant would not have required any variances at the location they originally proposed, to resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the Zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessa=y variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the genera2 intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is not met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the • Zoning Code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. ' That balance is struck in the specific provisions of the code. Paxticularly salient in this instance are those provisions related to the replacement o£ noncon£oiming signs. {See Finding #5 above) The code, for instance, allows those signs that replace nonconforming signs to locate closer to other signs than would otherwise be permitted. Signs that replace nonconforming signs are allowed to be 667 feet from other sign. Without nonconforming sign credits, the required sepaiation would be 1,000 feet. This applicant not only proposes to take advantage of the incentive provided in the code, but asks for a variance to fu=ther reduce the tequired separation. The code also, however, in a number of instances underscores the intent that the new signs--those that replace the nonconforming signs--adhere to the size and height requiiements of the code. The intent of the code is to move toward overall confozmance with the provisions o£ the sign ordinance. Granting this request for three variances would move the city away from the balance intended in the code. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Depa=tment of Ttansportation , ZC��; �fLE 9� z _zoI � q - 1 - I � �, R+�1 `� FJ" - - �� '�17 issues permits for all signs along the inteistate to ensure • conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restriction although their permits state that all signs must comply with Che requirements of the local jurisdiction. Minnesota Statutes requiie that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d. The si.gn wi21 not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and 2ighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 60C feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the tesidences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. e. The sign wovld not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance, most adjacent propetty owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals. • I. 3TAFF RECOh4dENDATION: Based on finding 6.b. above, sta£f recommends denial of the application for variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advettising signs. • � �°°' � ��F �2ZD � r� u Letters Received by Zoning Committee � � Tso P � • a 9 � Z � ro � ■ � Soi c� 9 9 f � WESTMIDW/+�- C � J C� 3uly 25, 1997 ��,��t�� ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL 890 Cromwell • St. Paul, Minnesofa 55114 292-788� Nancy Homans Zoning Committee St. Paul Planning Commission 25 W. Fourth St. 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Homans: The St. Anthony Park Community Council would like to go on record in opposition to the following variance requests: lYlidwest Outdoor Advertising, File # 97-169 Universal Outdoor, Inc., File # 97-170 I have enclosed a copy of the Billboard Resolution passed by the Council in October 1995, as well as Minutes from the July 1997 meeting that include the motion to adopt Merriam Park's resolution on billboards. The St. Anthony Park Community Council is concerned about billboards and their presence in our community. It is our hope that the 1995 Billboard Resolution wili be considered seriously by the Planning Commission and these variances denied. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, �t��u�'�`z... St. Anthony Park Community Council Heather Worthington Executive Director cc: Councilmember Roberta Megazd Brian Bates ' �� O �� e�� -� �� ``�� / ��\'�� % ...- � RESOLUTION WHEREAS billboards are a visual blight on our community; and WHEREAS the St. Anthony Park Community Council, on October 11, 1995, supported a moratorium on new billboard construction and the eventual removal of all existing neighborhood billboardsJ and WHEREAS the current St. Paul zoning code attempts to minimize the adverse effects biilboards nave on cur cor�unity �ilIG1QY1 spaciag and height restrictions; and WHEREAS Midwest sign company has recently erected a new billboard in the north east corner of Vandalia and I-94 which greatly exceeds the zoning code height limitation of 37 feet; and WHEREAS Universal sign comgany proposes erecting another bi2lboard �ust to tne east of the ilZegal Midwest bfl2board which, if erected, would violate the zoning code's minimum spacing restriction; now THEREFORE, untiJ. all billboards are removed, the St. Anthony Park Community Council encouraqes a strict interpretation and enforcement of all zoning code provisions which apply to billboards and objects to the issuance of any variances from such zoning code provisions. Specifically, the St. Anthony Park Cor�munity Council objects to the newly erected Midwest billboard. That billboard must be reduced in height to 37 feet or removed. Further, the St. Anthony Park Community Council objects to the issuance of any variance of any kind to Universal siqn company to erect ahy new billboard. Dated: Position. �� y �N � � _ �`�-, .�S • •� �/ _, -��/ � Y i. �,� �i �� . �'� ,� a �,ti�� St. Anthony Park Community Council Pull Councii ileeting Julv 9,1997 7:00 P.�t. Arndorfer Presiding PR[SF\T`. Cowuil Ricmb�rs: hlagnu�on. �Vattcrs, and �'� cb�r Sh�rih n Yoimg Arndorfcr. F3cncsh. Chfn-PurcclL Dufault, Floldcman, Lorcntzcn. S�aff. ��"orch�m�[on. Gucsts Siro Daccrn, Iiath� hios[rom, and Thc m�cting ��as callcd to ordcr b� Arndorf�r and introdac[ions tticcc madc The AGEND� and thc Junc I Ith !�11N1JTES ��crc approccd unanimousl}. Kellv Institute fCath} htostrom, Executi�c Dircctor of the kcli� Institute. rcported on the aniicipated mo�e of the hcll} Inshtide to SL Paul After a short prescnt�tion. I�ath} ans��cred mam' quesiions. and there ��as � bs�cf d�sc�rssion "jhc {nstrtut� ��arxs to 4��5� spacc on Um� ctsit� A�rnuc Their program is amird at persons �vdi alcohoVchcnurnl dcpcnd�nc� and cogniti�c mcntal hcalth problcros Thc most common combinahon is dcpr�ssion and alcoholism Trcatments t}'picailt last 3 I/2 months. Indn idual coimsclors aid clicnts C'licnts attcnd therap� scssions at thc ccntcr. I<cll}' InstitiRC has bccn in busincss sincc 1983. and thc� ar� o��ncd b� F:cih Norton Entcrpriscs, ��hich o��ns scvcral othcr treatm�nt/residcnc4 f�cihtics in and �round th� T�� m Citics. Somc of [hc chcnts nrc cmplo� cd, somc arc on SS � or othrr forms of �csistancc Thc Institutc �cill providc transportation for cltits}u if thc� h�c ncar thc facilit� 'T'hcir �uil is ro�ct pcoplc back into thc community and rcturn to somc scmblancc of normnlc� m dicir Incs Thc Kcll� Institutc is asking Ramsc� Count} to bc thcir host count�, an arcan�omcnt th:u ��ould allo�� [hcm to bc an official pro�idcr of scr�iccs to pcopic in [hc Count�', and an a�cnc} for rcf�rrals Ihrough thc Count} . An indcpcndcnt consultant «as hircd to find thc srtc [hc� �rc considcring Thc� chosc it bccause it is on a buslmc, thc size of dic spacc. and thc mon[hl} rcnt Thc} a�crlgc 10-I i chcnts per da�. b'Iotion by ��'atters ro support the Kelly Institute, and a recommendation that they make contact with the Prospect Par{: Community. Contingent upon the approval of Prospect Park, seconded by Niagnuson. Unanimous approval. NOSHAMS! Sheril}n Young of NOSHAMS! reported on the group's progress and the outcome of the shredder task forcc vote which was to ban largc metal shrcddcrs (cnclosed or unenclosed) in St. Paul. She passed around copies of the shredder newsletter, and an update on recent legislation. The shredder impact study requested of the shredder task force should be completed. Sherilyn asked that the Council re-state their previous opposition to the shredder. Watters reported that the Planning Commission ma} be advocating some lecway on shreddcrs. Shc urged the Council to restate prior opposition. Motion by Holdeman that the Council support the ban on shredders in the City of St. Paul because dismantling is more environmentally benign, seconded by Dufault. Friendly amendment by Watters to additionally state that shredders are incompatible, and that staff send a letter to the Ptanning Commission stating their position on this issue. Unanimous , approvai. � N N ff� � � � Standine Committees--Environment. Housine and Human Services .,,' .,` _��,,� _ r� j;� _. °-� � C�oje,V � �-' . � .., ;_. y �.� "� `-'- � g�% ' ..�_ . � ��G �e�_.�—'' Holdeman reported that thc cican-up took place at Kasota Ponds in June. The MT Lines property � �tias not included as permission was never granted by thcm. Discussion of the Environment Intem program. Motion by Holdeman to approve the institution of the Environment Intern program, seconded by Dufault. Unanimous approval. Holdeman reported on the American National Can Good Neighbor proposal. Benesh raported on the Housing and Human Services committee meeting. She reported on the Bike Racks in North SAP, Noise Abatement, Teen Programs, and the Garage Sale. Motion by Benesh to send a►etter to Parking Enforcement asking for stricter enforcement of St. Anthony Park, seconded by Dufault. Unanimous approval. Sue Davem aiso reported on bike racks, and updated the Council on the design, location, and number of racks to be insta[led. WoRhington reported on the Crime Prevention Coordinator seazch. A candidata has been selected, and pending a rcference check, wiil be offcrcd the position next weck. Billboards Brian Bates reported on billboards on Vandalia. An open area was created, and Midwest Sign as[ced for approva[ of a variance in thc spacing of biliboards in that area, after erecting a new sign that e�ceeded the height requirements. Merriam Park has opposed all variances. Watters reported that The Council tieas on rccord in opposition to all billboards. Worthington will call LTEP regarding the billboard on 280 bcRtieen the railroad tracks and busway (Eustis and Robbins), and send copy of resolution passcd by Council and rescarch previous opposition. Motion by Dufault �. to approve Merriam Park's resolution, seconded by Ntagnuson. SAPBA/SAPCC Small Business Fund Proaosal Worthington and Davern reported on a proposal to set up a tax deductible fund to aid small businesses in MSlton Square that �tere damaged in [he July 1 storm. Davem reported on Carter Avenue sewer probicros. There ��as discussion about [he impact of inadequate drainage and sewer in that area. Motion by Dufault to allow the Executive Committee of SAPCC to make the final decision in lieu of approval from the Fu11 Council, seconded by Magnuson. Unanimous approval. Niannheim Resi�nation Motion by Magnuson to accept Mannheim's resignation, and appoint Joann Benesh to the Fult Council, seconded by Dufault. Unanimous approval. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted by Heather Worthington, Executive Director ZOA�ING �dL� 9—��— ? _ � Ivy �eague Place - � . • 475 CLEVELAND ASSOCIATES 475 Cleveland Ave. N., St. Paul, MN 55104 • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 64110, St. Paul, MN 55164-0110 •(612) 688-2000 July 28, 1997 St. Paul Zoning Committee 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Committee Members: �Ve own the I�y L,eague Place office build:ng cr. the :.c:thwest corner of Cleveland Avenue and Hwy 94. We are not in favor of the proposed advertising sign variances for Universal Outdoor, Inc. and Midwest Outdoor Advertising near I-94 and Vandalia. We strongly object to both the requested height variances and spacing variances. We have an Adams advertising sign on our property that is in compliance with the City's ordinance and feel that both Midwest Outdoor and Universal Outdoor should likewise be held to the same standards. � Should you have any questions I can be reached at 683-1406. Sincerely, a antoo ian Real Estate Manage 1 �'� �� • � .�� Fe�� Z � �,�.� �� ,�. �� Ji�JL'17-97 Fki lt:tt� rn �r,.'+r� �.��,., ..... . —.-" IVlerr�am Par-k aQ` ��e to L/�e�o �8 x Community Council, Inco 1573 Selby Avenue • Suite 311 • St. Paut • hSinnesota • 55104 • 64a 6887 Internet: http!/freenet.msp.mn.uslnhoods/stpaullmerriam_parkJtop. e-mail: ed.bo�er@stpaul.gov • � Officcrs Fc�dinand Raen v�a�a<�� ctte t�+,��+n lY Yu Aeaident Cmnmuniry ksun Comm. C3�ir Dr.1Grrn Aistau 2nd Yce P.csidm� tini��R�tyoCSCilwm+s � Rogu Mcycr J`d Yce Prceid<n� Bwlding R Lnd Uee Caa+n. Cluir Snphi< hL��nt $ectt4ry Gl<a� Nontrem Trcuu¢r May 22, 1997 Brian Bates 1985 Grand Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 Dear Brian: �� y�� Dernnyer Pork �� eark at�.�;am ra.z Shadow FnlB At iYs regularly scheduied Board of Directors meeting, the Merriam Park Community Council adopted the foilowing resolution: WHEREAS bilfboards are a visual biight on our community; and WHEREAS the Merriam Park Community Council, on September 13, 1995, supported a moratorium on new biilboard construction and ihe eventual removal of ail existing neighborhood billboards; and WHEREAS the current St. Paul zoning code attempts to minimize the adver� effects billboards have on our community through spacing and height restric- tions; and r,. WHEREAS Midwest sign company has recently erected a new biilboard in t� .U,;rheelM�Dmaugh north east corner of Vandalia and I-94 which greatly exceeds the zoning cod w�.�„s.o�:cng height limitation of 37 feet; and Membecs c,.r nh�„� Kati<Donohoe 5�. Tham+e All Collcge Cowca R� Molly Atipacnck Honnie Lwrence En+imruncncd Ghiir FMk Sehertn�n Nanp�oCia Rcpmrniative Pcsc'dL S� Aubin SnclLngSdtry Arc� Bu�inae �„�<[.:t�, r ,e w�IL.msoo S[aFf u saw.� E�autivc Afet F{ollu I.. � WHEFiEAS Universal sign company proposes erecting another billboard jus' the east oi the illegal Midwest billboard which, if erected, would violate the z: ing code's minimum spacing restriction; now THEREFORE, until all bilibaards are removed, the Merriam Park Community � Councfl encourages a strict interpretation and enforcement ofi all zoning cod provisions which apply to biilboards and objects to the issuance of any vari- ances irom such zoning code provisions. 5pecifically, the Merriam Park �°" Community Council objects to the newly erected Midwest billboard. That bi! board must be reduced in height to 37 teet or removed. Further, the Merria Park Community Council objects to the issuance of any variance of any kir;c Universai sign company to erect any new biliboard. Cordiaily, K�m �c�� ZONii�C; FILE �1�1�9 Karen Dalton Community Organizer Ju1-31-9 �p to U�� Q � � � < � 12:11P Sn211 Ham Merriam Park � . �-�� Merriam Par-k Uesno)erPa,i; Community Council; Inc. M,�� 1573 Setby Avenue • Suite 311 � St. Paul • Mmnesota • 55104 • 645 6887 Internet: http!lfreenet.msp.mn.uslnhoodslstpaatlmerrig� arkltop.html / e-mail: ed.bower�a stpaul.gov O[ricen Fadi+und Pe�ea �pdm[ Grtg Mduah id Yiu Pnsidm� Commandy Tmua Comm. Chair Roga MeYu 2�dYccAv�dct BuilEing t Lnd Uae Corsun. Che�r So�n�e hbw+i Sarc+.ry c1�� N�..�,� r,�.a+R. Mcmhea c�y.�na�� Dc Ang=I�ncBurtni-Fictnon St'ILana� Acpn+m V�°s K.ria Dunulwc S� All Cvllcg<CouCCil (ZRxa.enlntivc etour t��ru�� s�;� i..m��e Ln�+�munaua: anV t.(ary 7o Lei<t M;a.et tu:�.w,�i W�lltvo S.OeamR Fnnk Sa�s.nen No�proC�ro Repasrn��•a priycSla Sc Aubn SnellingSdby Aro Bucino. .�aoociau4a 7�c Williomxn Staff ea eo.0 L.�„�;.e A�ecw� o-r,� x�wn�rtma by��ging EdiwL MRnian lark Pnsr u� �� Commu�iry O�guti[a Clwtinc Ym�h�r Qmar povmnion CooAin+ac Kim Red�� RaycLnE CM+�ro�r July 31, 1997 Nancy Homans Dept. of Planning and Economic Development 11 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Homans: �, �� l� � At it's May 14 board meeting, the Merriam Park Commu�ity Councii adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS biliboards are a visual blight on our community; and WHEREAS ths Merriam Park Community Council, on September 13, 1995, supported a moratorium on new billboard construction and the eventua. remo�al of all existing neighborhood billboards; and WHEREAS the current St. Paul zoning code attempts to minimize the adversE effects biilboards have on our community through spacing and height restric- tions; and WHEREAS Midwest sign company has recentiy erected a new biliboard in th� north east comer of Vandalia and I-94 which greatly exceeds the zoning code height limitation of 37 feet; and WHEFiEAS Universal sign company proposes eresting another billboard just t the east of the illegai Midwest biilboard which, if erected, would violate the zo ing code's minimum spacing restriction; now THEREFORE, until all bitlboards are removed, the Merriam Park Community Council encourages a strict interpretation and enforcement of aii zoning code provisions which apply to billboards and objects to the issuance of any vari- ances from such zoning code provisions. Specifically, the Merriam Park Community Council objects to the newly erected Midwest biliboard. That bili board must be reduced in height to 37 fset or removed. Further, the Merriar Park Community Council objects to the issuance of any variance of an:nd Universal sign company to erect any new biilboard. c l� a.,�.�.k, ��5� -%�_G� ZONING FILE ��zz.o Karen Dalton Community Organizer JUL ,v�C 4::6 P:�! UV[�, uhiieU!ti`.uNA: Cna`d. fn� P��. cY�e�� l�axa�y • � f ,� ;` :� UNITED's Board of Directors meeting was called fo order by board president, David Liset at 4:30 p.m. A motion was made to amend the agenda to ailow Brian Bates to do a presentation regarding two billboard variances. The agenda was appro�ed as amended. 7he board discussed its previous position on billboards. After the board discussion, a motion was made by Mat Hollinshead to oppose the variances on Midway signage bilfboards at 194 and Vandalia. The Board was encouraged to be consistent with its previous position on biliboards by opposing the'variance applications." The motion was seconded by Kate Severin. The motion carried. The May meeting minutes were approved. The June meeting was canceled by the board chair due to too few agenda items to be discussed. niversity UNITED Board Meeting Minutes July 8, 1997 ��_ty'�� oma�5 �� 6 — 331� % Present: Mat Hollinshead, Mike Smabey, Ken Smith, Henry S. Kristal, Jim Curran Jeff Fenske, Bill Gahr, Pete May, Kate Severin, Linda Skaiiman, David Liset, Nell McClung, Benita Tasselmeyer, staff, Irene Rodriguez, Halee Vang � • May's financiaV reports were reviewed, accepted and placed on fde. Henry Kristal motioned to submit a letter to the Business F2eview Council requesting 60 days (three days afterward) to research and review applications for iicenses as in the case of Pawn America. Motion was seconded and carried. Irene Rodriguez will draft the letter. Executive Committee Report: David Liset reported on Irene's suggestion to submit a Weed and Seed application to address three areas'in District Eleven: . �� c � � / � _./ 1. Midway Market Pface Crime Issues 2. UniversityAvenue Cruising Issues 3. Twins Motor Inn Emergency Shelter Issues A motion was made by Henry Kristai and seconded by Nell McClung to submit a Weed and Seed proposal. A second motion was made to support other collaboratives, District Seven, Hamline Midway Coalition, and Thomas-Dale Block Cfubs. Henry Kristai made the motion, and Matt Hollinshead seconded the motion. The motion carried. David Liset and Ne�l McClung reported on the Community Cruising Meetings. Some businesses benefit from it, while many others don't. One possibility is that Sears may provide some parking space for people invoived in cruising events. z��C'a ��.� 9r�•ZZ.D � 1pI.-:iC-, '++�� :.5 Pbf UFtI'l. U�i[TED!N[D'ri�" CE�si. in�, it��. 6�7d��. Trash cans and emptying them is a problem. With regards to fundraising during the event, sponsors will have a Iiabiiity issue. Jeff Fenske reported that the ballots for approval of the revised By-laws hava been sent out and are awaiting their responses. UNITED requested that they be returned by August 11, 1997. 7he Growth Committee had been canceled and will be reschedufed. Program reports: the Facade Improvement Committee will meet on July 16th to review the firsE round of appiications. A second meeting will be held July 30th. !t is estimated that approximately 15-20 grants will be awarded. The issue of Pawn America occupy+ng the old Ske�ngton building was discussed. There was a consensus that the hearing regarding Pawn America was too short of a notice and University United Board did not have the time to respond. Tha meeti�g was adjourned. r. • � � ��i�@1'�� i�� G . �,�,ly�' � Maps � � 1 ; / \� ; , . � � � f v ,: � ' .: ' :.� � ' y : : � �. � ` : �� '� `:, � � % � . � �� . /::;:, � � ' : ,,, � �\% ; ,, �� / � � i _'� �"' \ � \ N y. / �� /� - � ' � � i� �' % .\� �\ �7" L4 � �/ � �. �x, �. -- �� =, , ; .� � ;: , , � ,; ,.� , -� - . � , � � � ,� � �>-� , � � � ° �� i '_ � �� 4�< � � � � // � �� ` �, �- ; _�. \ / \� /.� �`� �\' �` � �.; �� " �'�� \\ / �` \� � - � �� /- ;, \` >,, �\ � = . _� ; �m� ;� ��ss °: � ';�, %r�` \ ,~ � \/\y. � ` �' \ \ .� / i /I�� /e�� ' � /, � ' �' _ ; �� ,� /)' .' i ;\� _ :, � . �.�:� �� ' � � >/�;�%`:�� . i ti . �� r � �-` � � � - `� , �. ,` � j� ' . ��. j \� �.. � . . % . %' ��\ \ -. . \ \ �y,, U z � Q O � O U � W � � � } � W � Q � � I � s 3 ' 3�� r� � ;1: °� ; � i � o � sI : R` � —- , . �' � a � �� 3{ s� s'e ` 3 ��/ � � .. . � � � / ,•Gy r; ',> % �� ;; Q �§ � c , a; � /, � Li.i � ..... L.�.. � � .�. � V •s � Ifi ;�; ,_ g; ; _e �ia s ��r 'yii � q : ,�; � c 1 i + .,jN 5 �4�� :S�F ; * . _�s3m CI ■� p I = 5 i � 3is , 3�: � e �Si i s -�x : �� e� �� I'►. � � � � � 1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD 2. �IAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTII' HII.LCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PAYNE-PFiALEN 6. NORTH END 7. THObfAS-DALE 8. SUM�fIT-IINIVERSIT'Y 9. WEST SEVENTH 10. COMO 11. WAY PA 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXII�IGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAhiLINE 14. MACALEST'ER GROVELANb 15. HIGHI.AND 16. SUMMIT FIILL 17. DOWNTOWN � ZONING FILE ZONING F9L� �•z�-�' CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS C ST. ANTHONY '�.� � 4 �� w�� i�� 3� �� 9,�r�y I Z�(�IIV� .FI�.E ��z� � � � �� ! T `\ \ \ ` \` � \` , � � � \ \ �. Q� �t � �—, . `�...;\ ., +� > \ �.. - � \'�- -��..� > < <' ,�O I �✓ i. .: � . i '. t � �� \- ` ' � . 1 O ❑ 'r ,�\ �� ' . •i �� '` ❑ � , • r � � o • � �� ' �� Q � . � i. � �� ,��, : i� � � �� \ � � ' , --�� '� � � ; �`' ,' � \ �/ \� { 1 � ' � `, ! / ' � O � 1 L • �� , � . .' � �� ,• . � � , , I � � _ { �� /. t\ ` ' ' `� f . ♦ �° � i � \ � � _ d � , � � � � .:.� :�� ::: ... _ _ � -. - \ . . 1 ' � ' \� •. \ \ �� ,\ � � � `�� J . '-% . � �� J.i C�_ � `,\�` ~``\` \ ' ' `- _ +_� O O \ � � J •�� . . � � O O ��. ' ' _. ' — 'S-- O \� ` ' O � O \ -O- . � �� \ - _ , .. . 0 O ' � ¢ O \ � � � ' !� T�'M�, � °, o a i , � ° ° � , � < � ' � ,0 ,0 I � �°'�w �� , � � �- - f�_ o° o o°i o� 4 ' ' � 1 �,\\ :.: — --� ! n _. ' � •� r� � APPLICANT � �7�a" ��'�� LEGEND _ '�° _ r� PURPOSE 5 � VN v�� zoning district boundary ----' FILE # �� (� t DATE 1' �'� 7 � subjed property north PLNG. DIST. �Z MAP # �/ o one family •� � commerciai _ p ¢ two family � .. � industriai SCALE 1" = 400' �� f�¢� multiple family V vacant I . , �..�. ; �^\\, ,�\ `` � �j ,� � q� � � � � \ \ 0. �i� . " ` / � y4 � � �� ,. � >�� / � � � , ,. � .� , , - ,(,, >,- , , . ( , .- . , , ,• ; . n � 0 �< � � \ � .� '`� . � � , •- • I ✓; J ._ , �., ,_, ,. _:,. � ►� �'� � ��:�� , n.� e` � • _. • � �i; �•, • � � � , .,r. � • � � � • i �• • � • • • • • � • � < . �� `.O . . E:� �J ;..: \ � :,. ' ` � � �� .° ❑ ; � ��' . ❑ � �� . ❑;� . ❑ ;. 1, : ;�..��; � � � �: t� L � / �,' . 1 �,`' C� �� f �.:. ,.t � : � �: , :y'� '. 1 P �.�: . y" _:. m � \�' ► �� ' � ... , � i -o- �T � �� APPLICANT �� . I � G • LEGEND rIJRPOSE �� '�� -� zoningdistricthoundary � q FILE # - `� � r � DATE � � 3 � � subject property PLN�. DIST. t Z MAP # � 1 0 one Tamify _ p� ¢ two family SCALE 1" = 400' �� Q multiple family ..m.._..v.. � , �\ -�.?. �- --- - � � _ j� nL orth .� • ♦ � commercial � �� industrial V vacant 1 /� il�� ( /i' � LONNY D. THOMAS, P.A. MidAmerica Bank Building, Suite 120 6949 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, Minnuota 55125 Telephone (612) 735-9262 • Fu (612) 735-9062 �d+etr o. n+oMas. csa. �s�s> >as-azss September 22, 1997 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Jerry Blakey Mr. Dan Bostrom Mr. Joe Collins Mr. Mike Hatris Ms. Roberta Megazd Ms. Gladys Morton Mr. Dave Thune CTI'Y HALL 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd Suite 310 Saint Paul, MI3 55102 Re: Appeal of Variance Your File Nos. 97-169 and 97-170 Our File No. 1177-000 Deaz City Council Member: Enclosed please fmd a copy of Memorandum of L&H Properties Opposing Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Grant Variances for Construction of Billboazds at I-94 and Vandalia. Please review the enclosed materials before the Council's Hearing regarding the above matter scheduled for Wednesday, September 24, 1997 at 330 p.m. If you have any comments regazding any of the factual allegations or legal azguments contained in the enclosed Memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact me. V ery truly yours, �� 0.��'lb LDT sas Enclosure Lonny D. Thomas cc: Ron Leonard (w/encl.)(via U.S. Mail) Don Harvey (wfencl.)(via U.S. Mail) Marvin A. Liszt (w/encl.)(via Facsimile and U.S. Mail) Also Licensed to Practice in Wisconsin �� /�� MEMORANDUM OF L&H PROPERTIES OPPOSING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO GRANT VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BILLBOARDS AT I-94 AND VANDALIA L&II Properties, a Minnesota Partnership (hereafter, "L&H"), as the owner of one of the properties upon wlrich the Planning Cominission ganted variances for the construction of an outdoor advertising sign respectfiilly submits this Memorandum in opposition to the appeal of the Pianning Commission's decision to gant such variances filed by St. Anthony Pazk Community Council (hereafter, "St. Anthony"). This Memorandum will respond to some, but not all` of the arguments advanced in St. Anthony's written appeal papers. INTRODUCTION For nearly 17 years, L&H has been the lessor under a lease agreement providing for the erection and maintenance of an outdoor advertising sign. L&H has been paid a substantial amount of money over the years pursuant to ihe lease arrangement and relies upon this crirical source of income to partially fund its payment obligations relating to the ownership of the property upon which the outdoor advertising sign has been located. Through no fault of L&H's, an outdoor advertising sign previously erected and maintained pursuant to a lease agreement with L&H was required by the City of St. Paul to be removed due to certain defects which will be addressed in more detail below. As a result of the removal of that sign, L&H immediately entered into a replacement outdoor advertising sign lease agreement with a different outdoor advertising sign company, Universal. Pursuant to the terms of the arrangement between Universal and L&H, Universal immediately filed appropriate ' L&H understands that a written Memorandum in opposition to St. Anthony's appeal also is being submitted by Universal Outdoor Advertising (hereafter, "Universal"). Since Universal is better qualified than L&H to respond to various azguments advanced in St. Anthony's written appeai, various technical and procedural issues are left by L&H to be addressed in the responsive Memorandum submitted by Universal. ��,1�� documents requestiug authority to erect a replacement outdoor advertising sign on L&cH's property. Appazently, a separate request to erect a separate outdoor advertising sign was simultaneously submitted by one of Universal's competitors, Midwest Outdoor Advertising (hereafter, "Midwest"). Both Universal and Midwest claimed to be eniitled to erect an outdoor advertising sign pursuant to theu respective applications. During various proceedings presented to the City of St. Paul Planning Commission (hereafter, the "Planning Commission"), issues involving the City of St. Paul's actions relating to the processing of each application were thoroughly examined. Reasonably recognizing the gravity of those issues, the Planning Commission attempted to accommodate the interests of all concemed. As a result of various discussions among L&H, Universal and Midwest wiuch were encouraged by the Planning Commission, a compromise arrangement was reached pursuant to which both Universal and Midwest could erect and maintain outdoor advertising signs. While the outdoor advertising signs allowed under the arrangement were less desirable to the parties than the signs requested pursuant to their original applications, the parties agreed to lesser signs as a compromise to avoid further complications, possibly incIuding litigation of their respective claims. The compromise agreement cannot be put into effect without the City of St. Paul granting several variances. The Planning Commission conducted the necessary pmceedings and ultimately granted the necessary variances, thereby reasonably accommodating the interests of all concemed and avoiding the potenfial for future litigation. The Appeal filed by St. Anthony attacks the diligent efforts of the Planning Commission, arguing, among other things, that the Planning Commission had no authority to participate in, or even suggest that the parties attempt `� �� ,�� to negotiate an amicable resolution of these issues. Contrary to the azguments of St Anthony, the Planning Commission's efforts were exemplary and should be applauded not overturaed. The Planning Commission acted well within its authority at all times and its variance approval decisions aze well supported in both law and fact. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The properry owned by L&H is located at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota (the "L&H Property"). L&H has owned the L&H Property since 1981. Shortly, after L&H purchased the L&H Property, L&H entered into an outdoor lease agreement providing for the erection and maintenance of an outdoor advertising sign on the L&H Properiy. The lessee in the outdoor advertising lease agreement was an outdoor advertising company now imown as Fairway Outdoor Advertising Company (hereafter, "Fairway"). The outdoor advertising lease agreement allocated to Fairway all obligations relating to the original construction and subsequent maintenance of the outdoor adverting sign. Pursuant to the outdoor advertising lease agreement, Fauway filed appropriate appiication documents and othenvise followed the procedures requued by the City of St. Paul. These procedures included a written designation by Fairway of the specific location of the outdoor advertising sign on the L&H Property, and an inspection by the City of St. Paul of the actual location and construction of the outdoor advertising sign after it was erected. During the Summer of 1996, the outdoor advertising sign appazentiy required repairs due to previous maintenance work regazding the sign footings which had been effected by Fairway. The new repairs required Fainvay to briefly take down the sign. Fairway effected the repairs over a weekend, not during business hours, and without any norice to L&H. L&H learned that ��,�� the repair work included moving the sign footings several feet and re-erecting the sign at approximately its previous height of fifty (50) feet�. L&H did not leara of the repairs until after the repair work was compieted and the sign r�erected. The City of St. Paul advised Fainvay (not L&I� that Fairway was required to obtain a permit for the sign repairs, movement of the sign a few feet, andlor re-erection of the sign. The City of St. Paul also advised Fairway (not L&H) that the height of the re-erected sign would require a variance. Upon leaming of these matters, L&H also discovered that the re-erected sign had been re- erected several feet outside the boundaries of the L&H Properry. In fact, L&H learned that the location of the outdoor advertising sign as originally constructed by Fairway and inspected and approved by the City of St. Paul also was several feet outside the boundaries of the L&H Property. Both the original location and newiy re-erected sign location were in fact located on public property believed by L&H to be owned by the City of St. Paul. Despite the City of St. Paul's licensing and inspection of the original sign, the sign was not located on the L&H Property. L&H learned that Fairway intended to appeaz before the Planning Commission to request a variance for the height of the newly re-erected sign. Due to L&H's concern that the information regazding the improper sign location would not be disclosed by Fairway to the Planning Commission, L&A appeazed at ffie Planning Commission hearing regarding Fairway's variance request. Z While this height wouid not be allowed pursuant to the City of St. Paul's current Ordivances regulating sign height, the height was ailowed at the time because the sign was an e�sting non-confornung height pursuant to applicable Ordinances. 4 ��,�� At the hearing, Fairway did not advise the Planning Commission that the sign was not now, and never had been located on the L&H Properiy. Rather, the Planning Commission was advised of these facts at the hearing only because L&H, through its undersigned counsel, appeared at the hearing and properly so advised the Planning Commission of the true facts. In various subsequent communications between the City of 3t Paul and L&H (both individually and through L&H's undersigned counsel), L&H advised the City of St. Paul that L&H intended to immediately move the outdoor advertising sign onto L&H's Properiy, which was the intended location and since the sign was originally erected, and which would have occurred but for the failure of Fainvay to properly locate the sign and the City of St. Paul's failure to properly require the sign to be located in the location identified in the relevant application process. As a direct result of L&H's honest and forthright disclosure to the Planning Commission which coaected Fainvay's non-disclosure of these facts, the City of St. Paul required Fairway to remove the sign. Fairway removed the sign shortly thereaRer. L&H immediately engaged in negotiations with various outdoor advertising sign companies regazding entering into a replacement outdoor advertising sign lease agreement, as had been previousiy advised by L&H to the City of St. Paul. During those negotiarions, L&H conciuded that the present value of an outdoor advertising sign located on the L&H Property is not less than Two Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($200,000.00). L&H ultimately entered into an outdoor advertising sign lease agreement with Universal. Upon entering into the outdoor advertising sign lease agreement, Universal filed necessary documents and othenvise took such action as was necessary to obtain the necessary permits and approvals from the City of St. Paul for the erecrion of a replacement outdoor advertising sign on L&H Property. Universal's application for the City of St. Paui's approvai of ��,i�� the outdoor advertising sign was initially denied for reasons relating to another sign pemut application simultaneously filed by Midwest. On appeal of the City of St. Paul's denial of Universal's application', the Planning Commission encouraged Universal and Midwest to discuss with one another whether a compromise airangement might be reached. Pursuant to the Planning Commission's suggestion, Universal and Midwest engaged in a compromise dialogue that resulted in a mutually acceptable azrangement allowing both Universal and Midwest to erect outdoor advertising signs. The outdoor advertising signs allowed under the arrangement were less desirable to Universal and Midwest than the signs described in tl�eir respective applications which had resulted in the negotiations. The signs which would be allowed in the negotiated azrangement also would require the parties to obtain variances from the City of St Paul. Both Universal and Midwest submitted appropriate documents and information, and otherwise complied with relevant procedural requirements to obtain the necessary variances. The Planning Commission approved the requested variances, and St. Anthony filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval. ' In connection with the appeal to the Planning Commission, L&H submitted to the Pianning Commission an Affidavit of a principal of L&H regarding the background facts described above. The Affidavit sets forth L&H's position that L&H will suffer damages in excess of verbal $200,000.00 as a direct result of the City's mishandling of the original sigi location and other acfionable conduct unless Universal's request to erect a replacement sign on L&H Property is approved. A copy of the Affidavit is attached as Exhibit A. ` Universal's appeal of the initial decision regarding issuance of the requested pernut was agreed by all concemed to be placed on hold pending the outcome of the separate proceedings relating to the two signs and variances at issue in the instant proceedings. In the event that the variances are not granted and the negotiated arrangements relating to the two signs of Universal and Midwest approved, Universal will pursue the appeai of the original pemut issues. C� �,�, -�� The foilowing discussion demonshates that the Planning Commission's actions aze completely supported by relevant facts and applicable law, and St. Anthony's appeal should be f �� -..1 Standard of Review The record reflects that the Planning Commission's actions and final decision are well supported by relevant facts and applicable law. Describing the reluctance of appellate courts to interfere in zoning decisions of municipalities, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated in Saestetter v. Citv of St. Paul. 529 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. App. 1945), "Where the municipal proceedings are fair and complete, review is on the record before the municipal agency, and this court is reluctant to interfere with the tuanagement of municipal affairs.i The Planning Commission acted well within its province in approvine the variances. St. Anthony first ridiculously azgues that the procedural process by which the Planning Commission approved the subject variances cannot be approved because the Plazuung Commission somehow exceeded the scope of its authority. St. Anthony baldly asserts, "It is the funcUon of the Planning Commission to heaz matters which come before it. It is not the funcrion of the Planning Commission to first suggest and then advocate for the issuance of vatiances." St. Anthonv Memorandum, at Page 7. St. Anthony fails to cite any authority for this asserted ' The decision in Sa sg tetter also is relevant to this proceedings because the Court of Appeals affirmed a variance granted by the City of St. Paul allowing a 90 foot stiucture in an azea limiting building height to not more than 30 feet. The Sa stg etter decision essentiaily eviscerates St. Anthony's argument that the height variances granted by the Planning Commission in this case are too extreme to be ailowed by these variances. ° For purposes of this Memorandum oniy, L&H will assume for the sake of azgument that the Planning Commission somehow participated in the discussions resulting in the 7 ��'�`�� restriction on the operations of the Planniug Commission.' Rather than congratulate the Planning Commission for successfully brokering a creative compromise resolution which is universally acceptable to all parties, St. Anthony criticizes the Planning Commission for "avoid[ingJ a difficult decision." T'he Planning Commission's fundamentally reasonable actions actually demonstrate that the Planning Commission recognized and appreciated the gravity of claims which might be asserted by and against all parties (inciuding the City of St. Paul) in the absence of an amicable resolution. By "avoiding a difficult decision" and encouraging the parties to negotiate a compromise, the Planning Commission effectively eliminated the chance of serious subsequent litigation, and demonstrated its broad vision of the underlying issues. It is the myopic view of St. Anthony, not the coxnmendable foresight of the Planning Commission which should be rejected. In Arcadia Develonment Corporafion v. Citv of Bloomineton. 125 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1964), the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed circumstances in which a planning commission was asked to apply an ordinance relating to sign restricrions which would have created a result which was unacceptable to all parties, including the City. The planning commission recognized the inherent problems in blindly enforcing the statute, and "recommended that the city council negotiated agreement between Universal and Midwest. The record cleazly reflects, however, that the original inquiries regazding the possibility of negotiating a universally acceptable resolution of all issues involving two signs was posed by UniversallMidwest, not any person associated with the City of St. Paul. ' St. Anthony quotes and apparently relies upon Administrarive Code Section 107.03 as imposing the alleged res�iction. St. Anthony quotes that portion of the Section which provides, "The Committee shall, upon proper notification, conduct public hearings on ... the various types of zonin¢ applications that are duties of the planning commission." The quoted language obviously empowers the Planning Commission, but faiis to even attempt to define the scope of the empowerment, much less affirmatively suggest any restrictions on such empowerment. a�} -``� � 'make it possible' for Arcadia (the sign applicant) to have this sign." Id at 849. In other words, the planning commission suggested creativity in finding a resolution under difficult circumstances. The city council subsequentiy disregarded the planning commission's suggestion of creativity, rejected the applicanYs request for variances allowing the sign, and myopically enforced the ordinance. The Minnesota Supreme Court ultimately sided with the planning commission and held for the variance requesting pariy, finding that the city council should have granted necessary variances to "make it possible" for the sign applicant to erect the requested sign, notwithstanding the black letter of the applicable sign ordinance. Applicabie law clearly supports the acrions and role of the City of St. Paul Planning Commission in this matter. There is no procedural defect in the process pursuant to which the variances were granted by the City of St. Paul Planning Commission. The properl�granted variances are whollv consistent with applicable law. St. Anthony next argues that, even if there is no procedural defect in the means by which the variances were granted, the substantive facts and law do not allow the variances to be granted. Again, St. Anthony ignores applicabie law, and disregards the thorough factual record supporting the Planning Commission's decision. There can be no dispute that the outcome of this proceedings must be based upon application of St. Paul City Ordinance Section 66.409 to the relevant facts. This Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a sign variance upon concluding that: (i) the sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site; (ii) the sign is not � The following language describing the requirements of the Ordinance quotes the paraphrasing of this Ordinance as used in the Staff Reports provided to the Planning Commission with the previous proceedings. The Staff Reports accurately describe the requirements of the Ordinance. �,�_`y�� contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the wning code; (ui) the sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations; (iv) the sign will not adversely affect residentiai property through excessive glare and lighting; (v) the sign would not be objectionabie to adjacent property owners; and (vi) the sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding azea The Staff Reports provided to the Planning Commission regarding the variance applications state Staffs view that the proposed outdoor advertising signs aze supported by five of these six criteria The relevant StaffReports articuJate Staffs opinion that the second criterion requiring a conclusion that the requested signs "aze not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code" is not met. T'he Planning Commission examined this particular criterion with a broader vaew of the overall impact upon signs throughout the City of St. Paul and concluded that this criterion in fact is satisfied, stating: The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concem for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of 14 non-conforming signs in other areas of the city where the removal has enhanced the visual envuonment. The Planning Commission agreed with Staff that the proposed variances satisfied all of the other five criteria of the Ordinance, and approved the variances. Only a brief review of each criterion demonstrates that the Planning Commission's decision is strongly supported by the factual record. The si en is unique or there are unusual conditions �ertainine to the needs of the site Both the Staff Report and the Planning Commission agreed that this criterion is satisfied by the unique topographical layout of the subject property upon which the signs will be located (as to the height variances) and the underlying facts relating to the negoriated settlement of issues 10 �� discussed above (as to the distance variances). St. Anthony argues onl}� that the underlying negotiated resolution of issues cannot be deemed to constitute an "unusual condition" satisfying this criterion. St. Anthony again fails to cite any authority for this proposition. Contrary to St. Anthony's bald assertion, the facts relating to the negoriated resolution certainly satisfy this criterion. There is nothing in the Ordinance which even suggests a defined limitation of the "unusual conditions" which may be deemed to support a variance request. St. Anthony's argument that such a lunitarion should be somehow arbitrarily created and imposed is utterly without merit and contrary to the very purpose of variances. In Merriam Park Communitv Council. Inc. v. McDonoueh, 210 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. 