The URL can be used to link to this page

97-1570►ZP,c'd lzl��ly� .�-n NI Qw�p.�J �/�u. T�h'► � Presented By Referred To Council File #�� — � S� Q Green Sheet # b�`�U RESOLUTION � CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA , I �� \ I� � � �___. o U Committee: Date � WHEREAS, Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 is a part of the Saint Paul Zoning Code. See, Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.100; and 4 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, in Council File No. 97-1447, initiated 5 a proposal to amend Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 pertaining to advertising signs located 6 in B-2, B-3, B-5 (as described therein), I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning dishicts; 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 WI�REAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul City Charter § 6.05, the proposed atnendment appeazed on the Agenda of the Council of the City of Saint Paul on December 3, 1997 and on December 10, 1997. On December 17, 1997, a public hearing on the proposed amendment was duly conducted by the Council where all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 462357, Subd.4, requires that proposed amendments to a zoning ordinance initiated by the Council shall be referred to the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission for a study, report and recommendation before being acted upon by the Council; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 462357