1973) the Minnesota Supreme Court reiterated that "A variance provides the opportunity for ameliorarion of unnecessary hardships resulting from the rigid enforcement of a broad zoning ordinance ..." I�.., at A20. St. Anthony's request that a limitation be arbitrarily imposed upon those facts which can be evaluated in support of a variance is contrary to tkris broad remedial purpose. T'hat St. Anthony is a community organized entity ostensibly representing potentially affected residents which is vigorously opposed to the requested variances also is not relevant to the City Council's analysis. Tn Lueer v. Citv of Bumsville. 29S N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1980), the Minnesota Supreme Court made cleaz that the approval or disapproval of adjacent property owners can play no part in the ultimate decision whether to grant a variance, stating: ' St. Anthony's arguments regarding the topographical considerations supporting height variances aze not worthy of significant analysis. The record includes myriad photographs, diagrams, measurements and other objective criteria amply demonstrating the need for height variances as necessary to a11ow the outdoor advertising signs to be visible from I-94. As a practical matter, if the requested sign heights were not necessary for visibility, why would LJniversal and Midwest subject themselves to the onerous process of obtaining height variances? il �� -I `�� The number of persons who aze for or against the granting of a variance is neither a relevant nor a proper consideration in determin;og the merits of an application. One court observed that if this were not true, the result would be a govemment of inen rather than one of law. It is improper for a boazd of adjustment to place weight upon the number of protestants rather than on the merits of an application. Tlie strenuous objection of residents is not a legitimate basis for the denial of a variance. Revocation of a variance is not adequately supported when the principal reason for such action is that 1,000 persons signed a petition protesting the variance. The quality of the protest rather than the quantity of signers must guide the discretion of the boazd Id at 615. There is no suggestion in relevant Ordinances or any other law that an amicably negoriated settlement of claims which avoids liability to all parties (including the City of St. Paul) cannot constitute "unusual conditions" supporting a sign variance. St. Anthony points to no authority supporting this proposition because no such authority exists. The si¢n is not contrarv to the ¢eneral intent of the sien chapter of the zonin¢ code. The Planning Commission found that this criterion is satisfied by the overall effect of granting the requested variances. As a result of the two (2) signs being erected pursuant to the variances, seventeen (17) non-confomung signs in other locations throughout the City of St. Paul will be removed by Universal and Midwest. Since one of the two signs to be erected pursuant to the variances simpiy replaces the sign which has been located on L&H's property for years, the City of St. Paul is effectively allowing the erection of one new sign in exchange for the removal of seventeen other non-confomung signs throughout the city. By granting the variances, the Planniiig Commission effected a net decrease of sixteen (16) non-confomung signs throughout the City. The Planning Commission astutely recognized this beneficial overall effect in granting the variance, stating in its findings and resolution: The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concem for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and 12 �,�-�� advertise business in the city represents a replacement of 14 non-conforming signs in other azeas of the city where the removal has enhanced the visual environment. To the extent that the removal or decrease in number of outdoor advertising signs (particularly non-conforming signs) is an objective to be promoted by Chapter 66, it can hazdly be argued that the Planning Commission erred in concluding that this criterion is met. St. Anthony simply argues that this criterion is not met because the signs to be erected require variances. St. Anthony does not recognize or even mention the overall increase in compliance and decrease in outdoor advertising signs. St. Anthony's "not in my backyazd" attitude demonstrates parochialism which is contrary to the interests of the City of St. Paul and inconsistent with the intent of Chapter 66. The Planning Commission coaectly concluded that the overall effect of significantly decreasing the number of non-conforming signs throughout the City of St. Paul exceedingly satisfies this criterion. The sien will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and re�ulations. The Planning Commission correctly concluded that this criterion is met, as the Minnesota Depamnent of Transportation has no height requirements and allows signs to be as close as five hundred (500) feet to one another. Since no signs allowed by the variances would be less than 500 feet from one another, the Planning Commission correctly found that this criterion is met. St. Anthony does not dispute that this criterion is met as to compliance with statues, rules and regulations, but vaguely suggests that the proximity of MidwesYs sign to the Vandalia street 10 It is uncleaz just how the Planning Commission calculated the figure of 14 replaced signs. The record before the Council indicates that Universal and Midwest will remove in the range of 14 to 17 signs upon final grant of the variances and issuance of permits for the two new signs which are the subject of this proceeding. f�C3 �� _��i�� overpass somehow "raises concems of a traffic hazard." St. Anthony provides no information regazding the nature of its "concem" and there is no indication in the record that anyone else (particulazly those maldng comments in the Staff Reports or at the hearings) shazes St. Anthony's concerns. The record clearly reflects that the Planning Commission did not err in det�*�++�n;ng �at this criterion has been met. The sien will not adversel�affect residential provertv throu,,ah excessive elare and li htin . The Planning Commission correctly noted that there aze no adjacent residenrial properties as the sign location is in a heavy industrial azea. The Planning Commission's resolutions note that the neazest residential property is all the way across the freeway. St. Anthony undoubtedly agrees and stated in its appeal that it has no comment regatding the Planning Commission's finding that this criterion is met. The sien wouid not be obiectionable to adjacent�ro�ertv owners. In finding that this criterion was met, the Planning Comxnission noted the absence of objections from adjacent property owners. St. Anthony agreed, noting that it has no comment regarding the Planning Commission's finding on this criterion. The sien is in keenine with the eeneral chazacter of the surrounding area• The Planning Commission found that this criterion is met, as the signs will be located in "a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regulaz intervals." St. Anthony does not disagee and has expressed no objection to the Planning Commission's finding that this criterion is met. 14 �� _I�''� CONCLUSION Based upon the record before the Council and the discussion set forth in this Memorandutn, L&H respectfiilly submits that the decision of the Planning Commission should be affirmed in all respects and the variances granted. Dated: September 22,1997 LONNY D. � Thomas Reg. No. 170252 'te 120 MidAmerica Bank Building 6949 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, Minnesota 55125 (612)735-9262 ATTORNEYS FOR L&H PARTNERS 15 . STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY _ ��- . •. . ,_ . •� � ) ss. ) �t�1 Affiant, RONALD LEONARD ("�ant"), being first duly swom, upon oath deposes and says that: 1. Affiant has personal knowledge of the facts described in this �davit 2. Affiant and Donald Han�ey ("Harvey") are the owners of certain real property located at 2100 Giibert Avenne, St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Property"). 3. 4. Affiant and Harvey have oti�ned the Properry since apgroximately 1981. An outdoor advertising sign was originally erected on the Properry shortly after Affiant and Harvey purchased the Property. The outdoor advertising sign was erected pursuant to the approval of the City of St. Paul which was obtained only after full compliance with all procedures and substantive requirements imposed by the City in connection with erecting the outdoor advertising sign. 5. The procedures imposed by the City in connection v,nth erecting the original outdoor advertising sign included an inspection of the sign by the City after the sign had been erected. One of the purposes of the City's inspection of the sign after being erected was to ensure that the outdoor advertising sign had been placed by the sign company in the specific location designated and approved by the City. 6. The outdoor advertising sign v��as owned by Fairway Outdoor Advertising Company ("Fairway") and maintained on the Property pursuant to a written lease agreement between Fairway as lessee, and �ant and Hanrey as lessors. 7. In the Summer of 1996, the outdoor advertising sign apparentIy required repairs which resulted in Fairway taking down the sign for a brief period of time in order to make certain repairs to footings. The repairs were effected by Fairway over a weekend and not during business hours. The sign was immediately re-erected by Fairway after the repairs were made. Affiant did not leam of the repairs until after the sign had been taken down and re-erected. 8. The above mentioned repairs appazently involved moving the footings for the sign a few feet from the original location. 9. Affiani and Harvey did not participate in any way in effecting or even approving � 1 '� -� � �� i �� the above mentioned sign repairs. Affiant and Harvey had no knowledge regarding the repairs untii after the repairs were completed. 10. Upon information and belief, Fairway erected the sign after making the necessary repairs at a height which was approximately the sign's original height of approximately fifry (50) feet I1. The City ]ater advised Fairvoay that Fairway was re.�uued to obtain a permit for the sign repairs, movement of the sign and�or re-erection of the sign. The City also advised Fairway that the height of the re-erected sign would require a variance. 12. In reviev.�ing all these matters, �ant discovered that the sign was not located on the Property either before or after the sign repairs were effected, according to a recent survey of the Properry. 13. Fairvvay advised Affiant that Fairway intended to appear before the City in connection with issues pertaining to the repairs, movement and re-erection of the sign. �ant appeared at the hearing before the City only to ensure that Fairway accurately and fully disclosed to the City that the sign was not, and never had been located upon the Properiy. 14. At the hearing, Fain��ay did noi disclose to the City that the sign was not, and never had been located on the Property. 15. The City learned that the sign was not, and never had been located on the Properry only because �ant, through his counsel, appeared at the hearing and advised the City of Fairway's failure to inform the City that the sign was not located on the Property. Affiant, through his counsel, further advised the City that the above mentioned survey indicated that the sign most probably was located upon public property. 16. In various communications with the City, Affiant advised the City that �ant intended to move the sign onto the Property, as was intended ever since the sign was original]y erected, and as would have occurred but for the failure of the City's inspector to discover the incorrect placement of the sign. 17. As a result of �anPs honest and forthright correction of Fairway's non- disclosure to the City regazding the location of the sign, the City required Fainvay to remove the sign. Fairway subsequenfly removed the sign. 18. Affiant immediately engaged in negotiations with other outdoor advertising sign companies w�ith respect to a possible lease or other transaction providing for the erection of a replacement sign. Those negotiations disclosed that the value of the sign on the Properry can be reasonably expected to be in an amount not less than Two Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollazs ($200,000.00). � -. . �' 19. Affiant and Harvey ultimately entered an agreement with Universal Outdoor, Inc. ("Universal"). The agreement with Universal provides for Univenal to erect and maintain an outdoor advertising sign on the Property. 20. Universal filed documents and otherwise acted to obtain the City's pemussion and authority to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the Properry pursuant to the agreement w�ith Affiant and Harvey. _ 21. Universal's request for a permit to erect the outdoor advertising sign was denied by the City for reasons relating to another sign permit application which vvas filed by Midwest Ovtdoor Advertising ("Midwest") after Universal's application. 22. Universal's appeal of that decision is the proceeding in which Affiant respectfully submits this �davit. 23. Based upon Affiant's review of the relevant documents and inspection of the Property, Affiant believes Midvrest's request for a permit is untimely, inaccurate, defective and should be denied for a number of reasons, and Universal's application for a permit should be approved. �ant understands ihat these substantive and procedural issues, however, will be addressed in greater detail by Universal at the hearing pursuant to which this Affidavit is respectfully submitted. 24. Affiant believes ihat Universal's application for a pernut is in fact an application to simply move the sign that ��as required by the City to be taken down by Fairway. That sign was required to be taken down oniy because (i) the City failed to properly inspect and ensure the proper location of the sign as is required by City and State laws and regulations; and (ii) Affiant truthfuily and a�rmatively corrected the deceptive record before the City v.�ith respect to the location of the sign on public properry. 25. If the sign application submitted by Universal is not approved by the City, A�ant and Harvey will suffer damages in excess of Two Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($200,000.00) relating to lost sign revenues. 26. Based upon the facts set forth in this Affidavit, Affiant believes that the City should grant the application for a permit submitted by Universal and deny the appiication submitted by Midwest. 27. In the event that the City denies Universal's application, thereby effectively preventing Affiant from receiving more than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars in sign related income, Affiant intends to look to the City for compensation of those damages. .. -� �. �,� _��t'�� FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT EXCEPT THAT THIS AFFIDAVIT IS SUBMITTED 1N SUPPORT OF UNIVERSAL'S PERMIT APPLICATIO AND 1N OP TION TO MIDWEST"S PERMIT APPLICATION. O ALD LE N Subscri ed and swom to before me this day of April, 1997 � �� Public �r.�: _r,�e:..�l�.?.l.F_�.AC.AN'..� ' -� :_ON'��Y D. Tr10•'v��S _ ' _ , r.�. L�7��Ir. Yf;in� :S:l.c � -' - - . E..'' . , .. . ��•';. . � DIAMOND� LISZT Srt GRADY� P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Richard I. Diamond` Marvin A. Lisz[" Amy Darr Grady September 22, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 �� i �.,�� Suite 210 9855 Wes[ 78[h Scree[ Minneapolis, MN 55344 Telephone (612) 944-1010 Fax(612) 443-5680 RE: Zoning File #97-220: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL Note new file number: File replaces Zoning Files #97-169 and #97-170) City Council Hearing: September 24, 1997 4:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Dear Ms. Anderson: Enclosed please find original and eight copies of Universal Outdoor Inds Response to St. Anthony Pazk Community Council's Appeal of the Plannin� Commission Decision of August 11. 1997 in File I3o 97-220 (Replacin� File No. 97-170). Kindly distribute this Response to each Council member priar to the hearing on September 24, 1997. Your cooperation is appreciated. Very truly yours, �� arvin A. Liszt cc: Universal Outdoor, Inc. MAL/dw Enclosures *CIVlL TRIAL SPEClALISS CERTIFIED BY THE NAIlONAL BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCACY AND MINNE50"IA SIATE BAR ASSOClAS10N *"REAL PROPERTY LAW SPECIALISI' CER'iIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA S"fA7E BAR ASSOCIAIlON �1� . • � �� • �:��5�}�f=i��l� :_.44: � ,! • ��1 _ • ��, � - :1: s_ � • Y � Y ' • , � ^ • , � • * � �' - -- • _ � �. � 1. Introduction �� l / The appeal by the St. Anthony Park Community Council ("SAPCC") protests the granting of variances by the Planning Commission to allow Universal Outdoor, Inc. ("Universal") and Midwest Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Midwest") to construct a total of two outdoor advertisinq signs near I-94 and Vandalia. After its public hearing, the Zoning Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variances. The Planning Commission upheld the recommendation by an overwhelming vote of 15-1. The effect of the granting of the variances is to cause the removal of at least 17 nonconforming signs throughout the City of St. Paul and replace them with two signs near I-94 and Vandalia. Obviously, the SAPCC does not like outdoor signs and, frankly, that is the reason for their appeal. However, the City Council must not be influenced by the SAPCC's dislike of outdoor signs. The only real issue is whether the granting of the variances by the Planning Commission is justified by the facts and circumstances of this situation. When this matter is viewed in that context, there is simply no question that the decision of the Planning Commission must be upheld. 2. The Planninq Commission�s Findings Amply Support the Granting of the variances to IIniversal. � �� ' The law in Minnesota is clear that a municipality may grant a variance from a zoning ordinance where strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship and where the granting of a variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In St. Paul, a variance request must conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Committee and Planning Commission carefully analyzed this provision of the Code and the facts and circumstances of this matter. These two bodies recognized beyond question that the provisions of the Zoning Code 66.409 were met. The Planning Commission's findings are summarized as follows: a. There are unusual circumstances in this matter relating to the existing building and the proposed Midwest sign. In addition, the Planning Commission recognized the unusual circumstances regarding the dispute between the two sign companies and the City's potential liability in the manner in which it handled the granting of the permit to Midwest and not Universal. b. The intent of Chapter 66 of the Code is to strike a balance between a concern for a visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the City. The proposed sign advertises local businesses and the Universal sign will replace at least three nonconforming signs in areas of the City where the Zoning Code now prohibits such siqns. c. The sign does not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes, rules or regulations. d. The sign will not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting since the closest residential property is about 660 feet away across a well lit freeway. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the 2 C ,�� i interstate, the signs are not visible from homes across the freeway. e. The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area since it will be located in a freeway corridor where signs are located at regular intervals. Each of these findings are supported by undeniable facts and circumstances. Clearly, the general intent and character of the Zoning Code is not only met but is exceeded in this situation since the granting of the Universal and Midwest variances results in the removal of at least 17 nonconforming signs throughout other areas of the City of St. Paul. 3. The SAPCC�s Grounds for Appeal are Legally Without Merit. Universal will not in this memorandum discuss each and every ground for appeal set forth in the SAPCC's appeal document. However, a brief review of some of those grounds illustrates that they are without legal or factual foundation: a. Whether the Zoninq Committee, Universal or Midwest Initially Raised the Variance ProposaZ is irrelevant. The SAPCC's lengthy discussion regarding who initially proposed the variances is irrelevant. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the actual variance requests were submitted by Universal and Midwest and not by any commission member. Secondly, there is nothing in any State statutes, regulations, ordinance or 3 1`+ �,t q n' case law which would prohibit a Zoning Committee member from recommending a solution involving variance requests. In fact, Universal would submit that even if a committee member did first raise such a solution, it is well within the province and common sense of the committee to do so. This is especially true in a situation like the one here where the City would potentially have significant liability for the manner in which it handled the initial sign permit application process. b. The SAPCC Position Regarding Siqn Credits is Irrelevant and Factually Incorrect. This appeal involves the granting of a variance to Universal and Midwest. The method of calculating nonconforming sign area credits to be used to build advertising signs pursuant to Section 66.302 was not part of the Zoning Committee or Planning Commission's deliberation and is not properly before the Council at this time. The granting of the variances is an issue separate and apart from the number of sign area credits needed to build a new sign. This issue should not even be considered by this Council at this time. Even if the Council reviews this portion of the Ordinance at this time, it is clear that the City has properly calculated sign area credits since this Ordinance was passed. Section 66.302(b)(6) sets forth the concept that sign area credits from the removal of nonconforming signs may be used to build signs on other lots. This section does not describe exactly how the area is to be calculated. Section 66.200 entitled " General Provisions and Section 66.201 C7 / �n �^ i\� I l entitled "Al1 Signs-Permit Zoning District" are the parts of the Zoning Code containing the provisions governing how the entire sign ordinance should be interpreted. Section 66.201(14) clearly states that, "Only one side of a double-faced sign or V-shaped sign shall be used to compute the gross surface display area, display surface area or sign area of a sign." Any suggestion by the SAPCC that this provision should not apply to sign area credit calculation is simply wrong and ignores the plain and unambiguous language of the Ordinance. c. The Zoninq Committee�s Report Was Far From Inadequate. A review of the Planning Commission Minutes £rom August 8, 1997 indicates that a full discussion was heard regarding the sign variance. Clearly, all commission members knew the feelings of the neighbor group in opposition to the variances. The one Merrian Park Community Council member was not allowed by law to speak at the Planninq Commission meeting on August 8, 1997 since the meeting was not a public hearing. The views of those in opposition to the signs were heard at the public hearings on April 17th, May lst and July 31st. The SAPCC suggests that the feelings of those opposed to the signs were somehow kept secret from the Planning Commission. This suggestion is absurd on its face and defies all common sense. 4. Conclusion On combined votes of 20-1 the Zoning Committee and Planning 5 ��,�y17 Commission have voted in favor of granting the proposed variances. These votes were made with a view toward not only recognizing the rights of Universal and Midwest but also in advancing the spirit and general intent of the Zoning Code. At least 17 nonconforming signs will be removed and replaced by two signs in a freeway corridor where signs are not only permitted but also appear at regular intervals. The actions of the Zoning Committee and Planning Commission are backed by common sense, logic and supported by the factual findings contained in each resolution. The decision of the Planning Commission should undoubtedly be upheld. Dated: September 22, 1997 Respectfully submitted, DIAMOND� LISZT & GRADY, P.A. �'4�-�. � Marvin . Liszt #6384 9855 West 78th Street Suite 210 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 944-1010 Attorney for Universal Outdoor, Inc. @ (`; r. ! �-�.. t , p n � i e �-...� ' ' , s �. • � - . . .m Presented By Referred To Council File # �� Green Sheet # 62178 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Committee: Date 1 VJHEREAS, Universal Outdoor, Inc. [Universal], in Zoning File No. 97-049, pursuant to 2 Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.408, appealed from a decision of the Zoning Aduiinistrator to 3 deny Universal's application to construct an outdoor advertising sign on properry commonly 4 laiown as 2100 Gilbert Street (south side, east of Vandalia), Saint Paul, MN; and 6 WHEREAS, on Apri117, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning 7 Commission [Zoning Committee] held a public hearing on Universal's appeal at which a11 8 persons present were given an opporiunity to be heard pursuant to the requirements of Saint Paul 9 Legislarive Code §64300(j); 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 39 WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the public testimony, the Zoning Committee iuianimously voted to lay the matter over until May 1, 1997 for the purpose of obtainnig additional information concerning Universal's sign application from Office of Licenses, Inspections and Environmental Protection staff ; and WHEREAS, on May 1, 1997, the Zoning Coxnxnittee reopened the public heazing on the matter of Universal's sign application and appeal and moved, based upon all the information and testimony received and with the understanding of Universal, that the matter of Universal's appeal be temporarily suspended pending the receipt of a sign variance application which Universal expressed a desire to submit in lieu of the Zoning Committee taking final action on this appeal. It was filrther understood by the Zoning Committee, based upon the testimony, that other sign companies purporting to have an interest in locating signs in the immediate surrounding azea may also submit variance applications; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 1997, in Zoning File No. 97-169, Midwest Outdoor Advertising, Inc. [Midwest] made applicafion for a sign height variance and a sign sepazation variance for property commonly known as X�� Vandalia Street (northeasterly corner of I-94 and Vandalia Street) so that Midwest could construct an advertising sign 68 feet above grade and within 510 feet of the site upon which Universal proposed to erect a sign; and WFIEREAS, on June 30, 1997, in Zoning File No. 97-170, Universal made application for a sign height variance, a sign separation variance from a proposed sign to be located to the west (Midwest's proposed sign, see above), and a sign separation variance from another sign to the east, all for the same properry on Gilbert Avenue described above in Zoning File No. 97-049; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 1997, the Zoning Committee, having deternuned to heaz the matters simultaueously, conducted a public hearing on the variance applications of Midwest and Universal, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.409 at which all persons present were �- . 40 given an opportunity to be heard; and �� — �— � 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3Q 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 WHEREAS, on August 8, 1997, the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Plamung Commission], based upon the evidence presented to the Zoning Committee at the July 31, 1997, public hearing and as substautially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact with respect to Universal's and Midwest sign variance applications: Plamiing Commission: Findings of Fact: Zoning File No. 97-169 (Midwest� q ,� - 1493 1. The applicant proposes to move an existing outdoor advertising sign appro�mately fifty feet to the west and coustruct it at a height of sia�ty-eight (68) feet above grade. Two variances--of m�imum height and of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs intended to be seen from a freeway be 1,000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 1038.82 feet west of an e�sting Adams Company sign and 803 feet east of an existing 3M Company sign. In addition, the proposed site is 509.88 feet west of a sign proposed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that would be 68 feet from grade. The grade at which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadway bed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been conshucted in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attracfive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height requirements of the Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land in the vicuuty is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and V andalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right-of-way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the V andalia Street bridge. It is on this railroad land that Midwest Outdoor Advertising proposes to construct its sign. 3. Midwest Outdoor Advertising filed an application for an outdoor advertising sign on Friday, February 21, 1997. The sign was to be located in the railroad right-of-way just east of Vandalia Street and north of the westbound I-94 off-ramp, 50 feet east from where the sign is presently proposed. The application stated that the sign would be installed at 37 feet above grade. The applicant constructed the sign at its current location and at its current height (58 feet above grade) sometime after being issued a permit by the Saint Paul Office of License, Inspecrions and Environmental Protection (LIEP) on Febniary 25, 1997. (The application stated that it was estimated that the sign would be constructed between Mazch 15 and Mazch 30, 1997.) 2 4 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 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 On Mazch 7, 1997, the applicant was notified of an appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The letter from Robert Kessler to Midwest Outdoor Advertising notifying them of the appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. stated: "If you choose to proceed and q/) _��{Q3 Universal's appeal is approved by the Planning Coxnmission, it would be your � responsibility to remove the sign at your expense." On Apri117, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission met to consider the appeal of the LIEP decision by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The matter was laid over until the May 1,1997 committee meeting. On Apri128, 1997, a letter was sent to Midwest Outdoor Advertising by Robert Kessler notifying them that their sign was constructed in violation of their permit inasmuch as it was 58 feet from the base to the top of the sign--not 37.5 feet as required. The company was futther notified that continued use of the sign would require a variance from the Planuing Commission. (The applicant has maintained that the construction of their sign was consistent with their understanding that sign height was to be measured from the top of the I-94 e�t ramp rather than the roadbed. The fact--and longstanding practice--that the measurement is to be taken from the main roadbed was clarified by a Minor Zoning Amendment adopted by the Planning Commission on July 11, 1997.) On May 1, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Pluming Commission devoted a significant amount of fime to a consideration of the issues associated with which of two sign companies should be pernutted to construct a sign within an azea where the Zoning code would allow only one. Because of different procedures followed by different staff members in the Office of Licenses Inspections and Environxnental Protection, both applicants asserted that they should have been considered "first," and, therefore, been approved. Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution of the appeal znight involve permitting both signs provided that they could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel; the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a vaziance of the code's sepazation requirement by the Planning Commission. Universal Outdoor, Inc. elected to suspend its appeal and file an application for such a variance. 4. The two companies, after the May 1, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting, crafted a proposal that would involve moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they both would meet the State of Minnesota's 500 feet separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-confornring signs removed by Midwest Outdoor Advertising elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Secfion 66302(b) of the Zoning code. That section provides, in part, that: a. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a permitted use; [:� c. The section goes on to state: 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconfomiiug sign face credits sha11 comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, pazks, pazkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance requirements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This condition is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standazd 14 by 48 foot v-style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual conditions related to the site that have led to this application include: The advertising sign must be brought into conforuiance with the size and height zequirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and 3 °l�-ly? The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). (1) Topography. The site selected by the applicant and leased from the railroad is depressed to allow for the passage of trains under the Vandalia Street bridge. A sign constructed within the 37.5 feet height limit outlined in the Zoning code would not be clearly visible from I-94. (2) Separation from the proposed Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign. To resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would a11ow in this azea, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and indushy in the ciry. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of 14 non-conforming signs in other azeas of the city where the removal has ei�lianced the visual environment. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues permits for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with staYe statutes. The State does not have any height restrictions although their permits state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. Minnesota Statutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. 0 1 2 3 d. The sign wi11 not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and t4 � 3 Zighting. q 1' This standard is met. The closest residenrial properry is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the yeaz, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 4�4 45 46 47 48 49 50 e. The sign wouZd not be objectionable to adjacent properry owners. T'�is standard is met. While one properiy owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there aze outdoor advertising signs at regulaz intervals. Planning Commission: Findings of Fact: Zoning File No. 97-170 (Universal) 1. The applicant proposes to construct an outdoor advertising sign on private property located at 2100 Gilbert adjacent to the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp from I-94. Three variances--of maximuxn height and two of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs be 1000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 510 feet west of an e�sting Aclams Company sign, thus requiring a variance of 157 feet. It is also 509.88 feet from a proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign, requiring a variance of 157.12 feet. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that would extend 57.5 feet from the grade, 20 feet higher than allowed in the code. The grade on which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadbed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attraetive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and ciTy spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign conforniing to the height requirements of the Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right of way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. In between the railroad and I-94 rights-of-way is a 1 narrow strip of land that is privately owned and on which the Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign 3 is proposed to be conshucted. �,� _4y� 3 4 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 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 3. The applicant first applied for a permit to establish a sign on this site, but appro�mately 160 feet west of this location, on February 10, 1997. It was to be a single sided sign facing east and constructed at 37.5 feet above grade. On Mazch 3, 1997, the applicant was notified that their application was being rejected because of a permit issued to Midwest Outdoor Advertising on Febraary 25, 1997 to allow them to construct a sign east of Vandalia and about 300 feet from where Universal was proposing to establish their sign. On Mazch 5, 1997, the applicant appealed the decision of the Director of the Office of Licenses, Inspection and Environmental Protection, contending that their applicafion was filed before that of Midwest Outdoor Advertising and, therefore, should have been granted. The appeal was heard by the Zoning Committee on April 17, 1997 and on May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making applicafion and being granted a variance of the Code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. The applicant agreed to suspend the appeal pending the outcome of such an application process. 4. The two sign companies subsequently crafted a proposal that involved moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they would both meet the State of Minnesota's S00 foot separarion requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. The new proposed site has led to a request for a height variance in addition to the separation variance. In the original locarion, the dimensions of the available land would allow the conshucrion of only a one-sided east-facing sign. Moving to the east would allow for a v-sign, but, in order to be seen from both directions, the applicant states that the sign would have to be elevated. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 20 foot height variance to allow the sign to extend up 57.5 feet. The proposed sign replaces non-conforming signs removed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. from locarions elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Sec6on 66302(b} of the Zoning code. That section provides, in gart, that: � � c. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a permitted use; The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height requirexnents as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and The advertising sign as zelocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2A� 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 34 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 The section goes on to state: °11-�4� (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residenfial disiricts, pazks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distauce requitements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This standard is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14 by 48 foot v- style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual circumstances related to the site relate to its relationship to an existing building and to its relationship to the e�sting and proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign. While the applicant would not have required any variances at the location they originally proposed, to resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be pemutted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies aze proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and indushy in the city represents a replacement of three non-conforming signs in other areas of the city where removal has enhanced the visual environment. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues pernuts for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state staiutes. The State does not have any height restricfion although their pernuts state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdicfion. Mimiesota Statutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d. The sign will not advet affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting. This standazd is met. The closest residential properry is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the yeaz, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not � 3 visible from the homes across the &eeway. Q7 � � 4 e. The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This staudard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there aze outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals; and WHEREAS, on August 8, 1997, the Plaiming Commission, in Zoning File No. 97-56, pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislative Code and based upon the preceding findings of fact (Zoning File No. 97-169), approved the application of Midwest for the following sign variance at �� Vandalia Street: 1. A 30.5 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 68 feet requested and a maacimum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and 2. An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet (a separation beriveen advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimuxn of 667 feet allowed); and WHEREAS, on August 8, 1997, the Planning Commission, in Zoning File No. 97-57, pursuant to the Saint Paul Legislauve Code and based upon the preceding fmdings of fact (Zoning File No. 97-170), approved the application of Universal for the following sign variance at 2100 Gilbert Avenue (south side, east of Vandalia): 1. A 20 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 57.5 feet requested and a maYimum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and 2. An advertising sign sepazarion variance of 157.12 feet (a separafion between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed); and 3. An advertising sign separation variance of 157 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 510 feet requested and a minnnum of 667 feet allowed); and WHEREAS, on August 25, 1997, the Saint Anthony Pazk Community Council, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64.206, duly filed with the City Clerk an appeal from the detenuivation of the Planning Commission in Zoning Files No.'s 97-169 (Midwest) and 97-170 (LTniversal) to grant sign variances; and 1 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.208 and upon 2 notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Council of the City of Saint 3 Paul [City Council] on September 24, 1997, where all interested parties were given an 4 opporhxnity to be heard; and q,7 �� 5 6 WF�REAS, the City Council, having heazd the statements made and having considered the 7 application, the reports of staff, the record, minutes and resolutions of the Planniug Commission; 8 DOES, HEREBY, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 RESOLVE, that the determivaiion of the Plauning Commission in these matters is hereby reversed based upon the following findings: The Planning Commission erred in deteruiiuiug that there were unusual conditions pertainiug to the specific building sites of each sign. If there were hazdships created by these sites, the hazdships were self-created. First, Midwest leased land from which a legally established billboazd could not have been seen from the freeway ... or from much of anyplace. Midwest also erected a sign which was 21 feet higher than MidwesYs permit allowed. Despite this, the sign is still bazely visible and Midwest is still requesting a sign height variance for a total of 30 feet. Second, Universal elected to move the site of its proposed sign from a place where no height variance was required in order to accommodate an agreement that would allow both Universal and MidwesYs to establish two signs in an area that can accommodate only one sign. Moreover, if the Midwest sign didn't exist, Universal would not have required a separation variance at its original location either. There is room for only one sign of regulation size and height in this general area. Universal has a lease for the land more suitable for this regulation sign. Midwest obtained its permit--for a sign of regulation size and height--but elected to build a sign which was taller than allowed under its permit.. Third, while the sign ordinance provides for sign credits when nonconforming signs aze removed, the sign ordinance also requires that replacement signs conform to the size and height requirements of the sign ordinance. The Planning Commission ened when it determined that granring the requested variances would not be contrary to the general intent of the sign ordinance. Finally, the Plamung Commission erred when it determined tha# the proposed signs would not be objectionable to adjacent properiy owners. The Zoning Committee file included a letter from an adjacent property owner opposing the variances. A second letter was received following the public hearing. Due to the development of the general azea, there aze few adjacent property owners. This point increases the significance of the two letters received in opposition to the ��E.iYF:iYLK�.`ll AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the above stated reasons, the appeal of the St. Anthony Park Community Council is hereby granted; AND, BE IT q1-14 �3 1 FURTI�R RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Midwest, 2 Universal, the appellant, the Zoning Adniiuistrator and the Planning Commission. t�ND BE IT 4 FINALLY RESOLVED, that during the interim period between the Council decision in this 5 matter and the passage of t3us resolution memorializiug the Council's decision, Universal has 6 represented to the Zoning Committee that a"settlement° concerning sign site location had been 7 reached but not yet formalized with Midwest, [which appeazs to make the original appeal of 8 Universal and any subsequent appeal by Midwest moot]. f[I] Requested by Department of: By: Form Appr d by City Attorney gY: -� /,Ti� ��r�, /(- 2S-`17 Adoption Certified by Council Secretary Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council BY: a�._ n � Sy: Approved by Mayor: Date / i�'j.v �4 �- Hy: � �� — / Adopted by Council: Date ��. , �� \ �.q� \ �,�,N�,� crrY courrcu, Councilmember Megazd December 1. 1997 December 10, 1997 TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES GREEN SHEET �� ° I'1-►�t?3 No 621i8 a�rrnwc� F � ❑ 611YAiMqEY ❑ CRYCEtK ❑wuxu.�aunraoa ❑wu�rJ.�aom,�eero ❑ r�vat�ae��assr,wp ❑ (CUP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATUR� Finalizing Ciry Council action taken September 24, 1997 granting the appeal of St. Anthony Pazk Community CouncH to a decision of the Planning Commission granting variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor, Inc. to locate outdoor adverkising signs at the northeast corner of I-94 and Vandalia Street and at 2100 Gilbert Avenue respectively. PLANNING COMMISSION CIB COMMIITEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION IFAPPROYED k199::�P�a�; AMOUM OF TRANSACTION tSONAL SERYICE CANTRAC75 MUST ANSWER TNE FOLLAWING ( Has ihis Peisa�rtn everwaked urWer a conhact fw this dea�eM7 YES NO Has ihis peisoMim ever 6een a eilY empbyee9 YES NO Does fhis P�Mrm P� a sIdII not �armellYP� M anY curteM citY emWoyeeT YES NO Is tlus µvsarJfifin e tergetetl venda? YES NO COST/REVENUE BUOGETED (GRCLE ONE) YES NO /ICTNITY NUMBER in/4ji:1r3S `�.'k.;.i.'...`e! uSa�.d __�. �' _ �JJ� OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY Peg Birk City Attorney 9� - I'{7 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor c�.,torvrs:on 400 City Hall I S West Ke7loggBlvd Saint Paul, Mrnnesota 55702 TeZephone: 672 266-8 77 0 Facsunile: 672 298-S6I9 November26, 1997 Nancy Anderson Assistant Secretazy Saint Paul City Council Room 310 Saint Paul City Ha11 RE: Appeal of St. Anthony Park Community Council, (Zoning File No. 97-220) heard on September 24,1997. Dear Nancy: Attached please find an original resolution, signed as to form, memorializing the decision of the City Council in the above entitled matter. This matter should be placed upon the Council's Consent Agenda at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, ' i.G6/�7G Peter W. Warner Assistant City Attorney , : 7 • ;,,;�� t: s ` r � 3 1g9� DEPART'MENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMENT Pome(a Wheelocl, Disector CTTY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 WestFourth Street SaintPauI,MN55102 q�-14 �13 G\ Telephane: 612-2666655 Facsimile: 612-22&326I �"s� �� i�fi't�?' August 28, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: ;;;; ; � � i997 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, September 24, 1997 for the following appeal of a Planning Commission decision granting variances for the establishment of two advertising signs: Appellant: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL File Number: #97-169 Purpose: Appeal a Planning Commission decision granting variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising for the establishment of an advertising sign. Address: Northeast comer of I-94 and Vandalia Legal Description of Property: See Survey in File Previous Action: Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 15-1-1, August 8, 1997 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 5-0, July 31, 1997 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the September 10, 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6557 if you have any questions. Sincerely, �"(��- 9�� Nancy Homans City Planner cc: File #97-169 Mike Kraemer Donna Sanders � � `araricn oF rbsuc aenxnva . _ The Saint Paul CiLy Councff will' conduct a public hearing on Wednesday; Septemtier.24; 1997 at 4:30 g.m. in the City Councff Chambers, Third Floo� Citp = Hall-Court House,-to consider the appeal of St Anthony Pazk CommtuuYy Council .= to'a decision of thcPlannin Commission granting variances to Midwest Outdonr - Advpsti�; ��for establishment of- an advertising sign at the Northeast corner of - I-94 and Vandalia Street. - _ , , _ , Dated: September 3, 1997 � �- _ . - - . . . PFfi1VGY ANDERSON � � ' , . . -�- _ _ , _ _. _ -,,.. _ � � -- -ASSistant City Councik Secretary � ->- �� -- - - , � - -.- , ,(SeP4e'mber,6: �k997} � - " _ - ,�, I DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Pamela Whee7ock, Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor 25 WestFounh Street SaintPaul,,NN55102 ��-1y?3 Telephane: 612-266-6655 Facsimile: 612-228-3261 u� �. i August 28, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research O�ce Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: i�� 2 � i3�7 1 would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, September 24, 1997 for the fotlowing appeal of a Planning Commission decision granting variances for the establishment of two advertising signs: Appellant: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL File Number: #97-170 Purpose: Appeal a Pianning Commission decision granting variances to Universal Outdoor, Inc. for the establishment of an advertising sign. '�� Address: 2100 Gilbert Avenue Legal Description of Property: See Survey in File Previous Action: Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 15-1-1, August 8, 1997 Zoning Committee Recommendation: Approval; Vote: 5-0, July 31, 1997 My understanding is that this public hearing request wilf appear on ihe agenda for the September 10, 1997 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6557 if you have any questions. Sincerely, l �` � ��/ Nancy Homans City Planner cc: File #97-170 Mike Kraemer Donna Sanders ��he; septemb,e zFlall: Eoui to a decisi Inc. for e, D'ated: Se N2'INCIs ltl Ass:staztt. ao2res oi+_g[�sErc a�a�rG Patil City Cpuncii wiH �coaducf a public - hearP � 1997 at4:30 p.m. in the'G�ty Gauncil-Ckamfiet ise, to�onsider the annealof Si: nnth�n., ra�k� � �. - - � I � on� Wed'nesdav. ....�.r�a.uuug .,ommiss:on grannng vaziances to IInivers lishment of an. advertising sign, at 2200 Gilbert Avet;ue. �ber.3, i987 " _ _ iRSON� _::;;�:�.r ` � _ - - � � � rCouncil SecaNCaiy � � � ' - :- ,: "' . . ; ° _`�Septemb�e7 6, 1997) . . . \�PED33VSYSVSHARP.D�NPI-PZONECASE�91170APLCFM ,+ t � & ECO OMIC O MP ENT (.� Pamela Wheelack Director �� _' • �� CTTY OF SA]NT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor rr�r Septembez 11, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota S S 1 Q2 • • 25 West Fourth Sireet Sain[ Pav(, MN55102 Zelephone: 612-266-6655 Facsimile: 6l2-228-326/ RE: Zoning Fale #97-220: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMTJNITY COUNCIL (Note new file number. File replaces Zoning Files #97-169 and #97-170) City Council Hearing: September 24, 1997 4:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Pi1RPOSF.: Appeal planning commission decisions granting sign variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor, Inc. to locate outdoor advertising signs at the northeast corner of I-94 and Vandalia and at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, respectively. PT ANNTtQC; COMMISCION ASTTON• APPROVAL 15-1 (in each case) 70NiNCC .�MNiITTEF RRC'(�MMF.NDATiON: APPROVAL 5-0 (in each case) STARF RF,C OMMFNDATION: DENIAI, (in each case) STTPPORT: No persons spoke. OPPOSITTON: One person spoke in opposition to both applications. One letter was received. The District 12 St. Anthony Pazk Communiry Council, Merriam Park Community Council and University LINITED all opposed the variances in both cases. Dear Ms. Anderson: The ST. ANTHONY PAItK COMMiJNITY COUNCIL has appealed the decisions of the Saint Paul Planning Commission, in separate cases, to grant sign variances to Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor, Inc. to allow the installation of outdoor advertising signs on property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of I-94 and Vandalia and 2100 Gilbert Avenue, respectively. The Zoning Committee of the Saint Paul Planning Commission held a public hearing on the requests on July 31, 1997. Each applicant addressed the committee. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variances in each case. The Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Committee's recommendation for approval on a vote of 15 to 1 in each case on August 8, 1997. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on September 24, 1997. Please nofify me (6-6557) if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the sites presented at the public hearing, Sincerely, �a�y I�omanp� Northwest Quadrant Staff Attachments cc: City Council members 1 � ' � � • i q t 1 , , n LJ TYPE OF A.PPEAt: Appficat'�on is hereby made for an appeai to the: C Board of Zoning Appeals � City Councif under th� provisions ot Chapter 64, Section 206 , P2ragraph a of the Zoning Code, to appea! a decisipn made by the P1 anni n9 Commi sion on A ugu s t 11 , 19 97 File number. 97- 69 and 97-7 70 (d�te o� decisiorJ GROUNDS FOR APPEAL• Expfain why you feel there has been an error in any requiremen:, pz;r,i;, dec�s�on o- refusai made by Gn admini;trativ> oniciai, or zn e�ror in fact, procedur2 cr imd�ng !nace by the 6oard of Zoning Appea'�s or ihe Plznning Gommiss:on. SEE ATTACHMFNT n LJ .r� r f�„JG-12-1957 11��! =�T F'HUL F'L�;it:.11i, �- E_Ot� - APP4ICATIQA! FOR APPEAL .Department oJPlnnning and .Economic Developm¢nt Znxiirg Seclion 1100 City� Hall Annex ZS 6�'est Fourfh Street Sarnt Paut, MN 55102 Z6b-6589 °l'1-1y �� V1= �G� JJS4 ♦ F.C�_ �� :, � Fafl� ,�n� aim " ``�_ :�fs .fative #�earji � APPELl.ANT Name St. Anthonv Park Commun�v Council � Address g90 Cromwell Ave. � City St. Paul g�, MN Zi 551 14 Daytime phone pRQPERTY Zoning File Name Midwest Outdoor Advertisinq 97-169 & j LOCATION � � -f�dt�ssfLveeE+c�r+- Uni versal Outdnor Tn 9�-� � — — Midwest - NE corner of I-94 and Vandalia, Universal - 2100 Gi lbert Ave., SE side of Vandalia �� A!tach add:GOr,a! shee! d r,ecessary) T St_ nthonV Par�C Community Counc9l q � Ip C . � �� jn:..L......i'e elnnoYi�ro .... �J1L1,4.2�._ � 0 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION • TO GRANT FIVE (5) VARIANCES TO TWO (2) BILLBOARD COMPAI3IES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF (2) BILLBOARDS AT I-94 AND VANDALIA. I. Zoning Ordinance. q .�,1N'I� Saint Paul Zoning Code, Chapter 66, qoverns the erection of billboards in Saint Paul. The last major revision of Chapter 66 occurred in 1987 and provides that the minimum distance between billboards on interstate freeways is 1,000 feet. The height limit for all billboards in Saint Paul, including freeway billboards, is 37.5 feet. Zoning Code §66.214(b). The Zoning Code also provides for "non-conforming sign face • credits." A billboard, which complied with the Zoning Code when erected, and became non-conforming because of a subsequent change to the Zoning Code, is a legal non-conforming billboard. If a billboard company removes leqal non-conforming billboards that company is grar.ted non-conforming sign face credits can be used in the erection of new billboards. These oredits All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b), .. but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing requirements in section 66.21�(b). Zoning Code §66.302(b)(6)(c). Thus the use of non-conforming sign face credits along I-94 could reduce the minimum distance requirement between billboards from 1,000 feet to 667 feet. ' , n, _„ .. �_____,_ � �� a ��- -z . • 1 TI. Background. Two billboards, owned by Fairway and Adams billboard companies • were, until recently, 2ocated on the North side of I-94 between Vandalia and Cleveland. The Fairway billboard was a one-sided billboard showing advertisements to the west bound flow of tra£fic on I-94. The Adams billboard is a two-sided billboard. Neither billboard received a variance from zoning code restrictions. The Fairway bi2Zboard, was remnved when it was found to be in the highway right-of -way. The Adams billboard remains on the property of Ivy League Place at 475 Cleveland Avenue. When the Fairway billboard was removed two other sign companies made application to erect a billboard to replace the one removed. In November, 1996, Midwest Outdoor Advertising first submitted an application for a billboard 72 square foot in sign • area and a height of 15 feet above grade. On February 10, 2497, Universal Outdoor applied £or an permit to erect a one-sided, 37 foot tall billboard on property leased at 2100 Gilbert. Neither the Midwest billboard nor the Universal billboard, as described in their applications, required variances from the Zoning Code. On February 21, 1997, Midwest resubmitted an appZication for a larger and taller billboard. This second application revised biidwest's first application and called for a 648 square foot billboard, 37 feet "above qrade," Again, Midwest's billboard, as described in its second application did not require variances. Midwest's second application noted the use of 648 sauare feet o� non-confort�ing sign face credits. This was necessary because the � G F�LE �" � ��11� 0 %�-1�� proposed site of the Midwest billboard was within 1,000 feet, but • greater than 667 feet, from the existinq Adams billboard to the east. The City, office of License, Inspection and Environmental Inspection (LIEP) approved the second Midwest billboard application and issued a construction permit. On February 24, 1997, Universal completed its application by submitting additional information and materials as requested by LIEP. On Maxch 3, 1997, LIEP denied Universal's application because of the proximity of Universal's proposed billboard to the proposed Midwest billboard for which LIEP had issued a permit. On March 5, 1997, Universal appealed the decisions to grant Midwest's billboard application and to deny Univezsal's billboard . application. LIEP wrote to Midwest informing that company of Universal's appeal and that any billboard erected was erected at Midwest's sole ris!c. Despite the pending appeal, and LIEP's warning, Midwest constructed a two-sided billboaxd 68 feet above qrade! Midwest's billboard is 30.5 feet higher than allowed by the zoning code, 31 feet higher than indicated in Midwest's construction application, and 31 feet higher than allowed by the construction permit. When this violation of the Zoninq Code and construction pernit became known to LIEP, that office wrote a letter, dated April 28, 1997, to Midwest telling that company to reduce the billboard in kteight or seek a variance allowing the greater heiaht. The matter of Universal's appeal was before the Zoning • 3 � No '�� FILE 9 �•ZZ.o --___ � Committee on April 17, and May l, 1997. The Zoning Committee has • never decided the matter of Universal's appeal. On May 5, and June 18, 1997 Universal and Midwest, respectively, applied for variances which would allow the construction of two two-faced billboards. Midwest appZied for a height variance of 30.5 feet and a distance variance of 157.12 feet, reducing the distance between its billboard and Universal's proposed billboard to 509.88 feet. Universal applied for a height variance of 20 feet and two distance variances of 157.12 and 157 feet. The distance variances would reduce the distance between the Universal billboard and the Midwest billboard to 509.88 feet and the distance between the Universal billboard and the Adams billboard to 510 feet. In effect two billboards were squeezed into a space where one billboard was removed. The Zoning Committee heard the matter of the variances on July 31, 1997. The Zoning Committee (five members voting) voted unanimously to allow all five variances. The Zoning Committee recommended to the Planning Commission at the Planning C.ommission's August 8, 1997, meeting that the variances be allowed. The Planning Commission, at the August 8th public meeting, at which no public testimony was a2lowed, voted to allow a11 five variances. �O /1 t,�� . �� F �`� 9J• _�� •. 0 q �_�,��3 • III. opposition. The Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development (PED), Saint Anthony Park Community Council, Merriam Park Community Council., Bniversity United, and an adjoining land owner; Ivy League Place, all oppose the issuance of any variance for any billboard on the North side of I-94 between Vandalia and Cleveland. These entities do not necessarily oppose the construction of a billboard to replace the removed Fairway billboard. They oppose the issuance of variances from Zoning Code restrictions. IV. Grounds for Appeal. a) Errors in Procedure. � i. The Zonina Committee Inaoprooriatelv ProDOSed _the Var�ances to Resolve Universal's Anpeal. The Planning Commission Resolutions allude to the critical issue o£ who initiated the concept of allowing both billboards to be erected. The only issue before the Zoning Committee at its April 17, 1997, meeting was Universal's appeal of the issuance of a billboard construction permit to Midwest and denial of Universal's application to erect a billboard. "Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal • Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution of the appeal miqht involve permitting both signs provided that they could meek the 50o foot senaration reguired by state law." Resolution, Zoning File #97-169, p. 3. "The appeal was heard by the Zoninq Committee on Apri1 17, 5 �� 'j.� /�•220 �' 1997 and May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve • permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law." Resolution, Zoning File #97-170, p. Z• These statements are misleading and give a false impression of this critical issue. It was Zoning Committeemember Gordon who first proposed, at the April 17th meeting, that both billboards be erected making it unnecessary for the Zoning Committee to decide Universal's appeal. He asked Ms. Lane of LIEP "Can we permit both signs?" To which Ms. Lane responded the Planning Commission could "always grant variances." Later in the April 17th meeting Zoning Committeemember Gordon asked Mr. Cronin of Universal "You would be satisfied with a• resolution of this matter that provided £or Midwest and Universal to have a sign?" Mr. Cronin's reaction was not enthusiastic. He responded: "As long as they [Midwest] built their sign as applied for and permitted by law." That is, provided there be no height variance. Since the April 17th Zoning Committee meetinq Cor.unitteemembers Gordon and Vaught have championed the idea of issuing whatever variances might allow the erection of both billboards. Comnitteemember Vaught again raised the idea of variances at the May lst Zoning Committee meeting. He asked Ms. Lane of_LIEP whether the cor�nittee would have the ability to vary the requirements of the Zoning Code to allow both biliboards. Zoning • 6 Z �� FoLE �--__ • ZZo �� • Committee Minutes, May lst, 1997, p• 4- Universal's Mr. Cronin was more direct at the July 31st Zoning Committee meeting. He stated that it was his understanding "that the Zoning Committee had asked the two companies to find a way to fit both signs." Zoning Committee Minutes, July 31st, p. 1. Further, Committeemember Vaught stated at the July 31st meeting that it was incumbent on the Zoning Committee to clean up a "problem created by the division of LIEP." Zoning Committee Minutes, �uly 31st, p. 2. Committeemember Vaught has been very direct in his criticisms of Mr. Ressler who heads the LIEP office. It is the function of the Planning Commission to hear matters which come before it. It is not the function of the Planning Commission to first suggest and then advocate for the issuance of • variances. The Committee shall, upon proper notification, conduct public hearings on ... the various types of �oninQ apolications that are duties of the planning commission. Administrative Code, 107.03. Here, the issue before the Zoning Committee at the April 17th hearing was Universal's appeal and nothing more. Had the Zoning Committee ruled on Universal's appeal, as was their duty, the issue of variances would never have arisen. But rather than ruling on Universal's appeal, Committeemembers Gordon and Vaught sought to avoid a difficult decision by suggesting the erection of both billboards. The Zoning Committee tabled �Jniversal's appeal at its April 17th meeting at the urging of committeemembers Gordon and Vaught. Subseguer.tly these same . Comr,iissioners advocated for what was, in fact, their idea: the � '�� Ft�.E 9�??_0 issuance of all variances needed to construct two two-sided signs. The Planning Committee Resolution allowing Universal's three variances gets close to the truth. (Remember Universal's billboard construction application was for a one-sided, 37 foot tall sign requirinq no variances.) "Plhile the applicant wouid not have required any variances at the location they original2y proposed, to resolve a dis�ute between two comnetinQ companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sian that the zonina code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity." Resolution, Zoning File #97-170, p. 3-4. By first suggesting, and then advocating for the issuance of variances, the Zoning Committee abandoned all pretext of being an • impartial decision-maker. Midwest's and Universal's applications . for variances would not have been in front of the Zoning Committee had that committee not strongly suggested the sign companies submit the applications. When the variance applications were eventually submitted there could be no doubt the Zoning Committee would grant them. Advocacy of the issuance of variance is an abuse of the Zoning Committee's and the Planning Commission's discretion. ii. Zonina Code Standards were ImproneTlv Applied. The Zoning Code specifies certain standards that must be met before a variance to the Zoning Code can be issued. Section 6 of each Planning Co��ittee Resolution apply these standards to each applicant's variances as a unit rather than applying the standards 8 �� • r �� °�� 9� a , , _�y�� to each variance requested. Each standard is applied equally to • height and separation distance variances. Each standard must be applied independently to eacri of the five variances. For example: a site location which was unusual and justifies a heiqht variance does not necessarily justify a separatior. distance variance. iii. Zoning Committee Renort to the Plannina Commission was Whollv Inadequate. The Zoning Committee's report to the Planning Commission on August 8th prior to the Planning Commission's issuance of the variances was wholly inadequate. Inadequacies include: * The Zoning Committee Chair's report did not mention any opposition to issuance of the variances. When the representative • from Merriam Park Community Council rose to speak on this point she was told to be quiet and sit down. * The Zoning Committee`s report contained no discussion of applying zoninq Code standards to the variances. (One member of the Planninq Commission made it clear he did not know what standards to apply to his decision.) * Again, Commissioners Vaught and Gordon advocated for the issuance of these variances as a way of fixing LIEP's "mistake." b) Error in Fact. Neither Midwest nor Universal has sufficient non-conforming sign face credits to allow the construction of the proposed two- sided billboards. LIEP has misapplied a provision of the zoning • code such that a billboard company need remove as little as one- 9 �� half the non-conforming sign face square footage needed to erect a • new billboard at two-thirds the distance separation. According to LIEP's interpretation, a billboard company could take down a one- sided, non-conforming billboard and use those credits to erect a two-sided billboard where each side of the new billboard is the same dimensions as the one side removed. Non-conforming sign face credits can be used to double display surface area and reduce the required distance between billboards by one-third! This doubling effect is possible by LIEP's misapplication of a provision of the Zoning Code. Only one side of a double-faced sign or V-shaped sign shall be used to compute the gross surface display area, display surface area, or sign area of a sign. Zoning Code §66.201(14). The maximum gross surface display area of business signs, for example, is 75 square feet. Zoning Code §66.205(1). The maximum �. gross surface display area for a billboard along I-94 is 700 square feet. Zoning Code §66.214(b). When calculating these limits only one side of a two-sided sign is measured. The term "nonconforming sign face credit" is omitted from the above provision. Yet LIEP interprets the provision to apply to non-conforming sign face credits. We contend the LIEP office �isapplies the above provision which misapplication results in insufficient non-conforming sign face credits being required for the subject billboards. LIEP has read the term "non-conforming sign face credit`" into the above provision. This is an abuse of that office's discretion. ZO ��N� • 10 �`,� C ♦ c Q� _�Z` q ,� _ �y �3 • c) Errors in Findings. The Zoning Code specifies the standards which must be met before the Planning Commission can qrant a variance. See g66.409. Again, each of these standards must be applied to each oP the five subject variances. The Planning Commission did not do this. i. "Unique sign or unusual conditions pertainina to sian needs for a specific buildinq or lot.!' * Universal's Heiaht Variance: This standard is not met. No one suggests that these billboards are unique. They are standard highway billboards. Nor are there any unusual conditions pertaining to the specific lot or construction site which would support a height variance. On the contrary, the existing Adams billboard, built 500 feet east of the � proposed Universal billboard site, is a two-sided billboard clearly visible from I-94 at a height of 37 feet. Indeed, LSniversal's billboard application is for a billboard 37 feet tal1. * rt,,;. � �S Two Dxstance Variances: This standard is not met. The Planning Commission did not apply this standard to Universal's distance variances. There are simply no "unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot" which justify either Universal distance variance. The only justification mentioned by the Planning Commission is that the two sign companies have agreed that each be granted distance variances to resolve their dispute. Resolution, Zoning File #97-170, p. 3. - That one sign company does not object to, or even encourages, � the issuance of a variance to another siqn corpany is not a �� t� 9�.2 -.`io standard to be applied by the Planning Commission to the issuance of variances. � * M�dwest's Heiaht Variance: This standard is not met. Midwest has constructed their billboard at a height that allows both sides of its billboard to be seen from I-94. If Midwest had been restricted to the 37 foot height, the west face of the billboard would not be visible from the west because of the Vandalia overpass. Rather than limit their billboard to a one side, billboard Midwest seeks a 30.5 foot height variance on top of the 37.5 feet height allowed by the Zoning Code. The resulting 68 foot height is nearly double the height allowed by the Zoning Code and nearly double the height of the Adams billboard approximately 1,000 feet to the east. In order to find unusual conditions pertaining to the site of � Midwest's billboard it is necessary to conclude that overpasses along I-94 are unusual. I-94 was constructed beneath the level of neighboring roads requiring many overpasses. We disagree with the Planning Commission that an overpass is an unusual condition. * M�d west's Distance Var�ance: This standard is not met. Regardless of whether the overpass might justify a height variance, the overpass cannot justify a distance variance. Again, the only justification nentioned by the Planning Commission is that issuance of the variance would resolve a dispute between the sign companies. That consideration is irrelevant. /Z �� , �G �� , z • iz � q'I _�y� 3 ii. �,�t,.ary to the General Intent nF the Chaater • *�;vPrsal's and Midwest's Heiaht & Distance Variances: This standard is not met. The general intent of Chapter 66 regarding non-conforming sign face credits is to encourage removal of billboards which violate provisions of the 2oning Code and replace those billboards with billboards which do comply. To encourage the use of non-conforming sign face credits the Zoning Code allows a one-third refluction in the distance requirement. All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits sha11 comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b), .. but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing requirements in section 66.214(b). Zoning Code §66.302(b)(6)(c). It is the intent of the Zoning Code, through the use of non- conforming sign credits, to bring Saint PaUl billboards into • greater compliance with that Code's provisions. This intent is defeated if the billboards built with non-conforming sign face credits do not themselves otherwise conform with height and distance provisions. In the words of the Saint Paul Department of Planning and Economic Development "The intent of the code is to move toward overall conformance with the provisions of the sign ordinance. Granting [these} variances would move the city away from the balance intended in the code." Zoning Committee Staff Report, Suly 24, 1997, p. 4. u /�� I/�� . e � j �F 13 � �2� iii. S�'eate a Hazard F7e make no comment other than to note the west face of • Midwest's billboard is now close to the Vandalia street overpass. The proposal is to move it 50 feet closer. This proximity alone raises concerns of a traffic hazard. iv. Violate State S atutes Rules or ReQUlations. We make no comment. v. Not Objectionable to Adiacent p"ooertv Owners• * Universal's Aeiaht =nd Distance Varian�es: This standard in not met. It is first necessary to note the owners of property adjacent to the proposed site of the i3niversal billboard. The railroad borders the North side of the property and I-94 borders the South. The railroad is an interested party because it is leasing space to Midwest for its billboard. There is • no west side. The East side is bordered by Ivy League Place. Ivy League Place has lodged a timely, written objection. The objection reads in part: "��7e have an Adams advertising sign on our property that is in compliance with the City's ordinance and feel that both Midwest outdoor and Universal Outdoor should likewise be held to the same standards." vi. Adverselv Affect Residential Propertv• We make no comment vii. In keeoina W'th the General Character of ttte Area. We make no comr.ient. � �oA� � �� G �o • � 9� z �Z°/ -- ��-iN�� v. Conclusion. • The Planning Commission has no authority to issue any variance which fails any of the above standards. As has been shown the Midwest and Universal variances, each, fail at least.one Zoning Code standard. Thus the Planning Commission does not have the authority to issue any of these five variances. • . /��! �� ol� 9 15 �� Correspondence Received After Zoning Committee Public Hearing � � � • • � ATERTOWER �SSOCIATES - L 1 SSO Vandalia 5treet St. pAUI, MN 5511d August 7, 1997 Mr. David McDonneli St. Paul Planning Commission 25 W. 4`" Street �`1100 St. Paui, MN �5102 Re: Sign Vaziance Heazing - I94 & Vandalia Dear Aave, q� -1y�l3 (612)b46-280[ Fax: 642-256� 1 just retumed from a vacation and discovered in my mail that 1 have missed a hearing retating to Outdoor Advertising Sign Variances adjacent to my business property I want you and the Commission to know that I am vehemently opposed to grantin� the variances as have been requested. The Midwest Sign is immediate]y adjacent to my building. it is 20' too high, where i1 blocks the view to private signage on my building. lt is also too close to the next nearest sign, which requires another vaziance. I am the property owner most affected by this illegal, ill-placed, monstrosity of a sign. My opposition is based on the practical consideration as already noted, but also on the principle of granting variances to ordinances very judiciously. Sign ordinances, especially, are designed ta guarantee some environmental and aesthetic decorwn to our neighborhoods. This pazticular situation is a mistake that shou[d be secognized as such, and not aifow a variance. Many thanks for your and the Commission's consideration. P(ease say "NO". Sincereiy, l G. chard� Partner GRP/dt�r . � . � , � 707RL F•�� a �..14' 13 � Ptanning Commission Resoiutions P{anning Commission Minutes August 8, 1997 � � ��r �� city of saint paul planning comm�ssion resolution file number 9�-5 date Au�st $ 1997 C� WF�,REAS, MIDWEST OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, file #97-169, has apptied for two Sign Variances under the provisions of Section 66.409 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow an existing advertising sign to be relocated: 1) a 30.5 foot sign height variance requested (a sign height of 68 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet aitowed) on progerty located at X3�,Y VANDALIA STREET, legally described in the file; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on 7uly 31, 1997, at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said apglication in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the 5aint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Corrunittee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: 1. The applicant proposes to move an existing outdoor advertising sign approximately fifty feet to the west and construct it at a height of sixty-eight (68) feet above grade. Two variances-- of maximum height and of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs intended to be seen from a freeway be 1,000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 1038.82 feet west of an existing Adams Company sign and 803 feet east of an e�cisting 3M Company sign. In addition, the proposed site is 509.88 feet west of a sign proposed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that would be 68 feet from grade. The grade at which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadway bed. �� moved by Field �� seconded by �A�l� in favor 15 a�4�,t 1 (G°isser� (Kramer abstained) � s� �� L`D Zoning File #97-I69 Page Two of Resolution 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height requirements ofthe Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much ofthe land in the vicinity is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right-of-way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. It is on this railroad land that Midwest Outdoor Advertising proposes to construct its sign. 3. Midwest Outdoor Advertising filed an application for an outdoor advertising sign on Friday, February 21, 1997. The sign was to be located in the rai(road right-of-wayjust east of Vandalia Street and north of the westbo�nd I-94 off-ramp, 50 feet east from where the sign is presently proposed. The application stated that the sign would be installed at 37 feet above grade. • The applicant constructed the sign at its current location and at its cunent height (58 feet , above grade) sometime after being issued a permit by the Saint Paul Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) on February 25, 1997. (The application stated that it was estimated that the sign wovld be constructed between March 15 and March 30, 1997.) On March 7, 1997, the applicant was notified of an appeal fifed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The letter from Robert Kessler to Midwest Outdoor Advertising notifying them of the appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. stated: "Ifyou choose to proceed and Universal's appeal is approved by the Planning Commission, it woutd be your responsibility to remove the sign at your expense." On April 17, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission met to consider the appeal of the LIEP decisioa by Universat Outdoor, Inc. The matter was laid over until the May 1, 1997 committee meeting. On Apri128, 1997, a letter was sent to Midwest Outdoor Advertising by Robert Kessler notifying them.that their sign was constructed in violation of their pernut inasmuch as it was 58 feet from the base to the top of the sign--not 37.5 feet as required. The company was fur[her notified that continued use of the sign would require a variance from the Planning Commission. (The applicant has maintained that the construction of their sign was consistent with their understanding that sign height was to be measured from the top of the I-94 e�cit . ramp rather than the roadbed. The fact--and longstanding practice--that the measurement Z�N�NG F�� Z2� o i u r L_ Zoning File #97-169 Page Three ofResolution � is to be taken from the main roadbed was clarified by a Minor Zoning Amendment adopted by the Planning Commission on July 11, 1997.) On May 1, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission devoted a significant amount of time to a consideration of the issues associated with which of two sign companies should be pernutted to construct a sign within an area where the Zoning code would allow only one. Because of different procedures followed by different staff members in the Office of Licenses Inspections and Environmental Protection, both applicants asserted that they should have been considered "first," and, therefore, been approved. Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution of the appeal might involve pemutting both signs provided that they could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance of the code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. Universal Outdoor, Inc. elected to suspend its appeal and file an application for such a variance. 4. The two companies, after the May 1, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting, crafted a proposal that would involve moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they both wouid meet the State of Minnesota's 500 feet separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-confomung signs removed by Midwest Outdoor Advertising elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66302(b) of the Zoning code. That section provides, in part, that: a. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a pemutted use; b. The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height requirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and c. The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: � `��- a�� 2� Zoning File #97-169 Page Four ofResolution (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face crediYs shall comply wiYh the size aad height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, parks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance requirements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicanPs request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as £ollows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needr to the site This condition is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14 by 48 foot v- style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual conditions related to the site that have led to this application include: (1) Topography. The site selected by the applicant and leased from the railroad is depressed to allow for the passage of trains under the Vandalia Street bridge. A sign constructed within the 37.5 feet height limit outlined in the Zoning code would not be clearly visible from I-94. • (2) Separation from the proposed Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign. To resolve a dispute • between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfui(y Iocate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning cade. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concem for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of 14 non=confornung signs in other areas of the city where the removal has enhanced the visual environment. c. The sign will nof create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues pernuts for ali signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restrictions althoagh their pernuts state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. Minnesota Statutes require that signs be located no • closer than 500 feet apart. ,� —�� Z ��'N� �'�� 9 . �.-�?--� �� , {�d� � . Zoning File #97-169 Page Five of the Resolution d The sign wi11 not adversely affect resirlential property through excessive glare and lighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. e The sign would noi be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advert+sing signs at regular intervals. . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paui Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for the following Sign Variances to allow an e�sting advertising sign to be relocated to X�'Y VANAALIA STREET is hereby approved: 1. A 30.5 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 68 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed). '�� _� � ��g� 9 z � �,� city of saint paul � planning commission resolution file number 97-57 �te P.ugust 8, 1997 • �� _ WHEREAS, ZJNIVERSAL OUTDOOR, INC., file #97-170, has applied for Sign Variances under the provisions of Section 66.409 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, to allow an advertising sign: 1) a 20 foot sign height variance requested (a sign height of 57.5 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet from a sign to the west requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed); and 3) an advertising sign separation variance of 157 feet requested (a separation between advertising signs of S 10 feet from a sign to the east requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed) on property located at 2100 GILBERT AVENLTE, legally described as see file; and WI�REAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 31, 1997, at which alf persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WFIEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing, as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings offact: 1. The applicant proposes to construct an outdoor advertising sign on private property located at 2100 Gilbert adjacent to the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp from I-94. Three variances-- of maximum height and two of distance between signs--are requested. The zoning code requires that outdoor advertising signs be 1000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits that reduce the required distance by one third. In this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 510 feet west of an e�cisting Adams Company sign, thus requiring a variance of 157 feet. It is also 509.88 feet from a proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign, requiring a variance of 157.12 feet. The zoning code also requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is moved by Field � secorxied by . in favor 15 a!'ta��t 1 t�isser) ��,. �� G F! —�E . _� � (Kramer Abstained) Zoning Fi(e #9?-170 Page Two of the Resolution intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant proposes a sign that wou(d e�ctend 57.5 feet from the grade, 20 feet higher than allowed in the code. The grade on which the sign is proposed to be constructed is higher than the I-94 roadbed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side ofthe westbound VandaIia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-44 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount ofprivately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height requirements of the Zoning code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land is publicly owned and associated wiYh the I-94 and Vandatia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right of way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. In between the railroad and I-94 rights-of-way is a narrow strip ofland that is privately owned and on which the Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign is proposed to be constructed. � The applicant first applied for a permit to establish a sign on this site, but appro�cimately 160 feet west of this location, on February 10, 1997. It was to be a singie sided sign facing east and constructed at 37.5 feet above grade. � On March 3, 1997, the applicant was notified that their application was being rejected because of a pernut issued to Midwest Outdoor Advertising on February 25, 1997 to allow them to construct a sign east o£ Vandalia and about 300 feet from where Universal was proposing to establish their sign. On March 5, 1997, the applicant appealed the decision of the Director of the Office of Licenses, Inspection and Environmental Protection, contending that their appiication was filed before that of Midwest Outdoor Advertising and, therefore, should have been granted. The appeal was heard by the Zoning Committee on April 17, 1997 and on May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance of the Code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. The applicant agreed to suspend the appeal pending the outcome of such an application process. 4. The two sign companies subsequently crafted a proposal that involved moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they wo Id both meet the State of � ��/�� '�E��, -� . q�_1�1'�3 � Zoning File #97-170 Page Three of Resolution Minnesota's 500 foot separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. The new proposed site has led to a request for a height variance in addition to the separation variance. In the original location, the dimensions of the available land would allow the construction of only a one-sided east-facing sign. Moving to the east would allow for a v- sign, but, in order to be seen from both directions, the applicant states that the sign would have to be elevated. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 20 foot height variance to allow the sign to extend up 57.5 feet. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-conforming signs removed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. from locations elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66.302(b) of the Zoning code. That section provides, in part, that: a. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a pernutted use; b. The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height • requirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and c. The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two-thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, parks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance requirements in section 66214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This standard is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14 by 48 foot v- style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual circumstances related to the site relate to its relationship to an existing building and to its relationship to the e�sting and proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising • sign. While the applicant would not have required any variances at the location they originally proposed, to resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to �� F �L E 9 � z �,o --�---_ � Zoning File #97-170 Page Four of Resolution which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfuily locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. T'he proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of three non-conforming signs in other areas of the city where removal has enhanced the visual environment. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Staiutes or rules and regulations. • This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues pernuts for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restriction although their pemuts state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. � Minnesota Statutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d The sign will not adversely affect residential property through ezcessive glare and lighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 600 feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and offramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. � The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to ihe proposed variance and one letter was received in opposition, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the sumounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway comdor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals. ZONING FILE 9'=_0 � � - - - q� -14�� . Zoning File #97-170 Page Five of Resolut'son NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 6y the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, the application for the foilowing Sign Variances to allow an advertising sign at 2100 GILBERT AVENTJE is hereby approved: A 20 foot sign height variance (a sign height of 57.5 feet requested and a maximum height of 37.5 feet allowed); and �� • 2. An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed); and 3. An advertising sign separation variance of 157 feet (a separation between advertising signs of 510 feet requested and a minimum of 667 feet allowed). ��I�OB�� LE 9� z �?o �'1-I�l'�� • Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West A meeting ofthe Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, Au�ust 8, 1997, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissionen Mmes. Duarte, Engh, Geisser, Maddox, Nordin, and Treichel, and Messrs. Chavez, Present: Field Jr., Gordon, Gurney, Johnson, Kong, Kramer, McDonell, Nowlin, Vaught and Wilson Commissioners Mmes. *Faricy and *Wencl, and Messrs. *Mardell, and *Sharpe Absent: *Excused Also Present: Ken Ford, Pla�ning Administrator; Jean Birkholz, Patricia James, and Roger Ryan, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff; Fred Ocwsu, City Clerk; and Tom Beach from the Department of License, Inspection, and Environmental Protection. • I. Swearing in of Jennifer Engh Fred Owusu, City Clerk, swore in our latest Planning Commission appointee, Jennifer Engh. Ms. Engh stated that she is a resident of Irvine Park. Currently, she is serving as the Assistant Commissioner for Tax Policy at the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Her entire life has been involved in serving at different levels of government: she's worked at the U.S. Senate; the White House; the Minnesota Legislature; she's lobbied; worked in the Carlson Administration for five years at the Minnesota Department of Trade and Economic Development; and now at the Department of Revenue. II. Chair's Annouucements Chair McDonald announced that there will be an orientation for ne�v Commission members immediately followin� today's Planning Commission meeting. He announced that the public hearing on proposed zonina regulations for large metal shredders will take place at the next Commission meeting, Friday, August 22, 1997. III. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Ford reported that he has had a few calls in the past week in response to the Land Use Opportunities Paper, which the Nei�hborhood Planning and Land Use Committee has been working on very hard for the last several weeks. The issue paper has been broadly • distributed in the community. It projects many very important concepts for a new land use plan. It encompasses many ideas that the Commission has talked about, and included some �zo��NG ��L� 9��Z�E principles for future development in the City that come from the Saint Paul on the Mississippi River Development Framework. • IV. Zoning CommiEtee #97-146 James F Thomas - Sign Variance at 1941 Grand Avenue. Commissioner Field explained that the appticant proposes to place a mural on three sides of his building, and there is some signage associated with the mural. Mr. Roger Ryan presented information on vazious aspects of the wine glass and LIEP's determination that it is a part of a sign. Mr. Ryan explained that part of the complexity of Yhis case is distinguishing between murals and signs. Murals are not regulated by the Zoning Code. Scenery murals ue a permitted use. However, if a mural is placed on a business bnilding, and it has sign elements painted on that mural, then the entire mural is considered the sign, which means the entire mural would then be considered in the calculation of the mvcimum amount of sign area that one is allowed on a lot. In this case, a vineyard is being painted on the building as well as a wine glass and some identification signs. The sign vaziance, in this case, is for 1,238.5 square feet; 119.5 square feet are allowed. Total square footage of the mural is 1,358 square feet. MOTION: CommissionerFie[d moved approva! of a requested sign variance for I,238.5 square feet at I941 Crand Avenue. •. Commissioner Field reported that the Zoning Committee approved the requested vaziance on a vote of 5- I, and he was the dissenting vote. He added that the sign code defines a SIaR flS: The use of words, numerals, figures, device, design, or uademark for the purpose of which is to show or adveRise a person, firm, profession, business, product or message. He went on to say that the applicant, at the hearing, stated that the purpose of the mural was to promote his business, and so, gauging the entire mural to be a sign, Commissioner Field couldn't vote for approval. He added that he has a grave concem about the number of murals on Grand Avenue. Part of the sign code is to protect open space and areas characterized by unique environment, historicat and azchftecturat resources. He said that these murals, in his opinion, are inconsiste�t with Grand Avenue. Commissioner Vau�ht commented that he read the same si�an code and noted especially the part that says the Planning Commission has the authority to vary the requirements of the sign code, He added that he found the mural to be completely nonoffensive. He supports the variance. ' Commissioner Field rebutted. He sees this as a much bigger issue. He fmds this to be a proliferation of murats, �vhich aze advertisin�. He stated that cleazly, in his mind, if these were billboards, they �voald not go up, and yet, they have the character of a billboard. He • 2 ZONiNG F11E 9.�Zo' q'1- I y'l3 feels that this mural issue needs to be gotten under control before the character and quality . of Grand Avenue suffers. He reported that he has asked the Zoning staff to get murals on the Zoning Amendments as soon as possible. Commissioner Nowlin asked what were the factors considered in deciding whether or not to support the variance? Commissioner Vau�ht responded that the issue at that particular Zoning Committee meetina had nothing to do with the broader mural, but had to do with whether the wine glass to be placed on the side of the mural, if we approve this, ought to be an allowed variance from the provisions of the sign code. Commissioner Nowlin stated that he would support the request for a variance. He is concerned that in this case, the Commission is not considering anything other than subjective aesthetics in deciding whether or not to grant a vaziance. Commissioner Chavez noted that there was a problem with this case from the very beginning. The issue was whether they actually have or do not have a sign with the mural. They could keep the sign they had and paint around it because the statute says they can. At the second meeting, another issue appeared. It was staffls interpretation that the wine glass was a sign, and therefore, the entire mural had to be counted. He concluded that the reat issue is statute. T/:e motion on t/ee tn approve a request for a sign variance that would allow a mural • with a total sign variance of 1,238.5 square feet at 1941 Grand Avenue carried on a voice vote of IS to 2(Field, Gurney). #97-043 Michael P Voto - Nonconforming use permit to allow a 4 unit building at 1947 Roblyn Avenue. Commissioner Field informed the Commission that the Merriam Park Community Council voted to not support this nonconforming use permit. Testimony from the City Fire Marshal identified the properry as at one time being a four plex, then a triples through a series of doors being locked and unlocked. The applicant indicated that he bou�ht the home understanding that it was permitted as a triplex, but understanding also that he could apply for a nonconformin� use permit for a fourplex. The City Fire Marshal testified that from a life safety perspective, the property complied with all the requirements for a fourplex. On a vote of 4-2, the Zoning Committee voted to approve the request. MOTION: Commissioner Fie1d moved approval of tlte requested nonconforn:ing use permit to aZlow a 4 unit building at I997 Roblyn Avenue. Commissioner Chavez informed Commission members that the first motion that came out of this case ended in a tie vote, so a second motion was drawn up; it was approved. • Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission that he was part of the 3-3 vote; he had voted to suQport the staff recommendation for denial. Then, he said he made the motion to � ZoI�t�G FlLE g .z� -�----- i approve, which then passed 4-2. He added that he turned his decision around because he • was really torn about the project. He stated that it is c(early an anomalous property. A statement by the Fire Marsha(, who said given the quality of the maintenance and upkeep on the place and the square footage that if, in fact, the Commission would allow this use, he would have no hesitancy whatsoever about approving the Certificate of Occupancy, swung his decision. Commissioner Gordon asked to hear what the reasons were for the m o who dissented from approval. Commissioner Chavez responded that during the testimony it was pointed out that there had been a problem there before. He said that he, personally, didn't think that the appticant was very up-front about what had occurred. He said that the applicant had bought the property with a full understanding, and he had been wamed about noncompliance more than once; and Commissioner Chavez did not feel it was right for him to now come to the Committee and be approved for his noncompliance. Commissioner Field added that there was a history that this property was being used as a fourplex over a continuous period of time. Some members ofthe Zoning Committee took issue with whether it met the 10-year standazd for having been used in a nonconforming fashion. Commissioner Vaught informed the Commission why he voted against it at first. He said that he didn't recall any testimony that indicated this particular applicant was involved in what appeared to be a pretty unsavory practice on the part of the previous owners of • property. He said he appreciated the applicanYs candor in admitting that he knew at the time he purchased the property that it was not a legal 4 unit use, thereby he argued the hardship issue, which was of his own making by purchasing it. At that time, Commissioner Vaught said, he could not convince himself that there was a legitimate hardship, which is a required finding, since the applicant had created it himself. Tl:e motion on the floor to approve tl:e requested nonconformin; use permit to allow a 4 unit building at 1947 Rob[yn Avenue carried on a voice vote of I S-2 (Chavez Nordin). #97-165 Tene Lv - Special condition use permit to allow outdoor sales of used automobiles on the northwest comer of University and Oxford. Mr. Rvan stated that a letter had been received from the Thomas-Dale Community Council. They had reviewed the application and recommended support of the requested special condition use permit, with the provision that the signage on the lot «'ould be reduced to meet the sign requirements of the sisn code, which is 350 square fe:t of signs on the lot. UnfoRunately, the letter was misplaced and did not get to the Zoning Committee for them to consider. The letter was later sent out �vith an explanation by i�fs. \ancy Homans. She also spoke to the applicant, who said that he wishes to be accommodating to the neighborhood, and so he has a�reed to paint over the existing signa�e on the norrh edge of the property. He will maintain the sign on the west edae of the property. Therz is a lar�e fence on the north side of the property and also one on the west side of the property upon which the two sio s are painted. • 4 zon�rNG F�iE 9� � q�-iy�� • MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of tl:e requested special condition use permit, with several conditions, to allow outdoor sales of used automobiles on t/:e northwest corner of University and Oxford, w/:ic/: carried unanis:ously on a voice vote. #97-169 Midwest Outdoor Advertisina - Two variances to allow an existing advertising sign to be moved on the northeasterly corner of I-94 and Vandalia. �97-170 Universal Outdoor. Inc. - Three variances to allow an advertising sign at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, south side east of Vandalia. Commissioner Field explained that the two above cases were tied to a matter of old business: a Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision on a sign. Commissioner Field stated that he will present both of them together because that is the way they were heard at the Zoning Committee meeting. Universal Outdoor, Inc. applied for a sign permit at 2100 Gilbert Avenue. They were informed they needed additional information and proceeded to get it. In the interceding period of time, before they could complete the application, Midwest Outdoor Advertising came with an application for a sign at a close by location, which was approved. Universal Outdoor, Inc, in their appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision, indicated that they had filed the applications consistent with al] prior customary procedures, and felt . that they still had a valid application going at the time Midwest submitted their application. At the time of the hearing, it was indicated that there was a possible compromise which could be reached that might satisfy both companies but required that both companies apply for variances. They came back and so the two cases were joined together since the primary issue is permitting the two signs to be 509.88 feet apart versus 667 feet which is prescribed when appropriate sign credits are developed. Typically, the City code requires that they be ' 1000 feet apart, but when sign credits, which are granted when other signs are taken down are generated, they can go to 667 feet. On a vote of 5- 0 the Zoning Committee approved the new sia s with Commissioner ICramer abstaining. Commissioner Kramer stated that he will be abstainina from the vote on this issue today also. Commissioner Vaught commended these hvo companies for being abte to sit down and work together. He added that two reasons why he was able to vote in approval of these signs were that: 1) the state �vould approve both of these; and 2) these two billboards aze replacin� seventeen other billboards removed by the t�vo companies. Commissioner Geisser commented that it seemed to her that Sain2 Paul is endin� up with an extra billboard. She said she had thouoht that it was the Planning Commission's intent to . try to rid the ciry of billboards as much as possible. She is concemed because these are lar�e signs, and there are already many signs in that area. She said she would like to see Z��6�VG �iLE 9� � fewer billboards. She cannot support these. Commissioner Gurney explained that a certain number of signs need to be taken do�vn in • order to get a sign credit. And although there is another billboazd being added to this paRicular location, there are several locations around the city where these billboards have been taken down. Commissioner Field reiterated the explanation of sign credits and added that the freeway is a better place for those signs than in the neighborhoods. Commissioner Vaught echoed Commissioners Gurney and Field, and added that there is no increase in square footage of biilboards. In fact, it is a substantial decrease in the number o£ billboards. He noted that the thing that tipped him over was that he thinks the City has some culpability in the way this process operated. He does not think it was proper, and it worked to the detriment of both companies. He stated that there is some curative intent in his vote. Commissioner Gordon stated that, generally speaking, he agrees with Commissioner Geisser that Saint Paui ought to have fewer rather than more billboards. He thinks that is what is happening in this case. He will support the motion. He is motivated by the equities of this situation. He noted that he is also concerned about the potential liability of the City. Commissioner Chavez questioned whether the Commission could legally vote on both of these cases as one case. MOTION: Cammissio�:er Vaugl:t moved to divide the question , to vofe on the crues •� separately. Commissioner Field seconded the motion. Commissioner Nordin brought up how this tivould work if the Commission passed one, but denied the other. She said that she would really like to see only one billboard there. So, if the vote is divided, she needs more information to make a decision. Commissioner Vaught, seeking to help Commission Nordin with her decision, informed her that the Universal application was submitted first, but was not processed first. The Midwest application was submitted second, but was processed first. The Universal application was complete reasonably soon after submission, but the Midwest application was still granted and Yhat si�n was erected. So, the sign thaYs currently there is the Midevest sign, buY iT's a result of the second application. The motion on the floor to divide the question ofMidwest and Universal carried unanimously on a voice vote. Tl:e motion on the floor to approve the requested sign variances to a11ow an existina advertising sign to be moved onto the nortlteasterly corner of I-94 and Vandalia Street by Midwest Outdoor Advenising carried on a voice vote (�'ramer abstaining}. The motion on the floor to approve ihe reguested sign variances to allow an advertising sign at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, southside east of Vandalia Street by Universa[ outdoor, Inc Carried on a voice vote (%ramer abstainin�. • 6 ZoNING F1 E 9� q� -1y�3 Commissioner Field read the agenda for the Zoning Committee meeting on August 14, . 1997. V. Comprehensive Planning and Economic Development Committee Commissioner Maddox announced a meeting at 4 p.m. on �Vednesday, August 13, on the citywide application of the Mississippi River Development Framework. VI, Neighborhood Planning and Land Use Committee Commissioner Geisser announced that the metal shredder study materials are beir copied and will be sent out. Copies of the NINRRA Plan are available today. VII. Communications Committee No report. VIII. Task Force Reports No report. IX. Old Business No report. • X. New Business Commissioner Vaught requested that staff inquire whether the Graduate Club has paved their parking lot, or that their additional living unit is unused, since their recently acquired permit stipulated that the additional living unit not 6e used until the parking lot was paved. District 6 Plannine Council request for public hearino on a site �lan for proposed Clean Soils Storage yard south of Maryland and west of 35E between the railroads - Staff report, Commission determination. (Tom Beach) Mr. Tom Beach with the Zoning Section of LIEP, explained that Clean Soils wants to have a storage yard for soil that's contaminated with petroleum that will be stored there temporarily and then hauled off to a processing site. The site is located on railroad property south of Maryland between Jackson and 35E, the same site that was proposed for a school bus site by Comfort Bus about a year ago. There was also a request for public hearing on that request. This site plan shows an area for the storage of the contaminated soil, an area for storing contractor's equipment and aga egate. The aggregate would be for sale. The site plan sho�vs a chain link fence. No buildinQS are proposed. The site has no street fronta�e. The access is proposed north of Maryland. There is no • sewer or water on the site. ' Z �� i�.� /� � The main issue raised here has to do with the impact on nearby property of storing contaminated soils. There are residents within a couple hundred feet area. There's also a • city sYOrm water holding pond located directly south of the site. The applicant has not yet identified the processing site. The applicant's history in Saint Paul includes having an operation where he was actually processing the soil in the earIy 1990s on Como near Dale on the old Maxon Steel site that generated a number of complaints. After that he has been operating in South Saint Paul. Currently, he's under a court order to shut it down and get the soil out of there. Commissioner Gordon asked what the nature of complaints with respect of the operation in the early 1990s, and what is the enforcement aspect with respect to the applicanYs representation that he intends to store the contaminated soils there for only a short period of time? Chair McDonell interjected, for the benefit of the new commission members, why this site plan is coming before the Planning Commission. He noted that normally site plan reviews are delegated to staff. The Planning Commission mighY consider holding a public hearing regarding a site plan if there are one or more of the following issues present: 1) it is a major project; 2) are there important policy issues raised, and 3) does the site plan have a major impact of the surrounding neighborhood? Mr. Beach added that in the early 1990s, the applicant was processing soils. He would cook the soils. Then it was brought up on a conveyor belt and dumped into the cooker. The vehement neighborhood complaints were about odor, dust, and noise. The he moved to South Saint Paul down by the River. He encountered a number of compfaints about the •. same issues there. The State Attomey General's been involved there. He had to stop processing the soil in December of 1996. He's was given until June of 1998 to cleaz out all the soil, but some soil is still there. He seems to have been an enforcement prohlem. Mr. Beach stated that conditions can be put onto a site p[an, but if they are not met, there is an enforcement problem. MOTION: Conimissioner Geisser moved that tke P[anning Commission hold a public hearing regarding this case. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nowlin. Commissioner Chavez questioned the terminoto�y used by Clean Soils about the soil being not contaminated and yet the MCA is makin� them move it off of the present site. Commissioner Kramer asked what zonin� classiftcation does a hazardous waste storage faci[ity� fit into, and why doesn't it need a special condition use permit? Mr. Seach responded that if the applicant were processing the soil, it would require a special condition use permit for outside processin� or for a recycling center. As lon� as the soil is just stored there, iYs considered just outside stora�e, whtch is a permitted use in an I- 2 zoning district. NIr. Beach added that the Minnesota PoI[ution Control A�ency wiIl need to issue a permit for this operation, but they will not review the permit until the local unit of govemment hzs dealt with it fsst. � 8 zoN�N� ��E 9� � � �-14`13 Commissioner Kramer asked �vhere this use would be first allotived? • Mr. Beach said that it would have to be industrially zoned property, probably I-1. Commissioner Kramer commented that this site plan issue raises an important policy issue: Where is Saint Paul going to allow storing of contaminated waste in the City? Saint Paul allows processing of it with a required special condition use permit, but to store it in the open, we don't require a special condition use permit? I think thaYs something we may want to look at down the line, too. Commissioner Vaught asked if site plan reviews conducted by staff were appealable. Mr. Beach answered that site plan reviews conducted by staff are appealable to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vaught asked if, in this case, staff conducted the site plan review, which types of staff would be involved with the review? Mr. Beach responded that the main issues in this case is po(lution. He would look at and consult with some of LIEP's environmental people. Then Public Works would look at it in terms of sewer and water availability. Commissioner Vaught asked if there is any opportunity for public input when staff conducts a site plan review? � Mr. Beach answered that the district would be notified, they then coutd hold any neighborhood meeting that they think is appropriate. If the district has a comment on it, it would come back to him and he would pass it on to whomever needs to consider it. Commissioner Vaught asked if there would be any direct, face to face contacY between the concerned persons in the community and those who would be ultimately making the decision? Mr. Beach responded that in this case, there was a meeting in district 6, which he attended. The applicant did not attend, so there was not as much discussion as there would have been otherwise. Commissioner Vau�ht asked Mr. Beach if staff has already conducted the review? Mr. Beach answered that an i�itial investigation has been done, but there still are a lot of questions left to ans�ver. Commissioner Vau�ht clarified himself and asked if is there an analogue to a Planning Commission site plan review in the staff site plan review process? Mr. Beach responded that there has already been one meeting with the committee and the applicant, where some questions were raised that aze still unanswered. • Commissioner Johnson stated that he is would stron�ly encourage a public hearing at the 9 ZOfVI[V� ��LE � Planning Commission level on this issue. He added that he has a great deal of expertise • working in the area of hazardous waste having been a 12-year employee of the Minnesota Pollution ControI Agency. For four years he worked in the specific area of petroleum contaminated soil, and he is fully conversive with the hazardous waste rules involved. In fact, he wrote the most recent versions of the siting criteria involved. He said that what they discovered at the State of Minnesota was that most district councils, counties, cities, etc., do not have the espeRise to judge these things. Petroleum contaminated soil is a unique waste that can be nonhazardous, special, or hazardous, and iYs difficult to telt which. Commissioner Gurney noYed that he had need to drive past ihe applicanYs Maxon Steel site many times during the 18 months that he was there, and he remembers his eyes watering for about 1 1/2 blocks later from the steam that �vas coming off the machinery. He thinks this could have an extreme adverse impact on the neighborhood. T/ae motion on tl:e floor to hold a public hearing on the proposed Clean Soils Storage Yard sauth ofMaryland and west of 35E between the railroarfs carried unanimously on a voice vote. Commissioner Gordon urged staff in their communication with Mr. Poucher to encourage him to be prepared to respond specifically to the concems raised in the letter by the District 6 Planning Counci(, Commissioner Kramer asked staff to include pages from the Zoning Code that lay out the 10 or 12 criterion to be considered in site plan review for Commissioners. Commissioner Vaught cautioned Commissioners about prejudging this case before the �. evidence is provided. Commissioner Engh asked if an official from the MCA could be invited to attend the upcoming public hearing. Mr. Ford commented that there aze rivo possibilities conceming Commissioner Engh's request: 1) that we request some testimony at the pubtic hearing; and 2) that ,typically, the Commission would refer all the comments made at the public hearinQ back to a committee. If the committee �vanted to call on some other expertise, they could. Mr. Johnson informed Commissioners that it is the policy of the Minnesota Pollution Control AQency to �ladly send people out to explain their policies in this matter, so that all we need to do is request it and they will have someone there. b4r. Beach noted that he has been in contact with the MCA staff and he will pass alon� that request. bIOTION: Commissioner moved September 12, I997, as tlze date of tJte pub[ic hearing for the site plan review for the proposed Clean Soils Minnesota Inc'storage yard Commissioner Sramer seconded the motion which carried unanimously on a voice vote. Chair McDonell reminded the new Commissioners of the orientation meetin� immediately following this meeting. , �o Z�►�=�G �itE ��.�� 1� -1y� • LJ � XI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:44 a.m. Respectfully submitted, � Ken Ford Planning Administrator \planningUninutes.fan �� Approved (Date) Carole Faricy Secretary of the Planning Commission � Fl�� s� Z2v -------' q�-1y� � Zoning Committee Minutes April 17, 1997 May 1, 1997 July 31, 1997 � ! ��_��{�� • � • PRESENT P5SE�iT : MINUTES OF THE ZONING CONG4ITTEE CITY COUNCZL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, N,ZNPIESOTA ON APRIL 17, 1997 Mme. Faricy; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gordon, Kram=_r and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Wainer, Assistant City A*_torney; Mmes. Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Planning Division. Wencl, excused Gurney Time: 6:28 - 8:35 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. �� oear nrrmnnno rur �inn �'lh rt- AvPnuP Gourhside east of Vandalid• #97-049• A�neal; Appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a permit for an advertising sign. Commissioner Kramer disclosed a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from participating in the discussion and vote. Commissioner Gordon disclosed a potential conflict of interest, which he no longer believed Co be a con£lict. Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney, deemed there to be no conflict. Kady Dadlez, PED Zoning Office staff, reviewed the staff report and presented one slide. Staff recommended denial of the appeal of the zoning administrator's decision to deny a permit to Universal Outdoor inc. for a permit for an advertising sign, based on findings 2 and 5 of the staff report. Copies of an Affidavit of Ronald Leonard, owner of the property upon which Universal wishes to erect their sign, were distributed. The St. Anthony Park Community Council did not intend to take a position on the appeal. Commissioner Vaught asked for an elaboration of the specific deficiencies of the application by Universal. Wendy Lane, LIEP, reviewed these. 1) Demonstration of avai�able sian credits A demolition permit is required before sign credits can be issued; a sign not conforming with the current sign ordinance is removed. The square footage of that sign, those credits, are banked and can be used toward building other signs that are in strict conformance with the current ordinance. A log book of the sign credits is kept by LIEP and the sign credits must be used within 5 years. Universal had 528 sign credits on record and needed additional credits to erect a sign. Universal received a demolition permit on February 24 for the demolition of another sign which would allow them to erect a new sign. � Z�N�� .� �:2ZD ( 2j Mnr detailed site ��an Ms. Lane was unable to speak to what was lacking, however agreed there was a site plan but it was not in • sufficient detail. 3) Srr„�r„ral drawinas. Ms. Lane said no structural plans drawn by a registered engineer were submitted to show that a structure of that size was not going to fall over. 4) Fees for demolition and buildina nermits. The fee to establish the additional sign credits was not paid. Commissioaer Vaught asked Ms. Lane if she would characterize the above as substantial deficiencies. Ms. Lane responded that it was the opinion of the director of LIEP, Robert Kessler, that the deficiencies were substantial. She said that the sign ordinance doesn't give much direction as to what constitutes the first application and reported that sta£f is having difficulty in determining how to deal with that and that LIEP is looking for direction from the Planning Commission in that regard. Ms. Lane reported that she was in the process of dra£ting written policies for LIEP and LIEP intends to implement them following the outcome of this decision. Ms. Lane noted that the sign ordinance requires specific items needed, i.e. structural drawings and filing fees, for a completed application and advised that the deficiencies would have been apparent had Universal referenced the ordinance. Commissioner Vaught asked why staff took 8 days to notify Universal that the � application was incomplete. Ms. Lane responded that John Aardwick was the staff person who reviewed Universal's p1an, and who typically reviews most . billboard permit applications and demolition applications. Given Mr. Hardwick's other responsibilities, it appeared to be a matter of workload and getting to the task. However, Ms. Lane reviewed that representatives from Universal spoke with Mr. Hardwick in person on February 10 and that Mr. Hardwick reviewed the basics o£ the additional requirements at that time. Commissioner Vaught reviewed that Universal had a completed application on February 24. Midwest's completed application was submitted on February 21, however the permit wasn't issued until February 25, the day after Universal's completed application was received. Commissioner Vaught referred to a spacing requirement, noting a reference made to arterial streets, indicating that somehow the sign couldn't be seen from the freeway therefore the spacing requirement shouldn't be from the freeway. Ms. Lane said that Universal's application referenced the permit that was originally issued to Midwest in November, 1996, for a sign o£ 72 square feet that was never built. However by the time Midwest submitted its revised application to replace the 72 square foot sign with the 648 square foot sign LIEP felt the arguments made were not relevant and never made a determination as to whether the 72 square foot sign was intended to be read from I-94 or not. • z ��G F6LE S= �'zz° � �c�—�� Commissioner Vaught asked that wh<n sitting in a qsasi-judicial capacity, . whether in that capacity they must consider Mr. Kessler's decision aad find error with the d=cision in order to cnange it, or�whether the committee may conduct a d_ novo review and make a decisioa with respect to tne underlying issues. bir. Warner responded that the committee can do a d: novo review. � Commissioner Gordon asked that if the appeal were graated, whether Universal riad the credits needed to put up the requested sigr.. Ms. Lane responded affirmatively. Commissioner Gordon rePerenced the sCaff report which noted: ��fees for demolition and building permits" and asked whether they were different fees. Ms. Lane responded that they were. She said that the fee for a demolition permit of a sign is $42. The fee for construction of a new sign is $200, and those fees were not submitted with the application. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Midwest came in wiCh the required fees for permits and demolition and permits and with a detailed site plan and whether Chey had sufficient cxedits. Ms. Lane responded affirmatively. Commissioner Gordon asked how many applications on average does LIEP get per year for such signs. Ms. Lane said that perhaps about 12. Commissioner Gordon asked whether any other applications have been denied for � those reasons. Ms. Lane said that LIEP has reczived applications that did not meet their requirements and were denied. Generally it wasn't a formal denial but just a verbal communication explaining why they couldn't issue permit or asking for additional information. Commissioner Gordon referenced a mattress sign on the building immediately north of the sign erected by Midwest, noting it is quite close to the Midwest sign and asked if the location of that sign was germane to the discussion. Ms. Lane said that it was not, that it was a business sign, not an advertising sign, and that the separation requirements are between advertising signs. Commissioner Vaught asked that when the Midwest sign was approved on February 25, whether Ms. Lane knew whether staff issuing that permit knew that the issuance of that permit would prohibit the Universal sign from being constructed. Ms. Lane said that the issuing party did know. Commissioner Chavez, in referencing the Midwest permit of November 8 1996, asked how long that permit would have been good for. Ms. Lane responded that all building permits are good for 180 days and construction must commence within 18o days. Commissioner Chavez asked for an explanation as to why Midwest was required to submit a new application. Ms. Lane responded that Midwest needed a new building permit because they decided to build a larger sign. Commissioner Vaught asked if Midwest had built the originally requested sign • whether the Universal sign would have been allowed to be built. Ms. Lane 3 �� "'^� ...�_�( f responded that Universal had questioned thaG in their application, however LIEP never made that determination. • Commissioner Vaught questioned that in the event the Universal application had been complete, given the fact that Midwest had a valid building permit, that it might have been a Conclusion that LZEP may have not been abie to issue Universal a permit to build their sign unless or until the building�permit that Midwest had from November had expired. Ms. Lane responded that such a decision was never made, but that LIEP might we11 have issued the permit. She reviewed that the permit issued to Midwest in November was for a 15 foot high sign, and that site is in a ho1e, and was only 72 square feet, and she believed that Midwest's proposed sign would have been very difficult to have been read by I-94. Ms. Lane reported having spoken with the person who issues building permits for the State Department of Transportation, who issues building permits along state highways and freeways, and asked him what he thought about that sign, whether it could be read from 2-94. Ae said that they would have asked Midwest to put up a sign of that size and run down the freeway and see if it could be seen. However, Ms. Lane seriously doubted that it could have been read from I-94 and if not, then the Universal sign could have been legal. Commissioner Vaught clarified that despite the fact that the Universal sign would have been close to the Midwest sign, it was more the orientation to I-94 which is important. Ms. Lane said that it is based upon whatever street that the sign is read from. Commissioner Vaught clarified that space requirements exist if, and on2y if, both of the signs which are potentially subject to them can be read from the � same reference street or highway. Ms, Lane agreed. � Commissioner Gordon asked that if Universal's appeal were granted, whether that would mean that the Midwest sign would have to be taken down, and i£ so, who would pay for that. He further asked if the committee had the authority to approve tfie Universal sign, in addition to the Midwest sign. Ms. Lane responded that when the appeal came in that a letter was sent to Midwest informing them of the appeal, and that if they proceeded that they did so at their own risk. If the appeal were to be ultimately decided against them, that Midwest would need to remove their sign at their own expense before construction started of a Universal sign. She noted that there is a provision in the zoning ordinance which states that when an appeal is filed on a decision of the zoning administrator that with respect to any permits that have been issued, that no work can commence. However, she noted that there isn't such a provision in the sign ordinance. Ms. Lane further explained that initially it was believed by LIEP that Midwest would not be able to go forward and build their sign because of the appeal pending. But, because that provision is not in the sign ordinance, LIEP had to inform Midwest that they were proceeding at their own risk, but LIEP did not have the authority to stop them from construction. Ms. Lane, in responding to whether the committee could grant both signs to exist, said that the committee would have the ability to grant variances, however a variance would require a different application. She also stated that she was uncertain whether the separation from the Midwest sign would meet the State requirements for separation of signs. • 4 z�1V11��; ��E -� q�-1y�3 Commissioner Gordon said that the sign in questioa has two faces and asked • whether th= committee would have the authority to give one fzce to Universal and one to Midwest. Ms. Lane responded that LIEP Considers it to be one sign structure whether the sign is on one side or both sides, so they would sti11 be required to meet the separation requirements, whether single-sided or double-sided, so it would require a variaace. Michael Croain, 8809 W. Bush Lake Road, Bloomington, represe,ting Universal Outdoor Advertising, spoke. Mr. Cronin reviewed that Universal Outdoor Advertising was previously Naegele Outdoor Advertising, and that they have had a lot of experience building signs in Saint Paul and working with the intricacies of the ordinance. He reviewed that their appeal had three major points: 1. In a case where the City has to control the densiCy of uses as well as the other standards and may have to choose between granting one of many potentially qualified permits, the best way he suggested to do that is when a qualified application is received that that application is simply processed first to the end, rather than jumping between applications. 2. Mr. Cronin claimed that Midwest built their sign to a height of 58 feet above grade, however based on their permit were to build a 37 foot sign, where only a 37 1/2 foot sign is permitted. Mr. Cronin further suggested that Midwest didn't build their sign exactly where they said triat they were going to build it on their application. Universal � believes Midwest's sign to be an illegal sign, built 20 feet too tall, and Mr. Cronin suggested the sign should be taken down, and since Midwest did not abide by their permit that i3niversal should have their application approved. 3. Mr. Cronin suggesCed that now that the sign is built they can see that a 37 1/2 foot sign built in a hole probably couldn't be seen from I-94, therefore Universal raises the question can it be read and where does Midwest go from there. Mr. Cronin distributed a map prepared by Universal. On this map he reviewed the area in question, pointing out the existing signs. He reviewed that the City regulates a select group of uses not only by zone and district and setbacks and heights, etc., but the City also regulates them by density so there are spacing requirements. He noted that this space was filled by the Fairway sign, previously which had been there for a number of years. Mr. Cronin reviewed that last summer or fall the City learned that the Fairway sign which had been permitted to the property at 2100 Gilbert, which is Universal, was built on City property which was also built too tall, and when that sign was removed, that decreased the density in this location and provided the opportunity for a sign somewhere in the vicinity of Vandalia. He said that the owners of the properCy at 2100 Gilbert started a process of trying to select a sign company and they finished that process up in January, and Universal filed their application in February. Mr. Cronin referenced his handout entitled ^Instructions for Billboard � Applications," which is on the back of the building permit of the sign permit 5 ""�. Z��a ��L� �Z20; application. Mr. Cronin reviewed that there is no question that Universal is a qualified sign builder. He reviewed that Universal did submit on February • 10 a survey showing the lot dimensions of where they wanted to put the sign; the location of that survey on that structure, as there was a Q1=stion as to whether or not they could overhang a now vacated street, with Mr. Hardwick saying that they could not overhang any public right-of-way, so they located the sign exactly on the survey. The survey showed all the street and alley locations as well as the right-of-way and the type, size and height of the billboard. Mr. Cronin reviewed that on February 18 they received a phone ca11 requesting further information: that the City wanted an exact statement of how far it is from the Universal proposed site, back to the Adams sign and from the proposed site to the 3M sign. He said that sometimes this is required, sometimes it is not, and this was not brought along on February 10. Secondly, the Ietter indicated a need for the structural drawings of the proposed structure. Mr. Cronin said that Universal has signed engineering drawings of similar structures on file with the City, and that sometimes the City wants a new set, specifically for this location, and sometimes the file drawings are adequate. He said that was on a Wednesday, and it took a few days to get the sign drawings up from Chicago. In regard to the zoning germit fee, he said that typically they pay the fees when they pick up the permit, and Universal looks upon the indication that the fee is outstanding as a reminder to not forget the checks when the permit is picked up. Mr. Cronin said that Universal believed they had a qualified application on February 10 which met all of the original standards. Also, they believe that 8 days, when notified of the need for further information, that they clearly worked hard to bring back the additional information that was needed and which • was supplied by February 24. He claimed that on February 24 the City may have had two completed applications, but somehow Midwest's permit was granted and . Universal's was denied. Mr. Cronin said that as Ms. Lane pointed out, there is no ru2e on that, that it's clear that the first application filed, or the first qualified application, or the most complete application, is accepted. Universal has never had a similar experience as this. Universal believes that as long as the City is making policy and precedence that the clearest and the best in these conditions would be that the first qualified application received be worked through until the end. Mr. Cronin pointed out that Universal had sign credits, they have signs they can take down as they have in the past. He said that they trusted that they were moving forward. He said if Mr. Aardwick had called them on February il with a request for additional information they would have had them in prior to the Midwest application being filed. He said that Universal believes they were acting in good faith, they ha3 the ability to build the sign, they were qualified to build the sign, and they had met each of the requirements as they were laid out for them. He suggested the best process the City could follow is first come first served. Mr. Cronin reviewed the Midwest application, daCed 2/21/97. He reviewed that the overall height above-grade is specified as 37 feet. He questioned the completeness o£ what Midwest submitte3 as structural drawings. He noted that the application said "about 23 feeG to the bottom of the sign." Mr. Cronin reviewed that you take a 37 foot sign, have a 13 1/2 foot sign face on it, and � DR,Q��, 6 ZOtVlNG �iLE `��.zz� � �i `l - I y'1'� the base of the structure is about 3 feet; and that means that the bottom of . the sign is about 23 feet above grade which is a very importaat number for tork and wind loa3, as well as it tells the City zoning staff that the sign is going to be 37 feet ta11, and is in compliaace with the ordiraace. Mr. Cronin noted a survey that Universal had done, which indicates that the sign was built at 58 feet, not the 37 feet specified on the permit. Universal believes that du_ to the illegal sign that Midwest's permit should be invalidated ar.d that tk:e sign should be removed. Mr. Cronin spoke to the visibility of the existing signs, and said that he did not believe if the sign were reduced to 37 feet, that it would be visible as it would be down in a ho1e, because the 58 foot sign is barely visible (this is travelling east on I-94). Travelling west, the outline of the sign is just visible from the ramp. Mr. Cror.in referenced the section in the code which states "the maximum height of any sign in St. Paul is 37 1/2 feet." In the section speaking to spacing, "the spacing between signs sha11 apply to advertising signs on the same side of the same street". Regarding the issue of does it read to Vandalia, does it read to I-94, to University, to Victoria -- Cronin said, in effect you could have signs closer than 1000 feet if they read to different streets. He reviewed that the spacing between signs shall be measured by the nearest points of the sign to the property lines and the right-of-way which they are intended to be read. Presumably in Universal's case that is I-94, as they wish to be on the property zt 2100 Gilbert. • Mr. Cronin continued, the determination of advertising signs to be read from a roadway should be based upon, but not limited to the following: angle of the sign to the roadway; the duration o£ the view; again this is a 58 foot sign, and if lowered the whole length of its face and then some, is there any view at all; the distance the sign is from the roadway. He said Universal will be right on the right-of-way. He said the size of the sign relative to the roadway is not important now as Universal will have 672 and Midwest has 648, but is very important to the 672 square foot sign that was back in November, which is clearly not what is seen on freeways, and any obstructions to the view. It was Universal's opinion that at 37 feet the sign would be totally obstructed by the bridge, the ramps going up and down, and the trees. For those reasons Universal asked the committee to set the precedent that the first qualified application, as long as people are moving forward on it, is the one that prevails. Secondly, Universal asked that the City tag the Midwest sign. They believe that Midwest has lost their chance to build a sign at that location and that the sign was not built according to the provisions of their permit or permitted by code, and should therefore be removed. Thirdly, tiniversal believes that a 37 1/2 foot sign at that site would not read to I-94. There was a handout summarizing Mr. Cronin's report. Commissioner Chavez asked whether Universal employs their own people to erect their signs or whether they contract that done. Mr. Cronin said that since they have become Universal they have had a crew that comes from Chicago that builds their signs to their specifications, but for the past forCy years Naegele built their own. . ' ZOt�i�G ��L�' q��zz-a � Commissioner Chavez asked whether Mr. Cronin could attest to the fact that every sign that either Naegele or Universal has put up has always been done to • the specifications outlined and that no mistakes have occurred. Mr. Cronin said that in the past thirteen years thaC he has never known their company to be more than a couple of feet off. Commissioner Gordon clarified that Universal's position is that once_an application has been filed that that application should be processed, regardless of how de£icient it is. Mr. Cronin responded that as long as it is a qualified application, which means that it meets the criteria that's outlined on the back of the application when it is submitted, and that the applicant clearly has the ability to provide the sign credits or whatever else is required, and as long as the applicant is purposefully moving forward on that application, the City should give the applicant the courtesy of working - it through, Commissioner Gordon reviewed that Mr. Cronin was talking about complying with the instructions, and asked if the demonstration o£ available sign credits is part of complying with the instructions. Mr. Cronin responded that it is not part o£ complying with the application instructions, and should not be what is necessary to start, however demonstrating the ability to do it before the end. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the detailed site plan is part of the instructians as he read them. Mr. Cronin agreed that they were. Gordon asked about the fees for demolition and building permits. Mr. Cronin responded that fees are always paid when the building permits are picked up, and are not a part of the application. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Cronin how long he believed the City should give • � the applicant in order to come into compliance. Mr. Cronin suggested an arbitrary period of possibly 14 days could be given to respond to any request � made by the staff. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal was told of the deficiencies of their application on February 10. Mr. Cronin reviewed that they were told what their sign credit balance was and that they would have to bring that in, and Universal faxed the sign credit location to Mr. Hardwick the next day, explaining that it was the sign they intended to take down aad file the demolition permit on. The sign was not taken down, and is not usually taken down until they're certain of the outcome. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Universal was more concerned with the Midwest sign coming down, or the Universal sign going up. Mr. Cronin responded that if the City does not enforce the ordinance and the Midwest sign is permitted to remain at the existing height that the sign would create a problem with the State regulation. If enforcement is done, and the sign is in conformance, it appears that both signs could be located th=re, and could comply with State requirements. Universal would be satisfied with a resolution o£ the matter that provided for both Midwest and Universal to have a sign as long as Midwest's sign is built as applied for and permitted by code. No formal complaint has been made to the City reqarding the Midwest sign. He said that this hearing was the fo-mal complaint. 8 9� ZON�1�� FiL� a� -i�c�� Commissioner Gordon asked why Universal waited until February 2a to respond to • the additional requests. Mr. Cronin noted that there was a w_ekend in that tim= period, and it took the time to get what they needed fron their Chicago office, which arrived on Saturday, and was fil>_d with the City on Monday. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal had any comment regardir.g the timing on the Mid application. Mr. Cronin respoaded that when Ur.iversal apolied on February 10 that they asked if there was a competing applicatioa and they w=re told that there was not whicn he believes to be the case. Ee said that they believed that there application would continue to proceed fo= until it was completed. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal was allowed to install a 37 1/2 foot sign whether that would be a meaningful sign for them. Mr. Cronin said that it would as they are along the right-of-way, and not down in the hole. He said that the face heading west would be very good, the face east may not be as good, and they may want to request a variance in a year. Commissioner Vaught asked if Universal knew prior to February 25 0£ the pending Midwest application. Mr. Cronin said that he didn't think that they did. He said that Paul Rademacher is an employee of Universal who dealt directly with Mr. Hardwick. Mr. Rademacher responded that when he delivered the application on February 24 that Wendy Lane told him that Midwest had filed an application, and that he believed that was the first time that anyone from Universal knew that an � application had been submitted by Midwest. Marvin List, attorney for Universal Outdoor, said that regarding whose application is dealt with first, that the only rational way to do it is process the first application received through completion. Doing it any other way, he suggested, leads to the issues at hand and to litigation. By coming up with a test that the first one who has submitted is dealt with in a reasonable fashion as long as they are proceeding in good faith, and if that application is accepted or not accepted, then the second application is dealt with. Mr. List referenced the application of Midwest and said it is critical to look at that application in one regard. The signature of the applicant has the boilerplate language that certifies that the applicznt certifies that all of the information is correct and that all pertinent State regulations and City ordinances will be complied with in performing the work for which this permit is issued and it indicates that the sign will be 37 feet. However, he said it's not 37 £eet. Mr. List said that Universal's surveyor indicates that it's 20 plus feet higher than that and that it was not built to the provisions of the ordinance. He said that it was his guess that it may have never been intended to be built at 37 feet because if it w=re built at 37 feet virtually no one would see it along I-94. It is their position that a tough line be taken with respect to that permit, as it's not built properly and it's not what they certified in the application to the City would be done. Commissioner Vaught asked if Mr. List had any evidence, other than • circumstantial evidence that would indicate that th= sign wasn't intended to 9 � � 9 � �p�� be built at 37 feet. that they have as to surv=yor. Mr. List said it was his guess, however the evidence its construction is information from a registered Comm,issioner Vaught asked of Mr. List, if he saw Universal's concern to be nore the process and how the process works, or is it their cor.cern to build the billboard. Mr. List responded that it is both. He said they see thz process to be im�ortant as a situation like this could a:ise again, and he said the process leads to the conclusion that they obtain the permit for the reasons that Mr. Cronin indicated above: they had the information indicated on the apolication; there was an 8-day delay in ir.forming them that they needed more. Ae pointed out in other situations the plans aren't required as they are on file with the City, and sometimes they are requested, where other times they are rot. He reviewed that once notified that they were required they were obtained immediately and transmitted to the City. He noted that Universal acted in good faith, and the process is importan[. Secondly, he said that they want their sign built there and believe they deserve to have it built there, because the sign that was built in the nearby location is not in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Vaught asked whether Mr. List agreed with the rationale that Universal's sign should be allowed to be built where proposed because the ordinance snecifies the orientation of the street, and the Midw=st sign can't really be seen from I-94. Mr. List agreed. Commissioner Vaught noted that the photograpus seemed to indicate that the Midwest sign couldn't even be seen from 58 feet. Commissioner Gordon said that perhaps the Midwest sign was appealing to the traffic on Vandalia. M:. List indicated that Midwest was present at the meeting and could perhaps ad3ress tfiat. He said he thought that Mr. Schroeder, the generaZ manager of Midwest, may testify that he could live with both signs if they are pointing in different directions. However, he said there may be a problem with State approval as they may not comply with State regulations in that instance. Mr. List reviewed that the Midwest sign is not proper and shouldn't be there. fe reviewed that staff notified Midwest before the construction of the sign that they would be erecting the sign at their own risk, and felt the fact that biidwest may have to dismantle their sign should not be a consideration. Commissioner Gordon questioned the process proposed by Mr. List where a person comes in with a reasonably close application and the City continues to process that apolication until somebody eventually coacludes that the applicant is not going to be able to successfully conclude it. He said that this might create more problems. Either standard would involve a judgment call. With respect to the issues of impropriety o£ the Midwest Sign as exceeding the height limit ar.d the issue of whether Universal is entitled to a sign, he asked Mr. List if he saw those as separate issues. ��N1NG F�L� 9�•Zw 10 � U �� Od) • � �� q'1-�`I'1 � Mr. List responded that the ordinance should be enforced and th_ Midwest Siga � should be removed, in which event he said that th= Universal a:plication should tfien be granted. He said that the result Universal was looking for could be reached without determining what the process should '�e when competing aoolications come in because Universal claims the sign built if Midwest was improperly built and therefore they believed should come do.r... That would just leave Universal's application. � � Commissioner Gordon auestioned whether the Universal applica:ioa would sti11 be pending. Mr. List responded affirmatively, saying that U^iversal appealed from the denial, and considered their application to still be p=nding. Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. List whether IIniversal would hav> any opposition to seeking a variance so that both signs could exist. Mr. List said his only concern would be whether there were State requiremeats that could not be met. Commissioner Gordon asked i� Universal's surveyor's report showing Midwest's sign to be 58 feet in height was in a written report. Mr. List submitted the report for commissioners' review, and for the record. The survey was done by Sundee Land Surveying. Lonny Thomas, 6949 Valley Creek Road, attorney for the land owaer, said that they were much more concerned about the sign then they were about the procedure. He said he represents two retired persons that have about $200,000 of their retirement funds tied up in the outcome of these proceedings. � Commissioner Vaught noted that the committee had seen his clieats' affidavit, and asked Mr. Thomas to provide a summary rather than to review it in its entirety. Mr. Thomas said he was present to note that there are equities that are a part of this process. He reviewed that about one year ago he testified and pointed out something that a sign company at the time, had no intentioa of representing, but had to be disclosed in the property owner's view. In the communications that followed Mr. Thomas' office discussed their intention to put up a replacemeat sign and they immediately set out to do that. One year later he said he can't say that he can point to any communications or relationsriip between Midwest and Fairway, but noted that Fairway was very angry when he decided to testiPy before the committee and tell the City that the sign was not where it was supposed to be, and Fairway was r.ot going to disclose it. Mr. Thomas noted that was a year ago, and that suddenly an application goes in days before the company they're doing business with, and his client has $200,000 riding on the outcome. Mr. Thomas said he has a lot of unanswered questions. Commissioner Vaught asked for any evidence Mr. Thomas might have regarding any collusion that might exist. Mr. Thomas' response was that they have questions. He said h2 has no doubt that if Fairway was asked waat the relationship is between Fairway and his client, there would not be kind words as they w=re not happy with Fairway's decision. Commissioner Gordon asked if it was possible for the Universal sign to be 500 • feet from the Midwest sign, and asked factually, based on th=_ knowledge of the 11 Zo�� 9� � properties involved. He reviewed that the staff report indicates the distance � between the existing Midwest sign to where Universal wishes to place their sign would be 350 feet. He further asked if Universal could locate their sign 500 feet from the existing Midwest sign, physically and still be on the property they have control over. Mr. Thomas responded that they had just gone through the process of vacating Gilbert Avenue to help accommodate that, and he would believe the answer to be yes, but would need to confirm that. Mr. Cronin reviewed that the spacing between the 3M and the Adams signs is fxxed, and said he didn't think there was enough room for Universal to move east because of the Adams sign, nor did he believe there to be enough room for Midwest to move west because of the other sign and still meet the City's distance requirement. He said that the building also becomes a factor, and that the best location for Universal is the location that they applied for. Peter Remes, President, Midwest Outdoor Advertising, 1103 Homer St „ spoke in opposition. Mr. Remes reviewed that this is their second billboard located on I-94 in Saint Paul. Ae said the discussion had been a bit slanted and reviewed his version of the facts. He said that: 1) Midwest applied for a 648 square foot sign on February 21, 1997. He said that previous to their application they had removed 9 advertising signs within the city and received their nonconforming sign credits. 2) Midwest then, with their nonconforming sign credits applied for their � permit, with their site plan, with their structural permit and the other documents needed for the application. Mr. Remes said that Midwest is aware of the process for applying for applications within �. the City of Saint Pau2 and believed that Universal is aware of the same process. He said that to make application within the City of Saint Paul and not complete the application to be a clear indication that the aoplication was not conplete, and therefore should not be given precedence over an application that is complete. 3) �r. Remes noted that the City of Saint Paul has a code which mandates what is needed in a sign permit application an3 he refereaced it. He noted that section 66,?04 under permits, titled: a, und=_r application, states in part "...structural pZans a-e require3 �or all free-standing signs greater thaa 50 square feet..." Given this langaa?_, h_ didn't s=_= any aainiguity in what exactly is r_=eded within th= ap?lication. He said that Midwest has had applications with structural p'_aas or, file for the many various signs that th=y have built in Sain� Paul and sti11 uaderstand that th=re are sets needed for every applica=ion. a_) Mr, Remes spoke to the sign that Midw_st built at a cosc of over $�1,000, including the cost of their laad lease. He said it was correct that they were notified by the City that if they built a sign, the sign would be bu?lt at their own risk. However, h_ said th_y were notified only 2a hours before they fia3 their excavator cet th=re d-gging the hole for their sign. They had purchased the_r sig� • structure, they had entered into their lease agreement wich their 12 ��1�!'l �� FI LE 9�.2z.o -----�_ � ('1-1��7 • landowaer, they had paid virtually all of the costs associated with building the sign. He noted too that there had been a good deal of talk about the height of the siga that was built. He said that their inter.tion in building the sign was to be 37 feet above tne roadway. Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, said that the City is or. ample notice that there is a potential violation as to how high the Midwest sicz is. He said that LZEP enforcement staff can take whatever enfozcement ac[ion they would like to, and that if the committee erished to hear Mr. Remes' explanation for the heig:t o£ the sign, triat it would be interesting but he didn't know how it would pertain to the appeal and the allegations made by Universal. Commissioner Vaught said that he was prepared to potentially make his decision on a very narrow issue which may be what orientation to what street is what sign, and with that the case, it seemed that the height might have some relevance, if only tangential. Commissioner Gordon said if the committee had made the ruling at the outset that the height of the sign should not be addressed he would be more comfortable not allowing such testimony, but as Universal was permitted extensive testimony regarding it, he felt that Mr. Remes should also be given the same opportunity with respect to that issue. Mr. Remes said that Midwest had a survey done showing the location of the sign in reference to the property that they lease. (A copy of the survey was distributed). Also showing the top of the billboard, the height of the � billboard, and also showing the roadway, and the elevation of the roadway. The elevation of Che Z-94 exit ramp he said is at 123.11. The elevation of the top of the billboard is 152.47 and said that puts the billboard at an overall height of 29 feet. Their intention was to build the sign at 37 feet and with his calculations believes they actually fell short of their target of 37 feet. I-ie said that the zoning code, the ordinance pertaining to advertising signs, section 66.21A.g. under height says: `�The height of advertising signs may be measured t'rom grade or surface of the roadway, whichever is higher.° Mr. Remes reviewed that in reference to the height of the sign, Midwest knew that the height of the sign would be measured £rom the exit ramp of Z-94 which is classi£ied as the interstate, as it is part of the I-9� system. They also knew that the westerly bound face of the sign would be reading towa=d. the traffic on th= interstate ramp, and that is where they gezred it to, and they have committed a sign to a client who is looking for interstate ex.it ramp trzffic as they come of: I-9� and turr or. to Vandalia Stre=_t. Cnair Field asked if the exit ramn is east bound or west bourd, with Mr. Remes indicating thz ramp to be westbound. Commissioner Gordon asked if Midwest took their grade from the I-95 ramp. Mr. Remes responde3 afzirmatively, and noted that the grade of the ramp on the survey cistr:buted which shows the gradR of the ramp at 123.11 aad the elevation at tne ton o£ the billboard at 152.47. Chair Fie1c asked for clariiication tnat Midwest wanted the sigaa for the � westbour,c t-z°�ic ramp, a.d 'ne reviewed by looking at tre orie::ation of the 13 � Z0�1�G FJLE �•ZZv �� ----_. �� sign that the traffic is past the billboard when it gets on the ramp noted. • Mr. Remes disagreed, stating that the billboard is visible as traffic drives up the ramp to Vandalia Street. Ms. Lane clarified that Mr. Remes was speaking of the exit ramp, not the entrance ramp. Mr. Remes noted that Universal speaks o£ the value of this location,-however noted that Universal presently has approximately an 85 percent market share within the Twin Cities, the remaining divided up amongst about 7 other companies. Midwest has one other billboard location on I-94 and he suggested that this location means more to their company than it means to Universal, being they have numerous billboard locations along I-94. Mr. Remes said that Midwest feels they have done everything procedurally correct and have done everything they've been asked to do by the City o£ Saint Paul and by the State of Minnesota and have filed their permit application in a timely manner, complete with all the necessary documentation. They have understood this process over the years, and believe there to be no question or grey area about what the procedures are, but are clearly put forth and documented in the legislative code and he challenged any necessity for discussion o£ what is needed and what the timetables are, and what completes an advertising sign application. Finally, he noted that Midwest did have an application for this location given to them back in November, 1996 for a 72 square foot sign and they also maintained a State permit since that time as well. Commissioner Chavez asked Midwest if they contract out the installation of the signs or whether they have their own crew. Mr. Remes responded that Midwest builds their own signs and agreed with the statement offered by Chavez that all o£ their signs are in comp2iance. In reference to violations of other � advertising signs within the City of Saint Paul he said that there exist numerous violations by other companies. Commissionez Gordon asked that if a complaint was filed that the Midwest sign was too high that Midwest would reject that based on his description above. hlr. Remes agreed and said that to be what the ordinance allows for, and that is what their intention was for in building the sign. He said that at 37 feet it would be very difficult to see the sign, and that only the top third of the sign would be visible. In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Gordon Mr. Remes established that he would like to keep his sign, and had no objection to Universal installing a sign nearby, and had no problem with a variaace pernitting Universal to put up a sign. Comnissioner Gordon asked how it was that Midwest came to file their anplication on February 21. Mr. Remes responded that Midw_st filed th=_ir appiication in November, 1996. At that tin=_ they had 72 square feet of noncon�orming sign credits in the City bank. From that day fo-ward he said they worked very vigorously trying to qualiry and remove oth=r nonconforming signs with?n the city of Saint Paul, and took down approxima�ely 12 signs cf which 9 they aoplied toward this new application. he said that this process tak_s time. Tne signs must be evaluated by them internally to s=e if they are conforr„ing or not, th=n must b_ reviewed by City st�ff to evaluate whether the City fir_ds them nonconforming, and then their company must go out and take the sia:s nowr, ard h= of£ered that he has records of when their r_onconfo-ming sigas were submitte3 with th_ c"ity of Saiat Fau1 wnich he said he could submit to the conmittee shoaing as evideace that th_ whole process was started quite � 1S ��8�� F1LE �zo�' � • some time ago. Commissioner Gordon asked if Mr. Remes was stating that the process generally started in November, 1996 or that Midwest specifically applied for a sign at this location in November, 1996. Mr. Remes responded that Midwest applied for a sign at this location in Novemb=r 1995 znd receive3 a permit for this location. He said if he would have done what Universal did, he wo•i1d have submitted his application for 640 square feet, stating he didn't have his credits yet, but asked that the City hold his application and not permit anyoae else to apply because he was working on it. However, he said that isn't what he did. He went out and evaluated the signs that he could remove from the city; had the city staff person go out and evaluate them and then once their approval was received went out and began pulling the signs down and it took some time to remove the 12 or so signs. Once they were approved, Midwest went back and made application for their second advertising sign permit on this location. Commissioner Vaught asked when Mr. Remes learned of the issue of the height of their existing sign. Mr. Remes responded that he had just learned of the issue from Mr. Cronin's testimony at this meeting, and said that based on their interpretation of the zoning code that it is not an issue. Commissioner Vaught noted the Midwest survey was dated March 17. Mr. Remes noted that two surveys were done. The original survey was done showing the sign location and where it was built. He reviewed that Mr. Robert Kessler, LZEP, wrote a letter to him requesting more information on this survey, � showing where the cat-walks were, the height of the sign, the placement, the footings, constituting additional information. Midwest then submitCed the letter to the surveyor asking the surveyor to add the requested information to the survey and Mr. Remes received the updated survey on April 16, 1997. Commissioner Vaught asked for confirmation that at the point that Midwest received Mr. Kessler's letter that Midwest proceeded to erect the sign at their own risk, Midwest had not yet begun construction. Mr. Remes responded that was correct. Midwest received the letter and called the City of Saint Paul for their footing inspection. Chair Field, in referencing biidwest's application, noted that at the bottom in the plan review remarks that it references 23 foot to bottom o£ sign and Field said h_ interpreted that to mezn from the g:ound to the bottom of the sign He then asked Mr. Remes if he'd care to persua3=_ him otherwise, that it wouldn't be, aad asked staff to ass�st in that, as staff apoarently wrote notes on this apolication. Mr. Remes responded that the first time he saw those notes is when he received a cooy of the appeal. He said he assumed those notations were made when the insgector inspected th=ir footings when th=y were building the siga, although he's not certain of that. h]s. Lane respond=_d tha* the notations were made by LIEP's structural engineer, the oae who would have reviewed the structural plaas that were submitted for the sign from tue applica:t, so iC's not based on the field inspection bu� on his review o= th_ structural plans that were submitted prior to the issuance o� the permit. • 15 ��r�W �� --�!^! 1 I Chair Field asked whether the structural design of a sign of 37 feet in total • height be different than the structural design of a sign of 58 feet in actual height from ground to the peak of the sign, as opposed to the roadbed. Ms. Lane responded that she would imagine so, speaking as a non-engineer. Chair Field asked if the plans discussed were at the committee's disposal. Ms. Lane said that they were. Commissioner Gordon asked whether the relevant inquiry was what was applied for and approved, which would be 37 feet above grade, and approved on February 21. Chair Field said that is why he desired seeing the structural plans to witness what was intended, as the testimony was that they probably would be different, Commissioner Vaught asked Ms. Lane whether the City always requires structural plans when an application is received for an advertising sign. Ms. Lane responded that they do not. Structural plans are required. In some cases they will have structural plans on file £or a specific type of a sign. If they are on file they do not ask for another set. She responded to a question from Vaught that yes, staff has accepted applications without structural plans and have considered them either qualifying or complete. Commissioner Vaught asked if it is the general practice of Saint Paul that the various fees which are required are paid when the permit is picked up, or when the application is submitted. Ms. Lane responded that staff will accept the � fees either way but do not process them until the permit is actually issued, which is generally when the applicant brings in their check. � Commissioner Vaught established that sta£f has in the past accepted � applications without the fees being paid at that point, and have actually gone through the who2e process of doing everything but issuing the permit. Ms. Lane agreed. Commissioner Vaught asked if she had any sense of what the more common practice is. Does someone submit the checks when the applications come in or whea tne permits are picked up? Ms. Lane responded that generally, when the permits are picke3 un. Com^isaioner Vaught reviewed that what Mr. Cronin said in his testimony is not inaccurate with respect to what genera'_ly hGop=ns. Ms. Lane agreed. Co-missioner Vauc;�t referred to the instructioas on the back of the apnlication form, and asked if that was accurate. Ms. Lane said it was and conce3=_3 that it doesn't say anything about structural plans. She also added that the back of a11 of their permit application forms gives a summary of what is rernsired. She said that more detail is included in the actual ordinance. Com-`_ssior.er Vaught said he might be sotnew�at sympathetic to the idea that if an tp�licart pretty much complies with what's on the back of th_= permit apalica_ion that it s=ems to be a reasozable apnroach. Ms. Laa= pointed cut that a11 0£ the sign comnanies are license3 ard as a part • �E Z��C� ��1.E 9�—.�?o __ ��--J�-r�� . of their license they are responsible to know what the ordinance says. Commissioner Vaught said he was looking more for a course of practice, as opposed to what it says, for what the City does. The ordinance says to submit structural plans but staff has indicated that applications are accepted without structural plans, but that they process them and issue permits on occasion without th=m. And the ordinance also states that fees be paid but staf£ has indicated that fees sometimes don't get paid when the applications are submitted and are not considered incomplete, and that is also stated on the back of the application. Vaught noted that by the time the end of the process is reached, with the exception of the structural plans, which sometimes staff never requires because they already know what they are, staff has required that everything be done that the ordinance requires. Ms. Lane agreed. Brian Hates, 1985 Grand Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Bates said that his interest was to see that neither sign was built. He said that for the past couple of years he has been approaching different community groups trying to obtain interest in ridding the city of billboards entirely. He said that one thing he heard from both Universal and Midwest is that they would like to see the sign ordinance enforced, which Mr. Bates concurred with. He said he believed that both Midwest and Universal are being a bit disingenuous about the issue of height. He said that the sign ordinance does read that the height can be measured from grade or surface of the roadway, whichever is � higher. He noted that when it says "of the roadway�� that it means of the roadway of which it is meant to be seen, which is I-94. He said that certainly Midwest's existing sign, the west face of iC, can only be seen from I-94, and cannot be seen from the ramp, so it would be measured, not from the hole, not from the ramp, but would be measured from I-94. Mr. Bates referenced Chat the landowner who spoke on behalf of the appeal, pointed out that there is an existing billboard on that site currently, so there is currently a certain amount of income. He said the primary issue which hasn't been made real clear, and has been referred to as the sign credits, and said the deal is that on I-94, is that you cannot have a sign within 1000 feet of another sign. If the proper sign credits are available, that distance can be shrunk to 2/3 of that to 665 feet, and fie said that it's important to note how many signs there are right i� that 2 or 3 block area between working fron the east and going west, betwee^ Prior and Cleveland there are 2 signs; if you include the Midwest sign thz= has already been built, there are 2 signs betweea Cleveland and Cretir. and then the-e is the 3M sign west of Cretin, so there are 5 signs th=re now. There are 5 signs in 3000 feet. Normally, with no credits, you could just s�ueeze in e signs within 3000 feet. He said that anyone suggesting that a variance mignt allow 6 signs he said that is an extreme egregious variance azd would recessitate that some of the distances between the signs be less than 500 feet, probably �50 feet. Mr. Bates said that the distances between t�= existing sians now are a11 less than 1000 feet, and range from as low as 60C feet to as hign as 9D0 feet. Mr. Bates said that that zo=ing lot is not o° suf£icient dimension that any l sig_^_ can be built th=re. I�e noted that there is on= existing sign on the site now that shouldn�t have bee� built there. Mr. Bates referenced ia the zoning • code, Cnaptez 66.21S.b whic: states: "TCe zoning lot on which the advertising 17 Z�NIN� �ILE 9 -� ? .u� � signs between 400 and 700 square feet°... (bath Universal and Midwest signs fall within that range). Mr. Bates said there is a minimum of 660 feet perpendicular to the right-of-way of the highway and 13,02D feet in length, for the zoning law itself. He�said that the lot uader question was zor.ed T-1. He said that immediately on the north side of the railroad tracks it is I-2. He said that the zoning lot is a railroad strip property and is very narrow and he guessed that it is approximately 150 feet deep, and is nowhere near the 660 feet required. Ae said that no signs should be built there. The one sign that is there should be removed. Mr. Sates submitted a picture which shows the narrowness of the site. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Bates had filed a complaint with respect to the Midwest sign with the City, with Mr. Bates indicating that he had not. Mr. Cronin said he didn't know if the City administrators would have allowed the ramp to be used as the basis for the height or not. He said the issue to him is that on the building permit it said 37 feet above grade. The note by the City engineer said 23 feet to the bottom. Commissioner Vaught said i£ the ramp isn't used, and I-94 isn't used because of the evidence that it can't be seen from the freeway, then maybe Vandalia should be used, which is higher than the ramp. Mr. Cronin said another alternative would be to use the grade of the railroad road. Commissioner Vaught said he'd read the particular code provision that gives the alternative and he thought it was pretty clear and clearly allows the grade at the bottom of the sign or the grade of the roadway, whichever is higher. He said either it can be seen from the freeway, in which case it's oriented to the freeway, in which case it may be too high, but the Universal sign can't be placed there because it's too close; or it is the grade of the ramp, in which case, according to the survey submitted by Midw=st, if it is correct, that it is a conforming sign with respect to height, or the grade of the only other roadway in the area which is Vandalia, which is higher than the grade of the ramp, at that point, which also means that it is not 58 feet. He said a choice has to be made that in tw� cas_s it is conforming; or choose the other in whicn it prohibits the Universal sign from being cor.structed because it is too close. Mr. Cror.in said he b_lieves it to be ciear thzt th=_ roadway cs=_d fo= measurenent is the roadbed of I-94, whicn he said in this cas_ is about the same level as the railroad road bed, within 5-10 £eet. I:e said that if Midwest's sign was intended to be read to Vandalia tnat it co�.:ldn't be that large of a sign, as Vandalia doesn't p=rnit that siz= of a sig� to be erected along it, aad he said that he also thinks that the orientatior_ of the sign is basically parallel to Vandalia, and doesn't believe that ori=ntation to Vandalia to be the ir_tent. � � Comnissioner Vaught asked what h� is to nak< of the photograncic evid_nce fron Universal that the Midwzst sign ca�not be seen frer I-9S. Mr. Cronin said he ca�'t see why the Midw=st sig,^. was built wh__e it was, as U^_iv2rsal would not have built a siga in that location. hz felt that if Midwest had built their • � �r�� Fi�E .Z� 18 QR �Fr �(�-l�f'�� sign in accordance with his permit that it is improbable. He said if Midwest is allowed to build it according to their permit it would be interesting to see if he would in fact build it. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Croain agreed or disagreed with the proposition that the ramp is also to be considered a part of the road. Mr. Cronin responded that in his understanding of the ordinance that he would say that is not a reasonable interpretation. Commissioner Gordon asked if Universal has ever taten elevations off of a ramp. Mr. Cronin said that is not the way that Universal operates. Commissioner Gordon asked whether Mr. Cronin saw any alternative available whereby Midwest could have its sign as built and Universal could have their sign. Mr. Cronin responded that no, he did not see that as an alternative because there is no provision in the State regulations for a variance. He said that they have a rock hard, 500 foot spacing between signs reading to interstates. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught asked within what timeframe must the committee act on appeals such as this. Mr. Warner responded that within a reasonable period of time, and he thought that certain cases coming out of places like Mendota Heights would suggest contemporaneously, or by the next meeting of the � committee with a written resolution setting forth the reasons for the committee's decision. Commissioner Vaught noted that the staff report indicates the deadline for action to be May 3. Ms. Dadlez responded that the source of that deadline to be the 60 day law. However, Mr. Warner said it didn't apply in this matter, because it was an appeal, and that the code is very clear that appeals from decisions of the zoning administrator require a fairly contemporaneous finding to grant or deny the appeal. The next meeting of the zoning commitCee was scheduled for May 1, 1997. Commissioner Vaught said he would like to speak to Mr. Hardwick and Mr. Kessler, LIEP, to hear wha= they had to say about what they did and how they did it. Commissioner Vaught moved postponement to the May 1 zoning committee meeting, and requested that sta££ request Messrs. Kessler and Hazdwick to be present. Mr. Warner found this postpoaement to be acceptable, to provid= for additional information to help the coc.mittee cone to a rational decision. Commissioner Gordon seconded the motion. Conmissioner Gordon said he didn't hav� a particular d=sire to speak with the ir.dividuals Vaught wanted to speak to, however he said h= saw eauities on both • sid=s. He said he would lik= to see wzetnAr or not there is a way to accommodate both sides, ar_c 'r_e sunported the notio.. for layover to determine 19 ZO�r�� FeL� �.z� � ____ whether that was possible. Commissioner Vaught requested staff to ascertain from the State how it views various issues, specifically with respect to the Midwest sigr. zad the highway it is oriented toward, and speci£ically with respect to the proposed Universal sign, and whether or not inasmuch as the State would be forthcoming,� as to whether or not there is any construct under wnich they would permit both the Midwest sign where it is and the Universal sign where Universal wishes to put it. Vaught said he saw this as the biggest problem with resolving this as he said he was willing to be equitable about it. Mr. Warner, reviewed that the public hearing was closed, and he reviewed that the layover was to allow the committee to gather additional information from staff. Commissioner Vaught said he wished to allow for the possibility to ask questions of either the applicant or those in opposition, and requested that the motion be amended to a11ow for reopening of the public hearing. C� Mr. Warner said it would be appropriate to hear from the appellant and if the appellant was not strongly opposed to reopening the public hearing which would require renotification, then reopening the public hearing would be reasonable. Mr. Warner asked the committee to bear in mind that this matter is not one which is affected by the 60 day requirement, but is an appeal, and it is appropriate to layover if additional time or information is desirable. However, he noted that regarding the public hearing, the public testimony has been heard and that is done, the opportunity has been given. If the appellant � has no problem with laying the mattet over with the possibility that they would be asked questions, then it shouldn't be a problem. However, if they are reluctant to do that, Warrer said he saw a problem with laying it over for ' the purposes of taking additional testimony, but not laying it over for the purpose of getting additional information from staff which would be appropriate. Commissioner Vaught said a reason he believes it appropriate, is that although his advisement was not to go too far with the height of the Piid�est sign if not necessary, the apnellant has made that one-prong of their two-prong pos±tion, that Universal's siga should go up; and Midwest�s sicn should come dow::. Ae said he saw *_hem as s=parate issues, but as vastly related. He said in looking at the documen� tnat d=_als with the structural pl��s of the sign he said �� couldn't read it, anc h=_ said if he was able to cons�lt with someone prior to th> next meeting that would cause him to ask a que�_ioa with respect to wn=_tner or not some notaticn on thos= plans might indicat=_ tzat the measliremert of the sign was to be gra3=_-level, as opposed to =oadway level, he would want to be free to ask that question. z�n��nr� ��L� Z 20 �--- l � - _ �� I�� • Comnissioner Vaught requested that the chair ask the applicant whether or not they object to reopening the public hearing at the next meeting. Marvin List, representing Universal, responded that Universal ha3 no objection to reopening the public hearing at the next meeting. Commissioner Gordon wished to clarify that in the interim period the committee requested that sta£f look at whether or not there existed any options or alternatives that would permit both signs to exist, and he also encouraged any persons who have interest and wish to submit any alternative to do that. Chair Field noted that implied in the motion is the request that Messrs. Hardwick and Ressler attend the May 1 meeting. Commissioner Vaught said that with respect to the committee's activity from this meeting to the next, he noted the City Council has a rule which gags them from talking about matters, looking at matters in a quasi-judicial sense, to see that such discussions become part of the public record, and he asked if this was pertinent to the Zoning Committee in this case as it was a quasi- judicial matter. Mr. Warner encouraged committee members to observe that as we11 because of the Zoning Committee acting in a quasi-judicial manner in this case. The motion carried on a voice vote of 5 to 0(Kramer, abstained). � Drafted by: Submitted by: Approved by: �o.�.►�e`_�P�-�A?r—__ , \"� 6�`-�C� Donna Sanders Kady Dadlez Litton Field Chairperson . • t � ZC)�Vi�� FtLE � � z� x • MINUTES OF THE ZONING CONC2ZTTEE CITY CO(NCIL CHAMBERS, SAIDiT PAJL, MIri.IESOTA ON MAY 1, 1997 PR^�: Mme. Faricy and Wencl; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Gurn=y, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. 4larner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Dadlez and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of th� Planning Division. AR�S�.NT Gordon, excused Time: �:20 - 5:40 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Field, Chairperson. LTNTVFRC�T Oi1TD00R THG • 2100 Gilb . Aven�-o Gov hside .as of Vandal'a: #97-Q�9 Ang .�.: Appeal the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny a permit for an advertising sign. The appeal by Universal Outdoor, Inc. at the April 17, 1997 meeting was laid over to this meeting, with the public hearing to be reopened. Wendy Lane, LIEP, reviewed that it was asked at the last meeting how the State � would regulate Midwest's sign if it were reduced in height to 37' and could only be viewed from the exit ramp of I-94. Ms. Lane has been informed by the State that if a sign can be viewed at all from I-94, even only from the exit ramp, that the sign would require a State permit, and all other signs to be read from that same freeway must be 500 feet away. Ms. Lane reported that Universal has identified a location 500 feet from the two existing advertising signs, however it would require a variance. Ms. Lane reviewed that the committee at its last hearing requested that both John Hardwick and Bob Kessler, LTEP attend this meeting. Mr. Hardwick was present and Mr. Kessler was unable to attend. Commissioner Faricy reviewed the timetable of events: Universal applied for their sign on February 10 and were notified by John Hardwick, LIEP on Februazy 18 to complete thzir application; Midwest submitted their application on Friday, February 21; and Universal completed their application on Monday, February 24. Commissioner Faricy asked that if two con£licting applications are received ae approximately the same time, how a decision is made by LIEP as to which application receives precedence. John Hardwick, LIEP, responded that as the responsible person for reviewing and issuing sign permits in LIEP for the past 15 years, that past practice has been to process a permit to a conclusion once it has been submitted. Any subsequent permits would be placed on hold until a final determination had been made on the £irst permit submitted. Hardwick said given his past practice, although not a written policy, he would have processed the Universal � Advertising permit to completion, either approval pr denial, before accepting another permit for a location that would conflict with Universal's location. , ��V � 9�� = Commissioner Faricy asked whether it was normal procedure to contact an . applicant to notify them of an incomplete application, as he did with Universal. Mr. Hardwick responded affirmatively, He reviewed that he m�t with a Universal representative on February 10 when they submitted their application, and at that time informed Universal of additional information needed, and then as a follow-uo by phone on February 18. Commissioner Chavez asked whether it was common for LIEP to have two companies submit applications for the same location and whether both ap�lications would typically be accepted. Mr. Hardwick responded that it is commonplace because the City is so built-up with advertising signs that when a location becomes available many sign companies wi11 compete and submit applications for the same location or a location close enough to prevent other sign companies from erecting signs. Commissioner Vaught asked Mr. Hardwick to review what was specifically dzficient with the Universal application. Mr. Hardwick reviewed four deficiencies: 1) A more exact site plan was needed; one that showed a location £or the proposed sign to an object that was measuzable by an inspector going out into the field; 2) Structural drawings were needed; Co a21ow the str�ctural engineer in � LIEP to review those drawings to ensure proper footings are in place; 3) A letter £rom the property owner at a location on Winifred Street where Universal proposed to be moving a sign in order to obtain sufficient nonconforming credits to erect the sign at the proposed location; and a) Fees were needed for both the proposed demolition at the other location and for the new sign at this location. Commissioner Vaught asked whe[her Mr. Hardwick on February 10, cited all four specific deficiencies with Universal. Mr. Hardwick couldn't recall the exact conversation, however said it was on February 10 that Universal representatives were made aware thaC their application was incomplete. Mr. Hardwick reviewed that he was specific outlining the four deficiencies in the February 18 telephone communicaCion. Commissioner Vaught reviewed the individual deficiencies of the application. 1) He asked if a more exact site plan wasn't a substantial item and could be easily remedied, with Mr. Hardwick in agreement. 2) Regarding structural drawings, Vaught reviewed that Universal claimed at the April 17 meeting that it is not unusual that at the time an application is submitted that structural plans are not submitted, and that Ms. Lane confirmed that there are times when plans that are of sufficient detail for the type of sign are already on £ile in LIEP because of a previous application, that structural plans may not be � required at a22. Mr. Hardwick responded that LIEP has in the past kept some z ZONi�+� FlL� � u� � �-; � f - � L 1 � C • structural drawings from the major advertising sign companies on file. However, LIEP's current structural engineer has expressed concern in that the draaings that are submitted and that have been kept on file are generic drawings, and it is the structural engineer's opinion that he did not wish to be in a position of determining what size footing is required for what size sign, a�d that is the applicant's responsibility. Mr. fiardwick noted that L3niversal was aware that they needed to submit structural drzwings when they submitted their application on February 10. hir. hardwick said triat every permit application that has been submitced within tnz last 5 years has been required to have structural drawings wich it. Commissioner Vaught asked whether the struccural plans submitted on February 24 by Universal were sufficient structural plans from Universal. Mr. Hardwick was not aware whether LIEP's structural engineer ever reviewed those plans, however they were stamped by a registered engine°r, and there was nothing to lead him to believe that the structural plans would not have been sufficient. 3) Commissioner Vaught referenced the letter from the Winifred Street property owner with respect to the sign credits, and asked whether it's a common occurrence that an application is submitted without it and then submitted within a reasonable period of time thereafter. Mr. Hardwick responded Chat it is common for an application to be submitted without the letter of waiver, and this matter was resolved on or befoze February 24. 4) Commissioner Vaught spoke to the fees. He reviewed testimony from Universal that it is not uncommon not to submit the fee when th= application . is submitted but to pay it when picking up the permit, and asked if thaC is a common practice. Mr. Hardwick agreed, and said that those fees were paid on or before February 24. Commissioner vaught summarized that with respect to all four of the issues addressed above the cited deficiencies were all remedied by submission from Universal by February 24. Commissioner Vaught said he saw two weeks compliance as a reasonably short period of Cime, and one that is an acceptable period of time in which to remedy noted defects in an application. Mr. Hardwick reviewzd that no writ[en policy exists, but agreed that two weeks is not an unreasonable amount of time and is typical for processing a sign application. Commissioner Vaught reviewed that Mr. Hardwick had testified that he normally followed an apolication through to the issuance of a permit or denial, before considering another permit apolication, but was not the case in this circumstance. Mr. Hardwick concurred that the procedure followed was not typical of the way that he has processed sign p2rmits in the past. He noted thzt he wasn't involved in the issuance of the permit for the site in question. PTendy Lane, LIEP, spoke. Ms. Lane clarified eaz'lier testimony by Mr. Hardwick that a fee was not paid by Universal on or bzfore February 2�, and pointed out that a fee is not paid until a permit is issued. Since no p°rmit was issued to Universal the fee was never paid as the cneck was never cashed. • Commissioner Vaught asked whether checks are submitted and held in advance 3 � zo[V�NG F�L� � i _ �, 6 until the permit is issued. Mr. Hardwick reviewed that some companies submit , a check with their application while others wait until they pick up the permit, and that either one is acceptable. Commissioner Vaught noted that the deficiency related to the fee doesn't constitute a deficiency as it followed the standard operating procedure. Ms. Lane agreed. Ms. Lane reviewed that the application for the Midwest sign was processed by Robert Kessler, the Director o£ LZEP, who chose to get involv:d with this case because of some past problems. Siace no written policies existed, it was his d>_cision to consider the application that was complete as having precedence ovzr the application that was incomplete. Ms. Lane agreed that was a departure from the past practice by Mr. Hardwick. She pointed out that LIEP is currently in the process of establishing written poZicies. Commissioner Chavez reviewzd testimony from thz April 17 meeting that an application was made by Midwest in November, 1996, and asked whether Mr. Hardwick was familiar, with Mr. Hardwick indicating that he was. Commissioner Chavez asked if that application process was handled in the typical way. Mr. Hardwick responded that he was not involvec3 in the issuance of that permit, and that Ms. Lane was. Commissioner Chavez asked if a permit was good for one year. Ms, Lane responded that once a permit is issued that construction needs to begin within 6 months. Chavez asked Ms. Lane if the November Midwest application was • handled in the typical fashion. Ms. Lane agreed that it was. Commissioner Vaught referenced three letters in Mr. Kessler's signature: 1) an original letter to Universal indicating that the first complete application was processed; 2) a letter to Midwest to build at their own risk; and 3) a letter of LIEP's conclusion that the Midwest sign as constructed does not conform to the code with respect to the height requirements and the conclusion that the affected roadway was in fact Highway 94, not the exit ramp from I-94 to Vandalia. Ms. Lane in response to an inquizy, said that she drafted all of the letters at the request of Mr. Kessler. With this review complete, reference was made back to Ms. Lane's initial remarks regarding the location identified by Universal that would be 500 feet from the two existing advertising signs which would meet the state requirements, however would require a variance from the City. Commissioner Vaught asked whether the committee would have th= ability to vary the City requirements, with Ms. Lane responding affirmatively, how=ver a separate application would be required. Marvin List, Attorney for Universal Outdoor Inc., the appellar.t, spoke. Mr. List distributed copies of a survey Universal conducted since the previous meeting which showed the Midwest sign that was recently constructed, He described that 519 feet to the east of that is the existing building and Universal's proposed sign location, and another 504 feet to the east of the proposed sign is the existing Adams outdoor sign. Mr. List reiterated that • Universal could locate a sign more than 500 feet away from the two existing , 4 I Z�N1�lG FILE �2zn � ��: ��-lu�'� . signs which would comply with the State la.r requiring S00 feet spacing requirement, bur Universal's proposed sign location would not comply with City spacing. Mr. List indicated that Universal would like to resolve their a�oeal by requescing and being granted a permit to construc� the propos=3 sign indicated on th= survey, which would require a variance under the City cod°. He said triat neither Universal nor Midwest are oppose3 to the other cor.�pany located nearby. This solution would require two variances: 1) a spaci:�g variance; and 2) a height variance. Zf constructed at the 37 foot requirem=:�t the sign would not be visible, hencz the 20 foot variance. Mr. List presented some conceptual photos of the proposed sign. Chair Field review=d that the matter under consideration by thz committee was an appeal of the zoning administrator's decision, and said that what was presenced by Mr. List appeared to be a counter proposal. The Chair asked legal counsel for direction. Mr. Warner suggested that the committee could proceed by temporarily suspending the appeal to see if the plaz proposed by Mr. List could accommodate the needs of all concerned. Mr. Warner reviewed that Ms. Lane had indicated that Univzrsal can meet the State's separation requirements, however will require a variance from the City. Mr. Warner advised that Universal might temporarily suspend their appeal; file an application for a variance and await the outcome of the varia:�ce. If the variance is granted and Universal gets their sign, it would mace the issue of the appeal moot. He anticipated that Universal may wish to przserve their right to come back i£ the variance were not granted. � Mr. List agreed with Mr. Warner's overview, and agreed that while Universal proceeded with a variance request that they wouldn't want to waive rights regarding the appeal at this time. As the committee was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity in this matter, Commissioner Vaught asked Mr. Warner to confirm that the committee was not bound by the State law as it relates to processing zoning cases within the 60 day period. Mr. Warner confirmed that. Vaught reviewed that with the concurrence of the appellant that the committee could table or suspend immediate consideration of the appeal to allow the process outlined. Jean Weigum, 1647 Laurel Avenue, spoke in ooposition. Ms. Weigum addressed concern over the apparent interest in making two business representatives happy, and asked what about those persons who live in the area who aren't happy. She reviewed that the district council meC and discuss�d billboards and passed a resolution proposing a moratorium on all new billboard construction and the gradual removal o£ all of the billboards in the eity. Ms. Weigum said the neighborhood doesn't want any more billboards, that they are unattractive, and detract from the gateway to the city. She said there are reasons for having distances between signs, and asked the committee to say no to the billboards. Commissioner Vaught respond=d that not allowing a sign would be unlawful. The best scenario he could see from Ms. Weigum's perspective would be that only • one sign be constructed. 5 ZON�N� ��LE ' � � � ,� Ms. 4Jeigum reviewed that she understood that th= MidNest sig:� was constructed illegally and is too high, and the committee ne=d not grant a variance, and said if the sign cannot be read, it would not be built. Peter Remes, Midwest Outdoor Advertising, 1103 Homer Street, spoke briefly regarding sign credits, the result being that in his opinion m.o:e billboards are coming down then going up. There was no rebuttle from the appellant. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught moved that further consideration of the appeal by Universal be temporarily suspended pending submittal by Universal of a variance request, and the final determination of the variance request by the planning commission. It was acknowledged that Midwest may also plan to submit a variance request during this time. Commissioner Wencl seconded the motion. Commissioner Kramer indicated a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from the vote. Ms. Lane reviewed that LIEP does not receive a lot of applications for new signs, but aren't seeing a lot of signs coming down either, however said she felt more signs are coming down than going up, The motion carried on a voice vote of 5 to 0(Gurney and Kramer absta3ned) Chair Field asked that the height of billboards be looked at in future minor zoning text amendments, and how they relate to the grade of the road as ooposed to the height of the sign itself. Drafted by: 1 )�-"w°----�w.zttt,6--�-� .�� Donna Sanders �� ittqd by:�� p' � y \ v` � �tN Kady Dadlez 6 �Z % �� . , • � r 1 L_J MINUTES OF THE 20DIING CONMITTEE CITY COLNCIL CHAMBERS, SAINT PAUL, MZPINESOTA ON JULY 31, 1997 �(�t - i �t`� � PRESrNT: Mmes. Faricy and Wenc1; M2ssrs. Chavez, Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attor.ney; Mm=_s. Homans and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Zoning Office staff of PED. �S��;T Gordon, excused Gurney Time: 4:52 - 5:28 p.m. The meeting was chaired by.Litton Field, Chairperson. The committee unanimously voted Co hear Midwest Outdoor Advertising, #97-169 and Universal Outdoor, I$c., #97-170, together. For the purpose of _ __ recordkeeping individual minutes were prepared separately. =- �DWFST Oi7TDOOR ADV RTI N.• nor hPast corner of 2-94 and Vandalia: �7-169• Sign variance. Two variances to allow an existing advertising sign to be moved. 1) A 30.5' sign height variance requested. A sign height of 68' requested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed. 2) An advertising sign separation variance of 157.12' requested. A separation between advertising signs of 509.88' requested and a minimum of 667' allowed. Nancy Homans, Zoning Office of PED, Northwest Quadrant, reviewed the staf£ report and presented slides. Staff recommended denial of the application for a variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs, based on finding 6.b of the staff report. The Merriam Park Community Council, the District 12 St. Anthony Park Community Council, and University ONITED voted to oppose the sign variances. One letter was received in opposition. Commissioner Kramer disclosed a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from the vote as well as from any discussion. Commissioner Vaught asked if the City wzre to approve the requested variances whether the State would issue a sign permit. Nancy Homans deferred the response to the applicant. Roger Ryan, Zoning Office staff, noted that the minor zoning text amendment amending trie sign ordinance to reauire applicants to obtain a State permit for an advertising sign be£ore they can apply for a City permit for an advertising sign, has not yet been enacted. Peter Remes, 1103 Homer Street, the applicant, was available to respond to questions. Mr. Remes reported that he had already reczived a sign permit from the Sta�e. No one spoke in support. � � 1 FlL� �-- ! Z��' Brian Bates, 1985 Grand Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Bates commented that • notfiing is unique about the Midwest Sign exceot that Midwest built their sign when the City told them not to. He disagreed with the staff report that findings 6 a, c and e were met, and asked that the committee revise the findings accordingly and deny the requested variances. He directed the committee's attention to a letter in opposition from an adjacent property owner and the call received by staff from a second owner. He suggested that ehose contacts constitute objections by adjacent property owners and should lead to a finding that condition 6e is not met. Peter Remes, the applicant, responded that he had a valid City permit when he installed the Midwest sign. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught reviewed that prior to the installation of the Midwest sign that LIEP had cautioned Midwest of circumstances pending and that if they were to install their sign that it would be at their own risk. Mr. Reme� agreed that was correct:... " Commissioner Vaught made a motion encompassing both the Midwest and Universal requests together. The motion below reflects the Dtidwest Outdoor Advertising action. Commissioner Vaught moved approval of the application for a variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs, Commissioner Wencl seconded the motion. � Commissioner Vaught said he disagreed with staff finding "6b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code." and felt that on balance that test to be met, and within the general intent of the sign code. He said he saw the removal of the nonconforming signs to be positive, with two signs replacing 17 nonconforming signs. The unique topography of the site further justifies the requested variances, He further stated that he did not see a material difference between the Midwest and Universal signs and the neighboring Adams sign. Vaught furth=r concluded that this problem was created by the Division of LIEP, and that approving the requested variances is the most equitable solution. He added that he did find Midwest at fault for installing their sign despite the words of caution £rom LIEP. Commissioner Chavez said he supported the motion with some difficulty, and specifically found the argument of height from the ground to be somewhat disingenuous, as did Commissioner Field, who added that he fouad the freeway corridor to be a more appropriate place for advertising signs than some of the other locations where nonconforming signs were removed. 2 Z�{�1R1� �i'�� -_ ��-Iy'?2 • The motion for approval carried with a unanimous voice vote of 5 to 0(Kramer abstained)_ (*7,_�n�=: Due to technicaZ difficulties there is no audio recording of the meeting, and is the reason for the brief minutes.) . Drafted by: Submitted by: Aporoved by: ,,'/ �� v,�.y„_ S� ��Cl�n� �dD�'r'.�a�Je� � � Donna Sanders Nancy Homans : iel� Recording Secretary Northwest puadrant Chairperson� � � � L��trd\d � �54. (� t 3 • � U MINUTES OF THE ZONIhG CONIMITTEE CITY COU`NCIL CHI�NBERS, SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA ON JULY 31, 1997 pRESENT: Mmes. Faricy and Wenc1; Messrs. Chavez, Field, Kramer and Vaught of the Zoning Committee; Mr. Warner, Assistant City Attorney; Mmes. Homans and Sanders and Mr. Ryan of the Zoning Office staif of PED. P3SENT: Gordon, excused Gurney Time: 4:52 - 5:28 p.m. The meeting was chaired by Litton Fie1d, Chairperson. The committee unanimousl� voted to hear Midwest Outdoor Advertising, and Universal OuCdoor, Sne., #97-170, together. For the purpose of recordkeeping individual minutes were prepared separately. #97�169 TiNNERSAL OLTTDOOR. INC.: 2100 C,ilbert AvPrn�e• southside east of Vanda��a• #9�-170: Sign Va_ria�. Two variances to allow an advertising sign. 1) A 20' sign height variance requested. A sign height of 57.5' reguested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed. 2) Two advertising sign separation variances of 157.12' and 157` requested. A separation between advertising signs of 509.88' and 510' requested and a minimum of .667' allowed. Nancy Homans, Zoning Office of PED, Northwest Quadrant, reviewed the staf£ report and presented slides. Staff recommended denial of the application for a variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs, based on finding 6.b of the staff report. The Merriam Park Community Council, the District 12 St. Anthony Park Community Council, and University UNITED voted to oppose the sign variances. One letter was received in opposition. Commissioner Kramer disclosed a conflict of interest and said he would abstain from the vote as w°11 as from any discussion. Commissioner Vaught asked if the City were to approve the requested variances whether the State wou2d issue a sign permit. Nancy Homans de£erred the response to the applicant. Roger Ryan, Zoning Office staff, noted that trie minor zoning text amendment amending the sign ordinance to require applicants to obtain a State permit for an advertising sign before they can apply for a City permit for an advertising sign, has not yet been enacted. Michael Cronin, representing Universal Outdoor, Inc., said that he appreciated th= staff findings and intent o£ ordinance, but understood that the Zoning Committez had asked thz two companies Co find a way to fit botn signs. He directed the committee to page 7 of the staff report (the applicant's attachment to their application) where the unique conditions of the site are discussed. The topography of the area and the placement of the neighboring building that blocks the "right hand read" of the sign require that the sign ZOtV1�G FILE � Zw be higher than a2lowed by the ordinance. He further suggested that the S committee distinguish between replacement signs that replace a single existing sign and those that replace multiple smaller signs. In this case, where the proposed sign wi11 replace multiple signs, he suggested that the replacement sign does meet the intent o£ the zoning ordinance. Mr. Cronin asked the committee to approve the sign variance, or for approval of their previous appeal. Mr. Cronin responded to Commissioner Vaught's question above, that no, Universal has not yet received a State permit. No one spoke in support, Brian Bates, 1985 Grand Avenue, spoke in opposition. Mr. Bates disagreed with the staff report that findings 6 a, c and e were met, and asked that the committee revise the findings accordingly and dzny trie requested variances. He directed the committee's attention to a letter in opposition from an adjacent property owner �nd the call received by staff from a second owncr. He suggested that those`contacts constitute objections by adjacent property owners and should lead to a finding that condition 6e is not met. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vaught made a motion encompassing both the Midwest and Universal requests together. The motion below reflects the Universal Outdoor, Inc. action. Commissioner Vaught moved approval o£ the application for a varxance of the �� height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advertising signs. Commissioner Wencl seconded the motiqn. ' Commissioner Vaught said he disagreed with staff finding "6b. The sign is not contrary to the generaZ intenC of the sign chapter of the zoning code.° and felt that on balance that test to be met, and within the general intent of the sign code, He said he saw Che removal of the nonconforming signs to be positive, with two signs replacing 17 nonconforming signs. The unique topography of the site further justifies the reguested variances. He further stated that he did not see a material difference between the Midwest and Universal signs and the neighboring Adams sign. vaught further concluded that this problem was created by the Division of LTSe, and that approving the requested variances is the most equitable solution. He added that he did find Midwest at fault for installing their sign despite the words of caution from LIEP. Commissioner Chavez said he support the motion with some difficulty, and specifically found the argument of height from the ground to be somewhat disingenuous, as did Commissioner Field, who added that he found the freeway corridor to be a more appropriate place for advertising signs than some oE the other locations where nonconforming signs were removed. '�oNJJ�� -�_ Z ��'� �1 _ ��1��7 � The motion £or approval carried with a unanimous voice vote of 5 to 0(Kramer abstained). (NotP: Due to technica2 difficulties there is no audio recording of the meeting, and is the reason for the brief minutes.J Drafted by: Submitted by: Approve�: / ;. ��«--5..�.�-- �/(Q-r,�9�� . Donna Sanders Nancy omans itton Fi Recording Secretary Northeast Quadrant Chairperson � • 2�� A _ �E ��. ,_ _, 3 �,�� • Midwest Outdoor Advertising Appiication for Variances Zoning Committee Staff Report � � • i • APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPEC710NS, A��D ENVlRON,tfENTAL PROTECTION - ' 3�0 S1. Peter Street, Suite 300 Saint Paul, N1N.i5102-1 2h6-90/)8 ' ZO��t� �1LE �_?1� APPLICANT PROPERTY Name blidwest Outdoor Advertisinq Company Address 110"� HomPr StrePt City St. Paul StateMN Zip 55116 DaytimePhone 690-5444 Properry interest of appticant (owner, contract purchaser, etc ) Les see Nameofowner(ifdifferentJ Soo Line Railroad Address/Location I-94 @ Vandalia Street Legaldescription Unavailable (attach additianal sheet ifnecessary) �,' Lotsize Railroad R/W Present Zoning IND PresentUse Railroad ProposedUse TN�+u"fllSifl�i S��4n Zoning otfice use dnTy � �p� � Fite aum6er. ' � i� Fee: � '2�5,bT3 Tentative fiearing date: � 34 `� Seetion{s): b /o• 2 ( �- �t�� : 3a2 C+��C3� Ci€yagent �•�- 1. Variance(s)requested. To allow existing advertising sign to be moved approxi- mately 50' to the west of existing location and to be built at 68' overall height��-� -(y,� �2c.� oF -�,.F 5��6*'�. `�e, w�ax�rvwvr 1�-�� V�k#"ad 'ts 37.5' -C'or-a vaalawe,�. �4�uest �.S' -� Vps� n ��SC�I� �' .nesrted �o,�, -I'� Ye� .u`r�l 5e� o�h �m d� �ro �I 2. Wh�hysical characteristics of the propErty prevent its �eing used for any of the permitte use in your zone. (topography, size and shape of lot, soi4 conditions, eta) The property slopes downward from the roadway. �5i�"� � F-e-S�• �� \m� �c�d.�o3�`a», ltis�v� vlov�coK{dv�w�.n9 S� �Jtv�'� is �7'� - t� QroQoud �e�v.m.�,`o,-� � 509.88' -�r a Joxio.nce �PSre� i57 .lZ�. 3. Explain how the strict appiication of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance would result in peculiar or eptional practicaldifficui5eso�exceptionalunduehardships. The OTdindnce dllOws for Sign to be 372 from roadway or grade, whichever is higher. To build the sign at 37'- from the adjacent freeway surface would result in limited visibility of the advertising sign. —`-��;� �3 ��,�c� '�j � m p�j'(i y Q 'kp �K�-� WC�S'�' -� [Z -i-LSL,� CASHIERSUSE�tJLY � Yo poud i,Cnv� a� s�� - to -i*�e �si� . 4. Explain how the granting of a variance will not be a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose �$�.I.�jl��]pQ�:_i j�IL�� _�_R'i _' oftheZoningOrdinance. This is recommended compromise 4^ev i�n.a�� ._� suggested at Zoning Commission to facilitate 3��;".� a?�5.�: continued sites by Universal Sign and Mid�aest iF:_;v; i�;I ¢?2�•C� Outdoor . �fib+G� � _=� additional sheets if ApplicanFs si �� Date � �a % � ZONZNG_COMQITTEE REPORT —_�--__ FZLE # 97-169 1. APPLZCANT: MIDWEST OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DATE OF FiEARING: 07/31/97 2. CLA33ZFICATZOtt_ Sign Variance 3. LOCATION: XXX VANDALIA STREET (northeasterly corner of Z-94 and Vandalia) 4. PLANNING D23TRZCT: 12 5. LEGAL DESCRZPTION: see file 6. PRE3ENT ZONING: 2-1 ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §66.409��66.302(b) 7. 3TAFF ZNVE3TIGATION P.ND REPORT: DATE: 7/24/97 BY: Nancy Homans 8. DATE RECEIVED: 06/30/97 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 08/29/9'7 A. PURP03E: Two variances to allow an existing advertising sign to be relocated: 1) a 30.5' sign height variance requested (a sign height of 68' is requested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed); 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12' requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88' is requested and a minimum of 667' is allowed). • B. PARCEL 3ZZE: Railroad right of way C. EXI3TING LAND VSE: Railroad right of way D. SURROUNDING LAND VSE: North: Industrial (I-2) East: Industrial (I-1) South: Freeway/Residential (R-3) West: Industrial (I-1) E. ZONZNG CODE CITATION: Section 66.409 of the zoning code states, "The planninq commission shall have the autriority to grant variances from the strict applications of Chis chapter for unique signs or unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot, provided such signs would not be contrary to the general intent of this chaptei', would not create a hazard, would not violate Minnesota State Statutes or rules and regulations developed pursuant thereto, would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners, would not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting and provided that the signs would be in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. The commission may not grant a variance that would permit the sign within a zoni.ng district which is not otherwise permitted in that zoning district under the provisions of this chapter." F. HISTORY/DZSCUSSION: 1. A 1997 appeal by Universal Outdoor, Inc. of the Office o£ License, � Tnspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) decision to gzant a permit to Midwest Outdoor Advertising to locate a sign in this vicinity while an applicatioh by Universal Outdoo=, Inc. was undei consideration. (97-049) zo��n�� l�.� ' I #R�—t�n9 �� z 2. A 1996 case involved a tequest by Faitway Outdoor Advertising for a • height variance to allow an existing 50 feet high advertising sign--that ieplaced a previous 50 foot high sign--to remain. The application was withdrawn when it was discovered that the sign was located on public right-of-way. The Fairway sign was located between the currently proposed locations of the Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal outdoot signs. (96-111� G. DZSTRZCT COUNCIL RECOM[�NDATION: 1. The Meriiam Park Community Council has submitted a resolution opposing the proposed variance. 2. A recommendation had not been received from the Disttict 12 Community Cour.cil at the time this staff report was piepared. H. FINDING3: 1. The applicant pxoposes to move an existing outdoor advertising sign approximately 50 feet to the west and construct it at a height of 68 feet above grade. Two variances--of maximum height and of distance between signs--are requested. The Zoning Code requires that outdoor ac3vertising signs intended to be seen from a freeway be 1,000 feet apart unless they have the benefit of sign credits which reduce the required distance by one third. Zn this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 1039.82 feet west of an existing Adams Company sign and 803 feet east of an existing 3M Company sign. In addition, the proposed site is 509.88 feet west of a sign proposed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The Zoning Code al.so requires that the tops of outdoor advertising signs ' be no higher than 37.5 feet from the giade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway Yrom which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher. The applicant pioposes a sign that would be 68 feet from grade, The grade at which the sign is proposed to be constructed is highet than the I-94 ioadway bed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discovered that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who recognized that there was now xoom, given state and city spacing requirements, for no moie than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of piivately owned land on which a sign conforming to the height tequirements of the Zoning Code can be seen from I-94. Much of the land in the vicinity is publicly owned and associated with the I-94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right-of-way north of the freeway is, for the most part, a trench so that trains can pass undet the Vandalia Street bridge. It is on this railroad Zand that Midwest Outdoor Advertising proposes to construct its sign. 3. Midwest Outdoor Advertising filed an applzcation for an outdoor advertising sign on Friday, February 21, 1997. The sign was to be located in the railroad right-of-way just east oE Vandalia Street and north of the westbound I-94 off-ramp, 50 feet east from where the sign is presently proposed. The application stated that the sign would be . installed at 37 feet above grade. ZOiV1�C �1L �'�� . -i�R � - l�aq � �C"i�jc 3 - - � The applicant constructed the sign at its current location and at its . current height (58 feet above grade) sometime after being issued a � permit by the Saint Paul Office oE License, Znspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) on February 25, 1997. (The application stated that it was estimated that the sign would be constructed between March 15 and March 30, 1997.) On March 7, 1997, the applicant was notified of an appeal filed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. The letter from Robert Kessler to Midwest Outdoor Advertising notifying them of the appeal £iled by Universal Outdoor, Inc. stated: "If you choose to proceed and Universal's appeal is appioved by the Planning Commission, it would be your responsibility to remove the sign at your expense." On April 17, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission met to considei the appeal o£ the LIEP decision by Universal Outdooz, Inc. The matter was laid over until the May 1, 1997 committee meeting. On April 28, 1997, a letter was sent to Midwest Outdoor Advertising by Robeit Kessler notifying them that their sign was constructed in violation of their permit inasmuch as it was 58 feet from the base to the top of the sign--not 37.5 feet as required. The company was further notified that continued use of the sign would require a variance from the Planning Commission. (The applicant has maintained that the construction of their sign was consistent with their undezstanding that sign height was to be measured from the top of Che I-94 exit ramp rather than the roadbed. The fact--and longstanding practice--that the measurement is to be taken from the main roadbed was clarified by a Minoz' Zoning Amendment adopted by the Planning Commission on July 11, � 1997.) On May 1, 1997, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission devoted a significant amount of time td a consideration of the issues associated with which of two sign companies should be permitted to construct a sign within an area where the Zoning Code would a11ow only one. Because of different procedures followed by different sta£f inembers in the OPfice of Licenses Inspections and Environmental Protection, both applicants asserted that they should have been considered "first," and, therefore, been approved. Before reaching a conclusion on the merits of the Universal Outdoor, Inc. appeal, the Zoning Committee was asked by a representative of Universal Outdoor, Inc. if a resolution oE the appeal might involve pezmitting both signs provided that they could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance o£ the code's separation requirement by the Planning Commission. Universal Outdoor, Inc. elected to suspend its appeal and file an application fot such a variance. 4. The two companies, after the May 1, 1997 Zoning Committee meeting, crafted a proposal that would involve moving hoth siqns fXOm their originally proposed locations in order that they both would meet the State of Minnesota's 500 £eet separation requirement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. . ��I �{' F�� 9� z z #� 9� - l t��1 �tri�. 4 5. The proposed sign rep2aces non-conforming signs removed by Midwest • Outdoor Advertising elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66.302(b) of the Zoning Code. That section provides, in part, that: (1). The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advettising signs are a permitted use; (2}. The advertising sign must be brouqht into conformance with the size and height requixements as set foxth in Section 66.214(b); and (3). The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two- thirds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: {6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requi=ements of section 66.214(b) and the spacing tequirements from residential distticts, patks, parkways and schoo2s in section 66.214(k), but nee@ comply with only two-thirds of the spacing distance reguirements in section 66.214(b). 6. The ability of the applicant's request £or a sign variance to con£orm to the provisions o£ 66.409 of the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This condition is met. The sign is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14x48 foot v-style outdoor advertising sign. The unusual conditions related to the site that have led to this application include: (1) Topography. The site selected by the applicant and leased from the railroad is depressed to allow for the passage of trains undet the Vandalia Street bridge. A sign constructed within the 37.5 feet height limit outlined in the Zoning Code would not be clearly visible from I-94. {2) Separation from the proposed Universal Outdoor, Inc. sign. To resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the Zoning Code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessary variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is not met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 0£ the Zoning Code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desixe to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. • Z��vtt�� r�.E ��; I � �t�-t�q �aq� 5 �'�'�� That balance is st=uck in the specific p=ovisions of the code. • Particularly salient in this instance are those provisions related to the replacement of nonconfoiming signs. (See Finding #5 above) The code, for instance, allows those signs that replace nonconforming signs to locate closer to othex signs than would otherwise be permitted. Signs that replace non-conforming signs are allowed to be 667 feet from other signs. Without nonconforming sign credits, the required separation would be 1,000 feet. This applicant not only proposes to take advantage of the incentive provided in the code, but asks for a variance to further reduce the required separation. The code also, however, in a number of instances underscores the intent that the new signs--those that replace the nonconforming signs--adhere to the size and height requirements of the code. The intent of the code is to move toward overall conformance with the provisions of the sign ordinance. Granting this request for two variances would move the city away from the balance intended in the code. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Department of Transportation issues permits for all signs along the interstate to ensure conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restrictions although their permits state that all signs must comply with the requirements of the local jurisdiction. C� Minnesota 5tatutes require that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d. The sign will not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 60C feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the residences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. e. The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance, most adjacent property owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals. ` � 2. 3TAFE' RECOD4 Based on finding 6.b. above, staff recommends denial of the application for a variance of the height and separation =equisements associated with outdoor advertising signs. ZQ�lIi�G F��E 9��-O� �� 1��' � Universal Outdoor, inc. Apptication for Variances Zoning Committee Staff Report � � Mf.Y-02-1997 09�Z2 FR�M CITY OF ST PAUL LIEP TO AAPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE � OPFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS, AND . ENYIRON�YfENTAL PROTECTION � � ' ` � 3S0 St. Peter Street, Suite 300 ca` SaintPaul,MNS.i102- ± � 266-90U8 � � 3�'`��/� APPLICANT \ I PROPERTY Address 3_ �5 � R� � S'�2eE� NE Ciiy__ �AAttt�ol+3` Statef�Zip DaytimePhone 8�.9^/400 Ptoperty interest of appiicant (owner, contract purchaser, etc.) ��A3E Name of owner (if different) C.7 � PRo�,t�i�_S' �j � a � �.i ,, � ,, S '�'e}� es'�e� . 3. Expiain how the strict appiication ot the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance wou�d result n peculFdr or exceptionai practical diKculties or exceptional undue hardships. Present ZoninqT" � Present lSse Mt(e�tw��S see a�F�a�t,act CASHIERS USE ONLY Address/Location 0�� Gi�btA� �1Ve�c%>C. Legaldescription (attach additiona! sheet if necessary) Lot size Proposed Use 1. Variance(s)requested: �p��-�� ,�., - ('(n� t'e�uVe� `'--e��' ��'�' Q `� JQ '� { ' s �' r � Si� a� -�- �l.w�e ��di Uf-- T-�{4, uSUa� V�crnCav� 5�� GV'e4-�'iC� �b7� S��ra�i�» r�� . Y�ct, � � fraw, -t'�- �a�oscd J✓l�ctux's'1 3,�,-, ta -rre u.scs�i c�.�-d'slo' a-,apas� ��„-. -t�,.a !-��+rs s: - 6,-r� a�s� �Q 1^0;� y'�"�"� . � .. � 2. What physical characteristics of the property prevent its being used for any oYthe permitted uses in your zone7 V (topography, size and shape of lot, soil conditions, etc.) ��•� �J �SO Y' �. (�0.�� /vK[� See u.t�kct,ec( 1�`e,`�„a ��A {� �&� '�s 371'a , 4. Explain how the granting of a variance wiil not be a substantiat detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. See ��{�,.�I,cd • additional sheete if Applicant's 98697082 P.002 ..,. .,....:: .c;i:�:-,a�e;;_r.:.�.. Jbi25f47c•oo�t31��v6�i; i'•_ERu 1 � ): �� : ^,t`c �n 4"c'•0 �-anI.�:;Cc �� ,;.yu S+JFTT= �t�25, 00 �H�=."r: T iI: �t�2i.OL Ci-iA�iC�= s,Gt� Date S-S- �7 ATTACHMENT TO THE APPLICATION OF UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR, INC., A7 2100 GILBERT AVENUE FOR VARIANCES REDUCING THE REQUIRED SPACING BEfWEEN BILLBOARDS AND tNCREASIIJG 7HE MAXIMl1M HEIGH7 OF THE PROF'OSED BlLLBOARD FROM 371/2 F7'. TO 571/2 FT The requested variances are the minimum and ma�dmum necessary to permit constructiort of a bitlboard at a new site at 2100 Gilbert that was chosen in response to the discussi�n of the Zoning Committee of the City Planning Commission at ihefr meetings ot April 17 and May 1, 1997. Please refer to the record and minutes of those meetings for the background on the unusual conditions pertaining to the proposed sign on this specific lot. 1. The genera{ intent of the sign code is to permit biliboard type signs in industrially zoned areas along I 94. Because of the relationships of the existing sign in the area, the topography, the Vandalia bridge over 194, and the vegetation, the need to strictly enforce the minimum spacing of 667 ft. is mftigated. The requested 57 1/2 ft height is the minimum height necessary to locate a biilbaard intended to read form I 94 on the the lot and meet the other conditions imposeci by State statute and the discussion of the 2oning Committee. 2. A billboard in this isolated location and this height will not create a hazard for the public on locai streets or I 94. 3. The biilboard as proposed will be in compliance with Minnesota Statutes and rules providing regulation of Outdoor Advertising. 4. 7he character and uses of the adjacent sites are typica! of those where bil(boards are compatibly sited. 5. No residential property is located to be affected by glare of lighting from this biilboard. � • 6. Biliboards are in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. MBys,,�� zoN�� E ��- �o�\ \� � �� ZZ • 5. LEGAL DESCRZPTION: see file ZONZNG COM4ITTEE STAFF REPORT • s===—=�_--___—_--- _s FILE # 97-170 1. APPLXCANT: UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR� INC. DAR'E OF HEARING: 07/31/97 2. CLASSSFICATION: Siqn Variance 3. LOCATION: 2100 GILBERT AVENUE 4. PLANNING DI3TRICT: 12 6. PRE3ENT ZONI2IG: I-1 r 1 LJ 7. 3TAFF INVE3TIGATION AND REPORT DATE: 7/24/97 � ��,�a�� 66.409, �66.302(b) BY: Nancy Homans 8. DATE RECEIVED: 06/30/97 DEADLINE POR ACTION: 08/29/97 A. PuRPOSE: Three variances to allow an advertising sign: 1) a 20' sign height variance requested (a sign height of 57.5' requested and a maximum height of 37.5' allowed); and 2) an advertising sign separation variance of 157.12' requested (a separation between advertising signs of 509.88' from a proposed sign to the west and a minimum of 66"J' allowed); and 3) an advettising siqn separation variance of 157' requested (a separation between advertising signs of 510' from a sign to the east requested and a minimum of 667' allowed). B. PARCEL SZZE: 72,865 square feet C. EXI3TING LANp USE: Tndustrial D. SURROUNDING LAND VSE: North: Industtial (I-2j East: Zndustrial (I-1) South: Freeway/Residential (R-3) West: Industsial {I-2) E. ZONING CODE CITATION: Section 66.409 of the zoning code states, "the planning commission shall have the authority to grant variances fxom the strict applications of this chapter for unique signs or unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs for a specific building or lot, provided such signs would not be contrary to the general intent of this chapter, would not create a hazard, would not violate Minnesota State Statutes or rules and regulations developed pursuant thereto, would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners, would not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting and provided that the signs would be in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. The commission may not grant a variance that would permit the sign within a zoning district which is not otherwise permitted in that zoning district under the provisions of this chapter." F. HISTORY/DIBCU3SION: . 1. A 1997 appeal by Universal Outdoor, Inc. of the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LZEP) decision to qrant a pezmit to Midwest Outdoor Advertising to locate a sign in this vicinity ZONING CODE REFERENCE Z�NINt� FILE 9�•2zo� ��'il - l��% . �ct° � Z ' while an application by Universal Outdoor, Inc. was under consideration. (97-049) • 2. A 1996 case involved a request by Faizway Outdoor Advettising for a height variance to allow an existing 50 foot high advertising sign--that replaced a previous 50 foot high sign--to remain. The application was withdrawn when it was discovered that the sign was located on public right of way. The Fairway sign was located between the currently proposed locations of the Midwest Outdoor Advertising and Universal Outdoor signs. (96-111) G. DI3TRICT COVNCIL RECOh44,NDAT20N: 1. The Mexriam Park Community Council has submitted a resolution opposing the ptoposed variance. 2. A tecommendation had not been received from the District 12 Community Council at the time this staff repo.et was prepared. A.�FINDZNG3: 1. The applicant proposes to construct an outdoot advertising sign on private pioperty located at 2100 Gilbert adjacent to the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp from I-94. Three variances--of maximum height and two of distance between signs--are requested. The Zoning Code requires that outdoor advertising signs be 1000 feet apaxt unless they have the benefit of sign credits that zeduce the required distance by one third. Zn this case, sign credits are available reducing the required distance between signs to 667 feet. The proposed location is 510 feet west of an existing Adams Company sign, thus requiring a variance of 157 feet. It is also 509.88 feet from a proposed Midwest Outdoor Advertising sign, tequiring a variance of � 157.12 feet. The Zoning Code also tequiies that the tops of outdoor advertising signs be no higher than 37.5 feet from the grade at which the sign is constructed or the roadway from which it is intended to be seen, whichever is higher, The applicant proposes a sign that would extend 57.5 feet from the grade, 20 feet higher than allowed in the code. The grade on which the sign is proposed to be constructed is highet than the i-94 roadbed. 2. In 1996, a Fairway Company sign located on the north side of the westbound Vandalia Street off-ramp was removed after it was discoveied that it had been constructed in the public right of way. This portion of the I-94 frontage became attractive to a number of sign companies who iecognized that there was now room, given state and city spacing requirements, for no more than one new sign in the area. There is a limited amount of privately owned land on which a sign confoiming to the height iequirements of the Zoning Code can be seen ftom I-94. Much of the land is publicly owned and associated with the I- 94 and Vandalia Street rights-of-way. The railroad right of way north of the freeway is, foi the most part, a tiench so that trains can pass under the Vandalia Street bridge. In between the railroad and I-94 rights-o£-way is a narrow strip of land that is privately owned and on which the Universal Outdooi, Inc. sign is proposed to be constructed. 3. The applicant first applied for a permit to establish a sign on this site, but apptoximately 160 feet west of this location, on February 10, . 1997. It was to be a single sided sign facing east and constructed at 37.5 feet above grade. ZOlVI�G FILE •ZZO k �y+ �qc 3 a�'�`�� On March 3, 1997, the applicant was notified that theit application was • being rejected because of a permit issued to Midwest Outdoor Advertising on Feb=uary 25, 1997 to allow them to consttuct a sign east of Vandalia and about 300 feet from where Universal was proposing to establish their siqn. On March 5, 1997, the applicant appealed the decision of the Director of the Office of Licenses, Inspection and Environmental Protection, contending that their application was filed before that oE Midwest Outdoor Advertising and, therefore, should have been granted. The appeal was heard by the Zoning Committee on April 17, 1997 and on May 1, 1997. At the conclusion of the May 1 meeting, the applicant proposed that a resolution of the appeal might involve permitting both signs provided that they could be located in such a way that both could meet the 500 foot separation required by State law. On the advice of Counsel, the Zoning Committee chair responded that such an outcome could be achieved only by the appellant making application and being granted a variance of the Code's separation requirement by the Planning Conanission. The applicant agreed to suspend the appeal pending the outcome of such an application process. 4. The two sign companies subsequently crafted a pzoposal that involved moving both signs from their originally proposed locations in order that they would both meet the State of Minnesota's 500 foot separation requi=ement though neither would meet the City's 667 foot separation requirement. The new proposed site has led to a request for a height vatiance in • addition to the separation variance. In the original location, the dimensions of the available land would allow the construction of only a one-sided east-facing sign. Moving to the east would allow for a v- sign, but, in ordei to be seen from both directions, the applicant states that the sign would have to be elevated. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 20 foot height variance to allow the sign to extend up 57.5 feet. 5. The proposed sign replaces non-conforming signs removed by Universal Outdoor, Inc. from locations elsewhere in the city under the provisions of Section 66.302(b) of the Zoning Code. That section provides, in part, that: (1�. The replacement sign must be within a zoning district where advertising signs are a permitted use; (2). The advertising sign must be brought into conformance with the size and height requirements as set forth in Section 66.214(b); and (3). The advertising sign as relocated needs to comply with only two- thitds of the applicable spacing distance requirements as set forth in section 66.214(b). The section goes on to state: (6)(c) All signs rebuilt with nonconforming sign face credits shall comply with the size and height requirements of section 66.214ib) and the spacing requirements from residential districts, • patks, parkways and schools in section 66.214(k), but need comply with only two-thirds oE the spacing distance requirements in section 66.214(b). ZolV�� E �2Zo �._ � `#�y1 I u �9� � 6. Tha ability of the applicant's request for a sign variance to confozm to • tha provisions of 66,409 0£ the zoning code is as follows: a. The sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site. This standard is met. The siqn is not unique, but is, rather, a standard 14x48 foot v-style outdoor advertising sign. While the applicant states that the topography of the site and the relationship of the proposed sign to an existing building require that the sign be built 20 feet highez than the code allows, the Adams Company sign built at the east end of the same building at a similar grade and at the required height is clearly visible from I-94. The unusual circumstances re].ated to the site relates to its relationship to the existing and proposed Midwest Outdoor Advextising sign. While the applicant would not have required any variances at the location they originally proposed, to resolve a dispute between two competing companies related to which should be permitted to construct the one sign that the Zoning code would allow in this area, the two companies are proposing that each be granted the necessa=y variances in order to lawfully locate in the same vicinity. b. The sign is not contrary to the genera2 intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code. This standard is not met. The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the • Zoning Code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concern for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. ' That balance is struck in the specific provisions of the code. Paxticularly salient in this instance are those provisions related to the replacement o£ noncon£oiming signs. {See Finding #5 above) The code, for instance, allows those signs that replace nonconforming signs to locate closer to other signs than would otherwise be permitted. Signs that replace nonconforming signs are allowed to be 667 feet from other sign. Without nonconforming sign credits, the required sepaiation would be 1,000 feet. This applicant not only proposes to take advantage of the incentive provided in the code, but asks for a variance to fu=ther reduce the tequired separation. The code also, however, in a number of instances underscores the intent that the new signs--those that replace the nonconforming signs--adhere to the size and height requiiements of the code. The intent of the code is to move toward overall confozmance with the provisions o£ the sign ordinance. Granting this request for three variances would move the city away from the balance intended in the code. c. The sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations. This standard is met. The Minnesota Depa=tment of Ttansportation , ZC��; �fLE 9� z _zoI � q - 1 - I � �, R+�1 `� FJ" - - �� '�17 issues permits for all signs along the inteistate to ensure • conformance with state statutes. The State does not have any height restriction although their permits state that all signs must comply with Che requirements of the local jurisdiction. Minnesota Statutes requiie that signs be located no closer than 500 feet apart. d. The si.gn wi21 not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and 2ighting. This standard is met. The closest residential property is about 60C feet away and is across a well lit freeway with on and off ramps between the proposed sign and the tesidences. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the freeway fence, the signs are not visible from the homes across the freeway. e. The sign wovld not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. This standard is met. While one property owner in the vicinity called staff to indicate opposition to the proposed variance, most adjacent propetty owners have indicated no objection. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area. This standard is met. The sign is proposed in a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regular intervals. • I. 3TAFF RECOh4dENDATION: Based on finding 6.b. above, sta£f recommends denial of the application for variance of the height and separation requirements associated with outdoor advettising signs. • � �°°' � ��F �2ZD � r� u Letters Received by Zoning Committee � � Tso P � • a 9 � Z � ro � ■ � Soi c� 9 9 f � WESTMIDW/+�- C � J C� 3uly 25, 1997 ��,��t�� ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL 890 Cromwell • St. Paul, Minnesofa 55114 292-788� Nancy Homans Zoning Committee St. Paul Planning Commission 25 W. Fourth St. 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Homans: The St. Anthony Park Community Council would like to go on record in opposition to the following variance requests: lYlidwest Outdoor Advertising, File # 97-169 Universal Outdoor, Inc., File # 97-170 I have enclosed a copy of the Billboard Resolution passed by the Council in October 1995, as well as Minutes from the July 1997 meeting that include the motion to adopt Merriam Park's resolution on billboards. The St. Anthony Park Community Council is concerned about billboards and their presence in our community. It is our hope that the 1995 Billboard Resolution wili be considered seriously by the Planning Commission and these variances denied. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, �t��u�'�`z... St. Anthony Park Community Council Heather Worthington Executive Director cc: Councilmember Roberta Megazd Brian Bates ' �� O �� e�� -� �� ``�� / ��\'�� % ...- � RESOLUTION WHEREAS billboards are a visual blight on our community; and WHEREAS the St. Anthony Park Community Council, on October 11, 1995, supported a moratorium on new billboard construction and the eventual removal of all existing neighborhood billboardsJ and WHEREAS the current St. Paul zoning code attempts to minimize the adverse effects biilboards nave on cur cor�unity �ilIG1QY1 spaciag and height restrictions; and WHEREAS Midwest sign company has recently erected a new billboard in the north east corner of Vandalia and I-94 which greatly exceeds the zoning code height limitation of 37 feet; and WHEREAS Universal sign comgany proposes erecting another bi2lboard �ust to tne east of the ilZegal Midwest bfl2board which, if erected, would violate the zoning code's minimum spacing restriction; now THEREFORE, untiJ. all billboards are removed, the St. Anthony Park Community Council encouraqes a strict interpretation and enforcement of all zoning code provisions which apply to billboards and objects to the issuance of any variances from such zoning code provisions. Specifically, the St. Anthony Park Cor�munity Council objects to the newly erected Midwest billboard. That billboard must be reduced in height to 37 feet or removed. Further, the St. Anthony Park Community Council objects to the issuance of any variance of any kind to Universal siqn company to erect ahy new billboard. Dated: Position. �� y �N � � _ �`�-, .�S • •� �/ _, -��/ � Y i. �,� �i �� . �'� ,� a �,ti�� St. Anthony Park Community Council Pull Councii ileeting Julv 9,1997 7:00 P.�t. Arndorfer Presiding PR[SF\T`. Cowuil Ricmb�rs: hlagnu�on. �Vattcrs, and �'� cb�r Sh�rih n Yoimg Arndorfcr. F3cncsh. Chfn-PurcclL Dufault, Floldcman, Lorcntzcn. S�aff. ��"orch�m�[on. Gucsts Siro Daccrn, Iiath� hios[rom, and Thc m�cting ��as callcd to ordcr b� Arndorf�r and introdac[ions tticcc madc The AGEND� and thc Junc I Ith !�11N1JTES ��crc approccd unanimousl}. Kellv Institute fCath} htostrom, Executi�c Dircctor of the kcli� Institute. rcported on the aniicipated mo�e of the hcll} Inshtide to SL Paul After a short prescnt�tion. I�ath} ans��cred mam' quesiions. and there ��as � bs�cf d�sc�rssion "jhc {nstrtut� ��arxs to 4��5� spacc on Um� ctsit� A�rnuc Their program is amird at persons �vdi alcohoVchcnurnl dcpcnd�nc� and cogniti�c mcntal hcalth problcros Thc most common combinahon is dcpr�ssion and alcoholism Trcatments t}'picailt last 3 I/2 months. Indn idual coimsclors aid clicnts C'licnts attcnd therap� scssions at thc ccntcr. I<cll}' InstitiRC has bccn in busincss sincc 1983. and thc� ar� o��ncd b� F:cih Norton Entcrpriscs, ��hich o��ns scvcral othcr treatm�nt/residcnc4 f�cihtics in and �round th� T�� m Citics. Somc of [hc chcnts nrc cmplo� cd, somc arc on SS � or othrr forms of �csistancc Thc Institutc �cill providc transportation for cltits}u if thc� h�c ncar thc facilit� 'T'hcir �uil is ro�ct pcoplc back into thc community and rcturn to somc scmblancc of normnlc� m dicir Incs Thc Kcll� Institutc is asking Ramsc� Count} to bc thcir host count�, an arcan�omcnt th:u ��ould allo�� [hcm to bc an official pro�idcr of scr�iccs to pcopic in [hc Count�', and an a�cnc} for rcf�rrals Ihrough thc Count} . An indcpcndcnt consultant «as hircd to find thc srtc [hc� �rc considcring Thc� chosc it bccause it is on a buslmc, thc size of dic spacc. and thc mon[hl} rcnt Thc} a�crlgc 10-I i chcnts per da�. b'Iotion by ��'atters ro support the Kelly Institute, and a recommendation that they make contact with the Prospect Par{: Community. Contingent upon the approval of Prospect Park, seconded by Niagnuson. Unanimous approval. NOSHAMS! Sheril}n Young of NOSHAMS! reported on the group's progress and the outcome of the shredder task forcc vote which was to ban largc metal shrcddcrs (cnclosed or unenclosed) in St. Paul. She passed around copies of the shredder newsletter, and an update on recent legislation. The shredder impact study requested of the shredder task force should be completed. Sherilyn asked that the Council re-state their previous opposition to the shredder. Watters reported that the Planning Commission ma} be advocating some lecway on shreddcrs. Shc urged the Council to restate prior opposition. Motion by Holdeman that the Council support the ban on shredders in the City of St. Paul because dismantling is more environmentally benign, seconded by Dufault. Friendly amendment by Watters to additionally state that shredders are incompatible, and that staff send a letter to the Ptanning Commission stating their position on this issue. Unanimous , approvai. � N N ff� � � � Standine Committees--Environment. Housine and Human Services .,,' .,` _��,,� _ r� j;� _. °-� � C�oje,V � �-' . � .., ;_. y �.� "� `-'- � g�% ' ..�_ . � ��G �e�_.�—'' Holdeman reported that thc cican-up took place at Kasota Ponds in June. The MT Lines property � �tias not included as permission was never granted by thcm. Discussion of the Environment Intem program. Motion by Holdeman to approve the institution of the Environment Intern program, seconded by Dufault. Unanimous approval. Holdeman reported on the American National Can Good Neighbor proposal. Benesh raported on the Housing and Human Services committee meeting. She reported on the Bike Racks in North SAP, Noise Abatement, Teen Programs, and the Garage Sale. Motion by Benesh to send a►etter to Parking Enforcement asking for stricter enforcement of St. Anthony Park, seconded by Dufault. Unanimous approval. Sue Davem aiso reported on bike racks, and updated the Council on the design, location, and number of racks to be insta[led. WoRhington reported on the Crime Prevention Coordinator seazch. A candidata has been selected, and pending a rcference check, wiil be offcrcd the position next weck. Billboards Brian Bates reported on billboards on Vandalia. An open area was created, and Midwest Sign as[ced for approva[ of a variance in thc spacing of biliboards in that area, after erecting a new sign that e�ceeded the height requirements. Merriam Park has opposed all variances. Watters reported that The Council tieas on rccord in opposition to all billboards. Worthington will call LTEP regarding the billboard on 280 bcRtieen the railroad tracks and busway (Eustis and Robbins), and send copy of resolution passcd by Council and rescarch previous opposition. Motion by Dufault �. to approve Merriam Park's resolution, seconded by Ntagnuson. SAPBA/SAPCC Small Business Fund Proaosal Worthington and Davern reported on a proposal to set up a tax deductible fund to aid small businesses in MSlton Square that �tere damaged in [he July 1 storm. Davem reported on Carter Avenue sewer probicros. There ��as discussion about [he impact of inadequate drainage and sewer in that area. Motion by Dufault to allow the Executive Committee of SAPCC to make the final decision in lieu of approval from the Fu11 Council, seconded by Magnuson. Unanimous approval. Niannheim Resi�nation Motion by Magnuson to accept Mannheim's resignation, and appoint Joann Benesh to the Fult Council, seconded by Dufault. Unanimous approval. Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted by Heather Worthington, Executive Director ZOA�ING �dL� 9—��— ? _ � Ivy �eague Place - � . • 475 CLEVELAND ASSOCIATES 475 Cleveland Ave. N., St. Paul, MN 55104 • Mailing Address: P.O. Box 64110, St. Paul, MN 55164-0110 •(612) 688-2000 July 28, 1997 St. Paul Zoning Committee 25 West Fourth Street 1100 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Committee Members: �Ve own the I�y L,eague Place office build:ng cr. the :.c:thwest corner of Cleveland Avenue and Hwy 94. We are not in favor of the proposed advertising sign variances for Universal Outdoor, Inc. and Midwest Outdoor Advertising near I-94 and Vandalia. We strongly object to both the requested height variances and spacing variances. We have an Adams advertising sign on our property that is in compliance with the City's ordinance and feel that both Midwest Outdoor and Universal Outdoor should likewise be held to the same standards. � Should you have any questions I can be reached at 683-1406. Sincerely, a antoo ian Real Estate Manage 1 �'� �� • � .�� Fe�� Z � �,�.� �� ,�. �� Ji�JL'17-97 Fki lt:tt� rn �r,.'+r� �.��,., ..... . —.-" IVlerr�am Par-k aQ` ��e to L/�e�o �8 x Community Council, Inco 1573 Selby Avenue • Suite 311 • St. Paut • hSinnesota • 55104 • 64a 6887 Internet: http!/freenet.msp.mn.uslnhoods/stpaullmerriam_parkJtop. e-mail: ed.bo�er@stpaul.gov • � Officcrs Fc�dinand Raen v�a�a<�� ctte t�+,��+n lY Yu Aeaident Cmnmuniry ksun Comm. C3�ir Dr.1Grrn Aistau 2nd Yce P.csidm� tini��R�tyoCSCilwm+s � Rogu Mcycr J`d Yce Prceid<n� Bwlding R Lnd Uee Caa+n. Cluir Snphi< hL��nt $ectt4ry Gl<a� Nontrem Trcuu¢r May 22, 1997 Brian Bates 1985 Grand Avenue St. Paul, MN 55104 Dear Brian: �� y�� Dernnyer Pork �� eark at�.�;am ra.z Shadow FnlB At iYs regularly scheduied Board of Directors meeting, the Merriam Park Community Council adopted the foilowing resolution: WHEREAS bilfboards are a visual biight on our community; and WHEREAS the Merriam Park Community Council, on September 13, 1995, supported a moratorium on new biilboard construction and ihe eventual removal of ail existing neighborhood billboards; and WHEREAS the current St. Paul zoning code attempts to minimize the adver� effects billboards have on our community through spacing and height restric- tions; and r,. WHEREAS Midwest sign company has recently erected a new biilboard in t� .U,;rheelM�Dmaugh north east corner of Vandalia and I-94 which greatly exceeds the zoning cod w�.�„s.o�:cng height limitation of 37 feet; and Membecs c,.r nh�„� Kati<Donohoe 5�. Tham+e All Collcge Cowca R� Molly Atipacnck Honnie Lwrence En+imruncncd Ghiir FMk Sehertn�n Nanp�oCia Rcpmrniative Pcsc'dL S� Aubin SnclLngSdtry Arc� Bu�inae �„�<[.:t�, r ,e w�IL.msoo S[aFf u saw.� E�autivc Afet F{ollu I.. � WHEFiEAS Universal sign company proposes erecting another billboard jus' the east oi the illegal Midwest billboard which, if erected, would violate the z: ing code's minimum spacing restriction; now THEREFORE, until all bilibaards are removed, the Merriam Park Community � Councfl encourages a strict interpretation and enforcement ofi all zoning cod provisions which apply to biilboards and objects to the issuance of any vari- ances irom such zoning code provisions. 5pecifically, the Merriam Park �°" Community Council objects to the newly erected Midwest billboard. That bi! board must be reduced in height to 37 teet or removed. Further, the Merria Park Community Council objects to the issuance of any variance of any kir;c Universai sign company to erect any new biliboard. Cordiaily, K�m �c�� ZONii�C; FILE �1�1�9 Karen Dalton Community Organizer Ju1-31-9 �p to U�� Q � � � < � 12:11P Sn211 Ham Merriam Park � . �-�� Merriam Par-k Uesno)erPa,i; Community Council; Inc. M,�� 1573 Setby Avenue • Suite 311 � St. Paul • Mmnesota • 55104 • 645 6887 Internet: http!lfreenet.msp.mn.uslnhoodslstpaatlmerrig� arkltop.html / e-mail: ed.bower�a stpaul.gov O[ricen Fadi+und Pe�ea �pdm[ Grtg Mduah id Yiu Pnsidm� Commandy Tmua Comm. Chair Roga MeYu 2�dYccAv�dct BuilEing t Lnd Uae Corsun. Che�r So�n�e hbw+i Sarc+.ry c1�� N�..�,� r,�.a+R. Mcmhea c�y.�na�� Dc Ang=I�ncBurtni-Fictnon St'ILana� Acpn+m V�°s K.ria Dunulwc S� All Cvllcg<CouCCil (ZRxa.enlntivc etour t��ru�� s�;� i..m��e Ln�+�munaua: anV t.(ary 7o Lei<t M;a.et tu:�.w,�i W�lltvo S.OeamR Fnnk Sa�s.nen No�proC�ro Repasrn��•a priycSla Sc Aubn SnellingSdby Aro Bucino. .�aoociau4a 7�c Williomxn Staff ea eo.0 L.�„�;.e A�ecw� o-r,� x�wn�rtma by��ging EdiwL MRnian lark Pnsr u� �� Commu�iry O�guti[a Clwtinc Ym�h�r Qmar povmnion CooAin+ac Kim Red�� RaycLnE CM+�ro�r July 31, 1997 Nancy Homans Dept. of Planning and Economic Development 11 City Hall Annex St. Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Homans: �, �� l� � At it's May 14 board meeting, the Merriam Park Commu�ity Councii adopted the following resolution: WHEREAS biliboards are a visual blight on our community; and WHEREAS ths Merriam Park Community Council, on September 13, 1995, supported a moratorium on new billboard construction and the eventua. remo�al of all existing neighborhood billboards; and WHEREAS the current St. Paul zoning code attempts to minimize the adversE effects biilboards have on our community through spacing and height restric- tions; and WHEREAS Midwest sign company has recentiy erected a new biliboard in th� north east comer of Vandalia and I-94 which greatly exceeds the zoning code height limitation of 37 feet; and WHEFiEAS Universal sign company proposes eresting another billboard just t the east of the illegai Midwest biilboard which, if erected, would violate the zo ing code's minimum spacing restriction; now THEREFORE, until all bitlboards are removed, the Merriam Park Community Council encourages a strict interpretation and enforcement of aii zoning code provisions which apply to billboards and objects to the issuance of any vari- ances from such zoning code provisions. Specifically, the Merriam Park Community Council objects to the newly erected Midwest biliboard. That bili board must be reduced in height to 37 fset or removed. Further, the Merriar Park Community Council objects to the issuance of any variance of an:nd Universal sign company to erect any new biilboard. c l� a.,�.�.k, ��5� -%�_G� ZONING FILE ��zz.o Karen Dalton Community Organizer JUL ,v�C 4::6 P:�! UV[�, uhiieU!ti`.uNA: Cna`d. fn� P��. cY�e�� l�axa�y • � f ,� ;` :� UNITED's Board of Directors meeting was called fo order by board president, David Liset at 4:30 p.m. A motion was made to amend the agenda to ailow Brian Bates to do a presentation regarding two billboard variances. The agenda was appro�ed as amended. 7he board discussed its previous position on billboards. After the board discussion, a motion was made by Mat Hollinshead to oppose the variances on Midway signage bilfboards at 194 and Vandalia. The Board was encouraged to be consistent with its previous position on biliboards by opposing the'variance applications." The motion was seconded by Kate Severin. The motion carried. The May meeting minutes were approved. The June meeting was canceled by the board chair due to too few agenda items to be discussed. niversity UNITED Board Meeting Minutes July 8, 1997 ��_ty'�� oma�5 �� 6 — 331� % Present: Mat Hollinshead, Mike Smabey, Ken Smith, Henry S. Kristal, Jim Curran Jeff Fenske, Bill Gahr, Pete May, Kate Severin, Linda Skaiiman, David Liset, Nell McClung, Benita Tasselmeyer, staff, Irene Rodriguez, Halee Vang � • May's financiaV reports were reviewed, accepted and placed on fde. Henry Kristal motioned to submit a letter to the Business F2eview Council requesting 60 days (three days afterward) to research and review applications for iicenses as in the case of Pawn America. Motion was seconded and carried. Irene Rodriguez will draft the letter. Executive Committee Report: David Liset reported on Irene's suggestion to submit a Weed and Seed application to address three areas'in District Eleven: . �� c � � / � _./ 1. Midway Market Pface Crime Issues 2. UniversityAvenue Cruising Issues 3. Twins Motor Inn Emergency Shelter Issues A motion was made by Henry Kristai and seconded by Nell McClung to submit a Weed and Seed proposal. A second motion was made to support other collaboratives, District Seven, Hamline Midway Coalition, and Thomas-Dale Block Cfubs. Henry Kristai made the motion, and Matt Hollinshead seconded the motion. The motion carried. David Liset and Ne�l McClung reported on the Community Cruising Meetings. Some businesses benefit from it, while many others don't. One possibility is that Sears may provide some parking space for people invoived in cruising events. z��C'a ��.� 9r�•ZZ.D � 1pI.-:iC-, '++�� :.5 Pbf UFtI'l. U�i[TED!N[D'ri�" CE�si. in�, it��. 6�7d��. Trash cans and emptying them is a problem. With regards to fundraising during the event, sponsors will have a Iiabiiity issue. Jeff Fenske reported that the ballots for approval of the revised By-laws hava been sent out and are awaiting their responses. UNITED requested that they be returned by August 11, 1997. 7he Growth Committee had been canceled and will be reschedufed. Program reports: the Facade Improvement Committee will meet on July 16th to review the firsE round of appiications. A second meeting will be held July 30th. !t is estimated that approximately 15-20 grants will be awarded. The issue of Pawn America occupy+ng the old Ske�ngton building was discussed. There was a consensus that the hearing regarding Pawn America was too short of a notice and University United Board did not have the time to respond. Tha meeti�g was adjourned. r. • � � ��i�@1'�� i�� G . �,�,ly�' � Maps � � 1 ; / \� ; , . � � � f v ,: � ' .: ' :.� � ' y : : � �. � ` : �� '� `:, � � % � . � �� . /::;:, � � ' : ,,, � �\% ; ,, �� / � � i _'� �"' \ � \ N y. / �� /� - � ' � � i� �' % .\� �\ �7" L4 � �/ � �. �x, �. -- �� =, , ; .� � ;: , , � ,; ,.� , -� - . � , � � � ,� � �>-� , � � � ° �� i '_ � �� 4�< � � � � // � �� ` �, �- ; _�. \ / \� /.� �`� �\' �` � �.; �� " �'�� \\ / �` \� � - � �� /- ;, \` >,, �\ � = . _� ; �m� ;� ��ss °: � ';�, %r�` \ ,~ � \/\y. � ` �' \ \ .� / i /I�� /e�� ' � /, � ' �' _ ; �� ,� /)' .' i ;\� _ :, � . �.�:� �� ' � � >/�;�%`:�� . i ti . �� r � �-` � � � - `� , �. ,` � j� ' . ��. j \� �.. � . . % . %' ��\ \ -. . \ \ �y,, U z � Q O � O U � W � � � } � W � Q � � I � s 3 ' 3�� r� � ;1: °� ; � i � o � sI : R` � —- , . �' � a � �� 3{ s� s'e ` 3 ��/ � � .. . � � � / ,•Gy r; ',> % �� ;; Q �§ � c , a; � /, � Li.i � ..... L.�.. � � .�. � V •s � Ifi ;�; ,_ g; ; _e �ia s ��r 'yii � q : ,�; � c 1 i + .,jN 5 �4�� :S�F ; * . _�s3m CI ■� p I = 5 i � 3is , 3�: � e �Si i s -�x : �� e� �� I'►. � � � � � 1. SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD 2. �IAZEL PARK HADEN-PROSPERTII' HII.LCREST 3. WEST SIDE 4. DAYTON'S BLUFF 5. PAYNE-PFiALEN 6. NORTH END 7. THObfAS-DALE 8. SUM�fIT-IINIVERSIT'Y 9. WEST SEVENTH 10. COMO 11. WAY PA 13. MERRIAM PARK-LEXII�IGTON HAMLINE-SNELLING HAhiLINE 14. MACALEST'ER GROVELANb 15. HIGHI.AND 16. SUMMIT FIILL 17. DOWNTOWN � ZONING FILE ZONING F9L� �•z�-�' CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS C ST. ANTHONY '�.� � 4 �� w�� i�� 3� �� 9,�r�y I Z�(�IIV� .FI�.E ��z� � � � �� ! T `\ \ \ ` \` � \` , � � � \ \ �. Q� �t � �—, . `�...;\ ., +� > \ �.. - � \'�- -��..� > < <' ,�O I �✓ i. .: � . i '. t � �� \- ` ' � . 1 O ❑ 'r ,�\ �� ' . •i �� '` ❑ � , • r � � o • � �� ' �� Q � . � i. � �� ,��, : i� � � �� \ � � ' , --�� '� � � ; �`' ,' � \ �/ \� { 1 � ' � `, ! / ' � O � 1 L • �� , � . .' � �� ,• . � � , , I � � _ { �� /. t\ ` ' ' `� f . ♦ �° � i � \ � � _ d � , � � � � .:.� :�� ::: ... _ _ � -. - \ . . 1 ' � ' \� •. \ \ �� ,\ � � � `�� J . '-% . � �� J.i C�_ � `,\�` ~``\` \ ' ' `- _ +_� O O \ � � J •�� . . � � O O ��. ' ' _. ' — 'S-- O \� ` ' O � O \ -O- . � �� \ - _ , .. . 0 O ' � ¢ O \ � � � ' !� T�'M�, � °, o a i , � ° ° � , � < � ' � ,0 ,0 I � �°'�w �� , � � �- - f�_ o° o o°i o� 4 ' ' � 1 �,\\ :.: — --� ! n _. ' � •� r� � APPLICANT � �7�a" ��'�� LEGEND _ '�° _ r� PURPOSE 5 � VN v�� zoning district boundary ----' FILE # �� (� t DATE 1' �'� 7 � subjed property north PLNG. DIST. �Z MAP # �/ o one family •� � commerciai _ p ¢ two family � .. � industriai SCALE 1" = 400' �� f�¢� multiple family V vacant I . , �..�. ; �^\\, ,�\ `` � �j ,� � q� � � � � \ \ 0. �i� . " ` / � y4 � � �� ,. � >�� / � � � , ,. � .� , , - ,(,, >,- , , . ( , .- . , , ,• ; . n � 0 �< � � \ � .� '`� . � � , •- • I ✓; J ._ , �., ,_, ,. _:,. � ►� �'� � ��:�� , n.� e` � • _. • � �i; �•, • � � � , .,r. � • � � � • i �• • � • • • • • � • � < . �� `.O . . E:� �J ;..: \ � :,. ' ` � � �� .° ❑ ; � ��' . ❑ � �� . ❑;� . ❑ ;. 1, : ;�..��; � � � �: t� L � / �,' . 1 �,`' C� �� f �.:. ,.t � : � �: , :y'� '. 1 P �.�: . y" _:. m � \�' ► �� ' � ... , � i -o- �T � �� APPLICANT �� . I � G • LEGEND rIJRPOSE �� '�� -� zoningdistricthoundary � q FILE # - `� � r � DATE � � 3 � � subject property PLN�. DIST. t Z MAP # � 1 0 one Tamify _ p� ¢ two family SCALE 1" = 400' �� Q multiple family ..m.._..v.. � , �\ -�.?. �- --- - � � _ j� nL orth .� • ♦ � commercial � �� industrial V vacant 1 /� il�� ( /i' � LONNY D. THOMAS, P.A. MidAmerica Bank Building, Suite 120 6949 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, Minnuota 55125 Telephone (612) 735-9262 • Fu (612) 735-9062 �d+etr o. n+oMas. csa. �s�s> >as-azss September 22, 1997 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Jerry Blakey Mr. Dan Bostrom Mr. Joe Collins Mr. Mike Hatris Ms. Roberta Megazd Ms. Gladys Morton Mr. Dave Thune CTI'Y HALL 15 West Kellogg Boulevazd Suite 310 Saint Paul, MI3 55102 Re: Appeal of Variance Your File Nos. 97-169 and 97-170 Our File No. 1177-000 Deaz City Council Member: Enclosed please fmd a copy of Memorandum of L&H Properties Opposing Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to Grant Variances for Construction of Billboazds at I-94 and Vandalia. Please review the enclosed materials before the Council's Hearing regarding the above matter scheduled for Wednesday, September 24, 1997 at 330 p.m. If you have any comments regazding any of the factual allegations or legal azguments contained in the enclosed Memorandum, please do not hesitate to contact me. V ery truly yours, �� 0.��'lb LDT sas Enclosure Lonny D. Thomas cc: Ron Leonard (w/encl.)(via U.S. Mail) Don Harvey (wfencl.)(via U.S. Mail) Marvin A. Liszt (w/encl.)(via Facsimile and U.S. Mail) Also Licensed to Practice in Wisconsin �� /�� MEMORANDUM OF L&H PROPERTIES OPPOSING APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO GRANT VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BILLBOARDS AT I-94 AND VANDALIA L&II Properties, a Minnesota Partnership (hereafter, "L&H"), as the owner of one of the properties upon wlrich the Planning Cominission ganted variances for the construction of an outdoor advertising sign respectfiilly submits this Memorandum in opposition to the appeal of the Pianning Commission's decision to gant such variances filed by St. Anthony Pazk Community Council (hereafter, "St. Anthony"). This Memorandum will respond to some, but not all` of the arguments advanced in St. Anthony's written appeal papers. INTRODUCTION For nearly 17 years, L&H has been the lessor under a lease agreement providing for the erection and maintenance of an outdoor advertising sign. L&H has been paid a substantial amount of money over the years pursuant to ihe lease arrangement and relies upon this crirical source of income to partially fund its payment obligations relating to the ownership of the property upon which the outdoor advertising sign has been located. Through no fault of L&H's, an outdoor advertising sign previously erected and maintained pursuant to a lease agreement with L&H was required by the City of St. Paul to be removed due to certain defects which will be addressed in more detail below. As a result of the removal of that sign, L&H immediately entered into a replacement outdoor advertising sign lease agreement with a different outdoor advertising sign company, Universal. Pursuant to the terms of the arrangement between Universal and L&H, Universal immediately filed appropriate ' L&H understands that a written Memorandum in opposition to St. Anthony's appeal also is being submitted by Universal Outdoor Advertising (hereafter, "Universal"). Since Universal is better qualified than L&H to respond to various azguments advanced in St. Anthony's written appeai, various technical and procedural issues are left by L&H to be addressed in the responsive Memorandum submitted by Universal. ��,1�� documents requestiug authority to erect a replacement outdoor advertising sign on L&cH's property. Appazently, a separate request to erect a separate outdoor advertising sign was simultaneously submitted by one of Universal's competitors, Midwest Outdoor Advertising (hereafter, "Midwest"). Both Universal and Midwest claimed to be eniitled to erect an outdoor advertising sign pursuant to theu respective applications. During various proceedings presented to the City of St. Paul Planning Commission (hereafter, the "Planning Commission"), issues involving the City of St. Paul's actions relating to the processing of each application were thoroughly examined. Reasonably recognizing the gravity of those issues, the Planning Commission attempted to accommodate the interests of all concemed. As a result of various discussions among L&H, Universal and Midwest wiuch were encouraged by the Planning Commission, a compromise arrangement was reached pursuant to which both Universal and Midwest could erect and maintain outdoor advertising signs. While the outdoor advertising signs allowed under the arrangement were less desirable to the parties than the signs requested pursuant to their original applications, the parties agreed to lesser signs as a compromise to avoid further complications, possibly incIuding litigation of their respective claims. The compromise agreement cannot be put into effect without the City of St. Paul granting several variances. The Planning Commission conducted the necessary pmceedings and ultimately granted the necessary variances, thereby reasonably accommodating the interests of all concemed and avoiding the potenfial for future litigation. The Appeal filed by St. Anthony attacks the diligent efforts of the Planning Commission, arguing, among other things, that the Planning Commission had no authority to participate in, or even suggest that the parties attempt `� �� ,�� to negotiate an amicable resolution of these issues. Contrary to the azguments of St Anthony, the Planning Commission's efforts were exemplary and should be applauded not overturaed. The Planning Commission acted well within its authority at all times and its variance approval decisions aze well supported in both law and fact. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The properry owned by L&H is located at 2100 Gilbert Avenue, St. Paul, Minnesota (the "L&H Property"). L&H has owned the L&H Property since 1981. Shortly, after L&H purchased the L&H Property, L&H entered into an outdoor lease agreement providing for the erection and maintenance of an outdoor advertising sign on the L&H Properiy. The lessee in the outdoor advertising lease agreement was an outdoor advertising company now imown as Fairway Outdoor Advertising Company (hereafter, "Fairway"). The outdoor advertising lease agreement allocated to Fairway all obligations relating to the original construction and subsequent maintenance of the outdoor adverting sign. Pursuant to the outdoor advertising lease agreement, Fauway filed appropriate appiication documents and othenvise followed the procedures requued by the City of St. Paul. These procedures included a written designation by Fairway of the specific location of the outdoor advertising sign on the L&H Property, and an inspection by the City of St. Paul of the actual location and construction of the outdoor advertising sign after it was erected. During the Summer of 1996, the outdoor advertising sign appazentiy required repairs due to previous maintenance work regazding the sign footings which had been effected by Fairway. The new repairs required Fainvay to briefly take down the sign. Fairway effected the repairs over a weekend, not during business hours, and without any norice to L&H. L&H learned that ��,�� the repair work included moving the sign footings several feet and re-erecting the sign at approximately its previous height of fifty (50) feet�. L&H did not leara of the repairs until after the repair work was compieted and the sign r�erected. The City of St. Paul advised Fainvay (not L&I� that Fairway was required to obtain a permit for the sign repairs, movement of the sign a few feet, andlor re-erection of the sign. The City of St. Paul also advised Fairway (not L&H) that the height of the re-erected sign would require a variance. Upon leaming of these matters, L&H also discovered that the re-erected sign had been re- erected several feet outside the boundaries of the L&H Properry. In fact, L&H learned that the location of the outdoor advertising sign as originally constructed by Fairway and inspected and approved by the City of St. Paul also was several feet outside the boundaries of the L&H Property. Both the original location and newiy re-erected sign location were in fact located on public property believed by L&H to be owned by the City of St. Paul. Despite the City of St. Paul's licensing and inspection of the original sign, the sign was not located on the L&H Property. L&H learned that Fairway intended to appeaz before the Planning Commission to request a variance for the height of the newly re-erected sign. Due to L&H's concern that the information regazding the improper sign location would not be disclosed by Fairway to the Planning Commission, L&A appeazed at ffie Planning Commission hearing regarding Fairway's variance request. Z While this height wouid not be allowed pursuant to the City of St. Paul's current Ordivances regulating sign height, the height was ailowed at the time because the sign was an e�sting non-confornung height pursuant to applicable Ordinances. 4 ��,�� At the hearing, Fairway did not advise the Planning Commission that the sign was not now, and never had been located on the L&H Properiy. Rather, the Planning Commission was advised of these facts at the hearing only because L&H, through its undersigned counsel, appeared at the hearing and properly so advised the Planning Commission of the true facts. In various subsequent communications between the City of 3t Paul and L&H (both individually and through L&H's undersigned counsel), L&H advised the City of St. Paul that L&H intended to immediately move the outdoor advertising sign onto L&H's Properiy, which was the intended location and since the sign was originally erected, and which would have occurred but for the failure of Fainvay to properly locate the sign and the City of St. Paul's failure to properly require the sign to be located in the location identified in the relevant application process. As a direct result of L&H's honest and forthright disclosure to the Planning Commission which coaected Fainvay's non-disclosure of these facts, the City of St. Paul required Fairway to remove the sign. Fairway removed the sign shortly thereaRer. L&H immediately engaged in negotiations with various outdoor advertising sign companies regazding entering into a replacement outdoor advertising sign lease agreement, as had been previousiy advised by L&H to the City of St. Paul. During those negotiarions, L&H conciuded that the present value of an outdoor advertising sign located on the L&H Property is not less than Two Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($200,000.00). L&H ultimately entered into an outdoor advertising sign lease agreement with Universal. Upon entering into the outdoor advertising sign lease agreement, Universal filed necessary documents and othenvise took such action as was necessary to obtain the necessary permits and approvals from the City of St. Paul for the erecrion of a replacement outdoor advertising sign on L&H Property. Universal's application for the City of St. Paui's approvai of ��,i�� the outdoor advertising sign was initially denied for reasons relating to another sign pemut application simultaneously filed by Midwest. On appeal of the City of St. Paul's denial of Universal's application', the Planning Commission encouraged Universal and Midwest to discuss with one another whether a compromise airangement might be reached. Pursuant to the Planning Commission's suggestion, Universal and Midwest engaged in a compromise dialogue that resulted in a mutually acceptable azrangement allowing both Universal and Midwest to erect outdoor advertising signs. The outdoor advertising signs allowed under the arrangement were less desirable to Universal and Midwest than the signs described in tl�eir respective applications which had resulted in the negotiations. The signs which would be allowed in the negotiated azrangement also would require the parties to obtain variances from the City of St Paul. Both Universal and Midwest submitted appropriate documents and information, and otherwise complied with relevant procedural requirements to obtain the necessary variances. The Planning Commission approved the requested variances, and St. Anthony filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval. ' In connection with the appeal to the Planning Commission, L&H submitted to the Pianning Commission an Affidavit of a principal of L&H regarding the background facts described above. The Affidavit sets forth L&H's position that L&H will suffer damages in excess of verbal $200,000.00 as a direct result of the City's mishandling of the original sigi location and other acfionable conduct unless Universal's request to erect a replacement sign on L&H Property is approved. A copy of the Affidavit is attached as Exhibit A. ` Universal's appeal of the initial decision regarding issuance of the requested pernut was agreed by all concemed to be placed on hold pending the outcome of the separate proceedings relating to the two signs and variances at issue in the instant proceedings. In the event that the variances are not granted and the negotiated arrangements relating to the two signs of Universal and Midwest approved, Universal will pursue the appeai of the original pemut issues. C� �,�, -�� The foilowing discussion demonshates that the Planning Commission's actions aze completely supported by relevant facts and applicable law, and St. Anthony's appeal should be f �� -..1 Standard of Review The record reflects that the Planning Commission's actions and final decision are well supported by relevant facts and applicable law. Describing the reluctance of appellate courts to interfere in zoning decisions of municipalities, the Minnesota Court of Appeals stated in Saestetter v. Citv of St. Paul. 529 N.W.2d 488 (Minn. App. 1945), "Where the municipal proceedings are fair and complete, review is on the record before the municipal agency, and this court is reluctant to interfere with the tuanagement of municipal affairs.i The Planning Commission acted well within its province in approvine the variances. St. Anthony first ridiculously azgues that the procedural process by which the Planning Commission approved the subject variances cannot be approved because the Plazuung Commission somehow exceeded the scope of its authority. St. Anthony baldly asserts, "It is the funcUon of the Planning Commission to heaz matters which come before it. It is not the funcrion of the Planning Commission to first suggest and then advocate for the issuance of vatiances." St. Anthonv Memorandum, at Page 7. St. Anthony fails to cite any authority for this asserted ' The decision in Sa sg tetter also is relevant to this proceedings because the Court of Appeals affirmed a variance granted by the City of St. Paul allowing a 90 foot stiucture in an azea limiting building height to not more than 30 feet. The Sa stg etter decision essentiaily eviscerates St. Anthony's argument that the height variances granted by the Planning Commission in this case are too extreme to be ailowed by these variances. ° For purposes of this Memorandum oniy, L&H will assume for the sake of azgument that the Planning Commission somehow participated in the discussions resulting in the 7 ��'�`�� restriction on the operations of the Planniug Commission.' Rather than congratulate the Planning Commission for successfully brokering a creative compromise resolution which is universally acceptable to all parties, St. Anthony criticizes the Planning Commission for "avoid[ingJ a difficult decision." T'he Planning Commission's fundamentally reasonable actions actually demonstrate that the Planning Commission recognized and appreciated the gravity of claims which might be asserted by and against all parties (inciuding the City of St. Paul) in the absence of an amicable resolution. By "avoiding a difficult decision" and encouraging the parties to negotiate a compromise, the Planning Commission effectively eliminated the chance of serious subsequent litigation, and demonstrated its broad vision of the underlying issues. It is the myopic view of St. Anthony, not the coxnmendable foresight of the Planning Commission which should be rejected. In Arcadia Develonment Corporafion v. Citv of Bloomineton. 125 N.W.2d 846 (Minn. 1964), the Minnesota Supreme Court addressed circumstances in which a planning commission was asked to apply an ordinance relating to sign restricrions which would have created a result which was unacceptable to all parties, including the City. The planning commission recognized the inherent problems in blindly enforcing the statute, and "recommended that the city council negotiated agreement between Universal and Midwest. The record cleazly reflects, however, that the original inquiries regazding the possibility of negotiating a universally acceptable resolution of all issues involving two signs was posed by UniversallMidwest, not any person associated with the City of St. Paul. ' St. Anthony quotes and apparently relies upon Administrarive Code Section 107.03 as imposing the alleged res�iction. St. Anthony quotes that portion of the Section which provides, "The Committee shall, upon proper notification, conduct public hearings on ... the various types of zonin¢ applications that are duties of the planning commission." The quoted language obviously empowers the Planning Commission, but faiis to even attempt to define the scope of the empowerment, much less affirmatively suggest any restrictions on such empowerment. a�} -``� � 'make it possible' for Arcadia (the sign applicant) to have this sign." Id at 849. In other words, the planning commission suggested creativity in finding a resolution under difficult circumstances. The city council subsequentiy disregarded the planning commission's suggestion of creativity, rejected the applicanYs request for variances allowing the sign, and myopically enforced the ordinance. The Minnesota Supreme Court ultimately sided with the planning commission and held for the variance requesting pariy, finding that the city council should have granted necessary variances to "make it possible" for the sign applicant to erect the requested sign, notwithstanding the black letter of the applicable sign ordinance. Applicabie law clearly supports the acrions and role of the City of St. Paul Planning Commission in this matter. There is no procedural defect in the process pursuant to which the variances were granted by the City of St. Paul Planning Commission. The properl�granted variances are whollv consistent with applicable law. St. Anthony next argues that, even if there is no procedural defect in the means by which the variances were granted, the substantive facts and law do not allow the variances to be granted. Again, St. Anthony ignores applicabie law, and disregards the thorough factual record supporting the Planning Commission's decision. There can be no dispute that the outcome of this proceedings must be based upon application of St. Paul City Ordinance Section 66.409 to the relevant facts. This Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to grant a sign variance upon concluding that: (i) the sign is unique or there are unusual conditions pertaining to sign needs to the site; (ii) the sign is not � The following language describing the requirements of the Ordinance quotes the paraphrasing of this Ordinance as used in the Staff Reports provided to the Planning Commission with the previous proceedings. The Staff Reports accurately describe the requirements of the Ordinance. �,�_`y�� contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the wning code; (ui) the sign will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and regulations; (iv) the sign will not adversely affect residentiai property through excessive glare and lighting; (v) the sign would not be objectionabie to adjacent property owners; and (vi) the sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding azea The Staff Reports provided to the Planning Commission regarding the variance applications state Staffs view that the proposed outdoor advertising signs aze supported by five of these six criteria The relevant StaffReports articuJate Staffs opinion that the second criterion requiring a conclusion that the requested signs "aze not contrary to the general intent of the sign chapter of the zoning code" is not met. T'he Planning Commission examined this particular criterion with a broader vaew of the overall impact upon signs throughout the City of St. Paul and concluded that this criterion in fact is satisfied, stating: The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concem for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and advertise business and industry in the city represents a replacement of 14 non-conforming signs in other areas of the city where the removal has enhanced the visual envuonment. The Planning Commission agreed with Staff that the proposed variances satisfied all of the other five criteria of the Ordinance, and approved the variances. Only a brief review of each criterion demonstrates that the Planning Commission's decision is strongly supported by the factual record. The si en is unique or there are unusual conditions �ertainine to the needs of the site Both the Staff Report and the Planning Commission agreed that this criterion is satisfied by the unique topographical layout of the subject property upon which the signs will be located (as to the height variances) and the underlying facts relating to the negoriated settlement of issues 10 �� discussed above (as to the distance variances). St. Anthony argues onl}� that the underlying negotiated resolution of issues cannot be deemed to constitute an "unusual condition" satisfying this criterion. St. Anthony again fails to cite any authority for this proposition. Contrary to St. Anthony's bald assertion, the facts relating to the negoriated resolution certainly satisfy this criterion. There is nothing in the Ordinance which even suggests a defined limitation of the "unusual conditions" which may be deemed to support a variance request. St. Anthony's argument that such a lunitarion should be somehow arbitrarily created and imposed is utterly without merit and contrary to the very purpose of variances. In Merriam Park Communitv Council. Inc. v. McDonoueh, 210 N.W.2d 416 (Minn. 1973) the Minnesota Supreme Court reiterated that "A variance provides the opportunity for ameliorarion of unnecessary hardships resulting from the rigid enforcement of a broad zoning ordinance ..." I�.., at A20. St. Anthony's request that a limitation be arbitrarily imposed upon those facts which can be evaluated in support of a variance is contrary to tkris broad remedial purpose. T'hat St. Anthony is a community organized entity ostensibly representing potentially affected residents which is vigorously opposed to the requested variances also is not relevant to the City Council's analysis. Tn Lueer v. Citv of Bumsville. 29S N.W.2d 609 (Minn. 1980), the Minnesota Supreme Court made cleaz that the approval or disapproval of adjacent property owners can play no part in the ultimate decision whether to grant a variance, stating: ' St. Anthony's arguments regarding the topographical considerations supporting height variances aze not worthy of significant analysis. The record includes myriad photographs, diagrams, measurements and other objective criteria amply demonstrating the need for height variances as necessary to a11ow the outdoor advertising signs to be visible from I-94. As a practical matter, if the requested sign heights were not necessary for visibility, why would LJniversal and Midwest subject themselves to the onerous process of obtaining height variances? il �� -I `�� The number of persons who aze for or against the granting of a variance is neither a relevant nor a proper consideration in determin;og the merits of an application. One court observed that if this were not true, the result would be a govemment of inen rather than one of law. It is improper for a boazd of adjustment to place weight upon the number of protestants rather than on the merits of an application. Tlie strenuous objection of residents is not a legitimate basis for the denial of a variance. Revocation of a variance is not adequately supported when the principal reason for such action is that 1,000 persons signed a petition protesting the variance. The quality of the protest rather than the quantity of signers must guide the discretion of the boazd Id at 615. There is no suggestion in relevant Ordinances or any other law that an amicably negoriated settlement of claims which avoids liability to all parties (including the City of St. Paul) cannot constitute "unusual conditions" supporting a sign variance. St. Anthony points to no authority supporting this proposition because no such authority exists. The si¢n is not contrarv to the ¢eneral intent of the sien chapter of the zonin¢ code. The Planning Commission found that this criterion is satisfied by the overall effect of granting the requested variances. As a result of the two (2) signs being erected pursuant to the variances, seventeen (17) non-confomung signs in other locations throughout the City of St. Paul will be removed by Universal and Midwest. Since one of the two signs to be erected pursuant to the variances simpiy replaces the sign which has been located on L&H's property for years, the City of St. Paul is effectively allowing the erection of one new sign in exchange for the removal of seventeen other non-confomung signs throughout the city. By granting the variances, the Planniiig Commission effected a net decrease of sixteen (16) non-confomung signs throughout the City. The Planning Commission astutely recognized this beneficial overall effect in granting the variance, stating in its findings and resolution: The stated intent of Chapter 66 of the zoning code indicates a desire to strike a balance between a concem for the visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the city. The proposed sign which would promote and 12 �,�-�� advertise business in the city represents a replacement of 14 non-conforming signs in other azeas of the city where the removal has enhanced the visual environment. To the extent that the removal or decrease in number of outdoor advertising signs (particularly non-conforming signs) is an objective to be promoted by Chapter 66, it can hazdly be argued that the Planning Commission erred in concluding that this criterion is met. St. Anthony simply argues that this criterion is not met because the signs to be erected require variances. St. Anthony does not recognize or even mention the overall increase in compliance and decrease in outdoor advertising signs. St. Anthony's "not in my backyazd" attitude demonstrates parochialism which is contrary to the interests of the City of St. Paul and inconsistent with the intent of Chapter 66. The Planning Commission coaectly concluded that the overall effect of significantly decreasing the number of non-conforming signs throughout the City of St. Paul exceedingly satisfies this criterion. The sien will not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes or rules and re�ulations. The Planning Commission correctly concluded that this criterion is met, as the Minnesota Depamnent of Transportation has no height requirements and allows signs to be as close as five hundred (500) feet to one another. Since no signs allowed by the variances would be less than 500 feet from one another, the Planning Commission correctly found that this criterion is met. St. Anthony does not dispute that this criterion is met as to compliance with statues, rules and regulations, but vaguely suggests that the proximity of MidwesYs sign to the Vandalia street 10 It is uncleaz just how the Planning Commission calculated the figure of 14 replaced signs. The record before the Council indicates that Universal and Midwest will remove in the range of 14 to 17 signs upon final grant of the variances and issuance of permits for the two new signs which are the subject of this proceeding. f�C3 �� _��i�� overpass somehow "raises concems of a traffic hazard." St. Anthony provides no information regazding the nature of its "concem" and there is no indication in the record that anyone else (particulazly those maldng comments in the Staff Reports or at the hearings) shazes St. Anthony's concerns. The record clearly reflects that the Planning Commission did not err in det�*�++�n;ng �at this criterion has been met. The sien will not adversel�affect residential provertv throu,,ah excessive elare and li htin . The Planning Commission correctly noted that there aze no adjacent residenrial properties as the sign location is in a heavy industrial azea. The Planning Commission's resolutions note that the neazest residential property is all the way across the freeway. St. Anthony undoubtedly agrees and stated in its appeal that it has no comment regatding the Planning Commission's finding that this criterion is met. The sien wouid not be obiectionable to adjacent�ro�ertv owners. In finding that this criterion was met, the Planning Comxnission noted the absence of objections from adjacent property owners. St. Anthony agreed, noting that it has no comment regarding the Planning Commission's finding on this criterion. The sien is in keenine with the eeneral chazacter of the surrounding area• The Planning Commission found that this criterion is met, as the signs will be located in "a freeway corridor where there are outdoor advertising signs at regulaz intervals." St. Anthony does not disagee and has expressed no objection to the Planning Commission's finding that this criterion is met. 14 �� _I�''� CONCLUSION Based upon the record before the Council and the discussion set forth in this Memorandutn, L&H respectfiilly submits that the decision of the Planning Commission should be affirmed in all respects and the variances granted. Dated: September 22,1997 LONNY D. � Thomas Reg. No. 170252 'te 120 MidAmerica Bank Building 6949 Valley Creek Road Woodbury, Minnesota 55125 (612)735-9262 ATTORNEYS FOR L&H PARTNERS 15 . STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF RAMSEY _ ��- . •. . ,_ . •� � ) ss. ) �t�1 Affiant, RONALD LEONARD ("�ant"), being first duly swom, upon oath deposes and says that: 1. Affiant has personal knowledge of the facts described in this �davit 2. Affiant and Donald Han�ey ("Harvey") are the owners of certain real property located at 2100 Giibert Avenne, St. Paul, Minnesota (the "Property"). 3. 4. Affiant and Harvey have oti�ned the Properry since apgroximately 1981. An outdoor advertising sign was originally erected on the Properry shortly after Affiant and Harvey purchased the Property. The outdoor advertising sign was erected pursuant to the approval of the City of St. Paul which was obtained only after full compliance with all procedures and substantive requirements imposed by the City in connection with erecting the outdoor advertising sign. 5. The procedures imposed by the City in connection v,nth erecting the original outdoor advertising sign included an inspection of the sign by the City after the sign had been erected. One of the purposes of the City's inspection of the sign after being erected was to ensure that the outdoor advertising sign had been placed by the sign company in the specific location designated and approved by the City. 6. The outdoor advertising sign v��as owned by Fairway Outdoor Advertising Company ("Fairway") and maintained on the Property pursuant to a written lease agreement between Fairway as lessee, and �ant and Hanrey as lessors. 7. In the Summer of 1996, the outdoor advertising sign apparentIy required repairs which resulted in Fairway taking down the sign for a brief period of time in order to make certain repairs to footings. The repairs were effected by Fairway over a weekend and not during business hours. The sign was immediately re-erected by Fairway after the repairs were made. Affiant did not leam of the repairs until after the sign had been taken down and re-erected. 8. The above mentioned repairs appazently involved moving the footings for the sign a few feet from the original location. 9. Affiani and Harvey did not participate in any way in effecting or even approving � 1 '� -� � �� i �� the above mentioned sign repairs. Affiant and Harvey had no knowledge regarding the repairs untii after the repairs were completed. 10. Upon information and belief, Fairway erected the sign after making the necessary repairs at a height which was approximately the sign's original height of approximately fifry (50) feet I1. The City ]ater advised Fairvoay that Fairway was re.�uued to obtain a permit for the sign repairs, movement of the sign and�or re-erection of the sign. The City also advised Fairway that the height of the re-erected sign would require a variance. 12. In reviev.�ing all these matters, �ant discovered that the sign was not located on the Property either before or after the sign repairs were effected, according to a recent survey of the Properry. 13. Fairvvay advised Affiant that Fairway intended to appear before the City in connection with issues pertaining to the repairs, movement and re-erection of the sign. �ant appeared at the hearing before the City only to ensure that Fairway accurately and fully disclosed to the City that the sign was not, and never had been located upon the Properiy. 14. At the hearing, Fain��ay did noi disclose to the City that the sign was not, and never had been located on the Property. 15. The City learned that the sign was not, and never had been located on the Properry only because �ant, through his counsel, appeared at the hearing and advised the City of Fairway's failure to inform the City that the sign was not located on the Property. Affiant, through his counsel, further advised the City that the above mentioned survey indicated that the sign most probably was located upon public property. 16. In various communications with the City, Affiant advised the City that �ant intended to move the sign onto the Property, as was intended ever since the sign was original]y erected, and as would have occurred but for the failure of the City's inspector to discover the incorrect placement of the sign. 17. As a result of �anPs honest and forthright correction of Fairway's non- disclosure to the City regazding the location of the sign, the City required Fainvay to remove the sign. Fairway subsequenfly removed the sign. 18. Affiant immediately engaged in negotiations with other outdoor advertising sign companies w�ith respect to a possible lease or other transaction providing for the erection of a replacement sign. Those negotiations disclosed that the value of the sign on the Properry can be reasonably expected to be in an amount not less than Two Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollazs ($200,000.00). � -. . �' 19. Affiant and Harvey ultimately entered an agreement with Universal Outdoor, Inc. ("Universal"). The agreement with Universal provides for Univenal to erect and maintain an outdoor advertising sign on the Property. 20. Universal filed documents and otherwise acted to obtain the City's pemussion and authority to erect an outdoor advertising sign on the Properry pursuant to the agreement w�ith Affiant and Harvey. _ 21. Universal's request for a permit to erect the outdoor advertising sign was denied by the City for reasons relating to another sign permit application which vvas filed by Midwest Ovtdoor Advertising ("Midwest") after Universal's application. 22. Universal's appeal of that decision is the proceeding in which Affiant respectfully submits this �davit. 23. Based upon Affiant's review of the relevant documents and inspection of the Property, Affiant believes Midvrest's request for a permit is untimely, inaccurate, defective and should be denied for a number of reasons, and Universal's application for a permit should be approved. �ant understands ihat these substantive and procedural issues, however, will be addressed in greater detail by Universal at the hearing pursuant to which this Affidavit is respectfully submitted. 24. Affiant believes ihat Universal's application for a pernut is in fact an application to simply move the sign that ��as required by the City to be taken down by Fairway. That sign was required to be taken down oniy because (i) the City failed to properly inspect and ensure the proper location of the sign as is required by City and State laws and regulations; and (ii) Affiant truthfuily and a�rmatively corrected the deceptive record before the City v.�ith respect to the location of the sign on public properry. 25. If the sign application submitted by Universal is not approved by the City, A�ant and Harvey will suffer damages in excess of Two Hundred Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($200,000.00) relating to lost sign revenues. 26. Based upon the facts set forth in this Affidavit, Affiant believes that the City should grant the application for a permit submitted by Universal and deny the appiication submitted by Midwest. 27. In the event that the City denies Universal's application, thereby effectively preventing Affiant from receiving more than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars in sign related income, Affiant intends to look to the City for compensation of those damages. .. -� �. �,� _��t'�� FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT EXCEPT THAT THIS AFFIDAVIT IS SUBMITTED 1N SUPPORT OF UNIVERSAL'S PERMIT APPLICATIO AND 1N OP TION TO MIDWEST"S PERMIT APPLICATION. O ALD LE N Subscri ed and swom to before me this day of April, 1997 � �� Public �r.�: _r,�e:..�l�.?.l.F_�.AC.AN'..� ' -� :_ON'��Y D. Tr10•'v��S _ ' _ , r.�. L�7��Ir. Yf;in� :S:l.c � -' - - . E..'' . , .. . ��•';. . � DIAMOND� LISZT Srt GRADY� P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Richard I. Diamond` Marvin A. Lisz[" Amy Darr Grady September 22, 1997 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 �� i �.,�� Suite 210 9855 Wes[ 78[h Scree[ Minneapolis, MN 55344 Telephone (612) 944-1010 Fax(612) 443-5680 RE: Zoning File #97-220: ST. ANTHONY PARK COMMUNITY COUNCIL Note new file number: File replaces Zoning Files #97-169 and #97-170) City Council Hearing: September 24, 1997 4:30 p.m. City Council Chambers Dear Ms. Anderson: Enclosed please find original and eight copies of Universal Outdoor Inds Response to St. Anthony Pazk Community Council's Appeal of the Plannin� Commission Decision of August 11. 1997 in File I3o 97-220 (Replacin� File No. 97-170). Kindly distribute this Response to each Council member priar to the hearing on September 24, 1997. Your cooperation is appreciated. Very truly yours, �� arvin A. Liszt cc: Universal Outdoor, Inc. MAL/dw Enclosures *CIVlL TRIAL SPEClALISS CERTIFIED BY THE NAIlONAL BOARD OF TRIAL ADVOCACY AND MINNE50"IA SIATE BAR ASSOClAS10N *"REAL PROPERTY LAW SPECIALISI' CER'iIFIED BY THE MINNESOTA S"fA7E BAR ASSOCIAIlON �1� . • � �� • �:��5�}�f=i��l� :_.44: � ,! • ��1 _ • ��, � - :1: s_ � • Y � Y ' • , � ^ • , � • * � �' - -- • _ � �. � 1. Introduction �� l / The appeal by the St. Anthony Park Community Council ("SAPCC") protests the granting of variances by the Planning Commission to allow Universal Outdoor, Inc. ("Universal") and Midwest Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("Midwest") to construct a total of two outdoor advertisinq signs near I-94 and Vandalia. After its public hearing, the Zoning Committee voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the variances. The Planning Commission upheld the recommendation by an overwhelming vote of 15-1. The effect of the granting of the variances is to cause the removal of at least 17 nonconforming signs throughout the City of St. Paul and replace them with two signs near I-94 and Vandalia. Obviously, the SAPCC does not like outdoor signs and, frankly, that is the reason for their appeal. However, the City Council must not be influenced by the SAPCC's dislike of outdoor signs. The only real issue is whether the granting of the variances by the Planning Commission is justified by the facts and circumstances of this situation. When this matter is viewed in that context, there is simply no question that the decision of the Planning Commission must be upheld. 2. The Planninq Commission�s Findings Amply Support the Granting of the variances to IIniversal. � �� ' The law in Minnesota is clear that a municipality may grant a variance from a zoning ordinance where strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause undue hardship and where the granting of a variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. In St. Paul, a variance request must conform to the provisions of 66.409 of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Committee and Planning Commission carefully analyzed this provision of the Code and the facts and circumstances of this matter. These two bodies recognized beyond question that the provisions of the Zoning Code 66.409 were met. The Planning Commission's findings are summarized as follows: a. There are unusual circumstances in this matter relating to the existing building and the proposed Midwest sign. In addition, the Planning Commission recognized the unusual circumstances regarding the dispute between the two sign companies and the City's potential liability in the manner in which it handled the granting of the permit to Midwest and not Universal. b. The intent of Chapter 66 of the Code is to strike a balance between a concern for a visual environment and a desire to identify, promote and advertise business and industry in the City. The proposed sign advertises local businesses and the Universal sign will replace at least three nonconforming signs in areas of the City where the Zoning Code now prohibits such siqns. c. The sign does not create a hazard or violate Minnesota Statutes, rules or regulations. d. The sign will not adversely affect residential property through excessive glare and lighting since the closest residential property is about 660 feet away across a well lit freeway. For much of the year, because of trees planted along the 2 C ,�� i interstate, the signs are not visible from homes across the freeway. e. The sign would not be objectionable to adjacent property owners. f. The sign is in keeping with the general character of the surrounding area since it will be located in a freeway corridor where signs are located at regular intervals. Each of these findings are supported by undeniable facts and circumstances. Clearly, the general intent and character of the Zoning Code is not only met but is exceeded in this situation since the granting of the Universal and Midwest variances results in the removal of at least 17 nonconforming signs throughout other areas of the City of St. Paul. 3. The SAPCC�s Grounds for Appeal are Legally Without Merit. Universal will not in this memorandum discuss each and every ground for appeal set forth in the SAPCC's appeal document. However, a brief review of some of those grounds illustrates that they are without legal or factual foundation: a. Whether the Zoninq Committee, Universal or Midwest Initially Raised the Variance ProposaZ is irrelevant. The SAPCC's lengthy discussion regarding who initially proposed the variances is irrelevant. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the actual variance requests were submitted by Universal and Midwest and not by any commission member. Secondly, there is nothing in any State statutes, regulations, ordinance or 3 1`+ �,t q n' case law which would prohibit a Zoning Committee member from recommending a solution involving variance requests. In fact, Universal would submit that even if a committee member did first raise such a solution, it is well within the province and common sense of the committee to do so. This is especially true in a situation like the one here where the City would potentially have significant liability for the manner in which it handled the initial sign permit application process. b. The SAPCC Position Regarding Siqn Credits is Irrelevant and Factually Incorrect. This appeal involves the granting of a variance to Universal and Midwest. The method of calculating nonconforming sign area credits to be used to build advertising signs pursuant to Section 66.302 was not part of the Zoning Committee or Planning Commission's deliberation and is not properly before the Council at this time. The granting of the variances is an issue separate and apart from the number of sign area credits needed to build a new sign. This issue should not even be considered by this Council at this time. Even if the Council reviews this portion of the Ordinance at this time, it is clear that the City has properly calculated sign area credits since this Ordinance was passed. Section 66.302(b)(6) sets forth the concept that sign area credits from the removal of nonconforming signs may be used to build signs on other lots. This section does not describe exactly how the area is to be calculated. Section 66.200 entitled " General Provisions and Section 66.201 C7 / �n �^ i\� I l entitled "Al1 Signs-Permit Zoning District" are the parts of the Zoning Code containing the provisions governing how the entire sign ordinance should be interpreted. Section 66.201(14) clearly states that, "Only one side of a double-faced sign or V-shaped sign shall be used to compute the gross surface display area, display surface area or sign area of a sign." Any suggestion by the SAPCC that this provision should not apply to sign area credit calculation is simply wrong and ignores the plain and unambiguous language of the Ordinance. c. The Zoninq Committee�s Report Was Far From Inadequate. A review of the Planning Commission Minutes £rom August 8, 1997 indicates that a full discussion was heard regarding the sign variance. Clearly, all commission members knew the feelings of the neighbor group in opposition to the variances. The one Merrian Park Community Council member was not allowed by law to speak at the Planninq Commission meeting on August 8, 1997 since the meeting was not a public hearing. The views of those in opposition to the signs were heard at the public hearings on April 17th, May lst and July 31st. The SAPCC suggests that the feelings of those opposed to the signs were somehow kept secret from the Planning Commission. This suggestion is absurd on its face and defies all common sense. 4. Conclusion On combined votes of 20-1 the Zoning Committee and Planning 5 ��,�y17 Commission have voted in favor of granting the proposed variances. These votes were made with a view toward not only recognizing the rights of Universal and Midwest but also in advancing the spirit and general intent of the Zoning Code. At least 17 nonconforming signs will be removed and replaced by two signs in a freeway corridor where signs are not only permitted but also appear at regular intervals. The actions of the Zoning Committee and Planning Commission are backed by common sense, logic and supported by the factual findings contained in each resolution. The decision of the Planning Commission should undoubtedly be upheld. Dated: September 22, 1997 Respectfully submitted, DIAMOND� LISZT & GRADY, P.A. �'4�-�. � Marvin . Liszt #6384 9855 West 78th Street Suite 210 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 (612) 944-1010 Attorney for Universal Outdoor, Inc. @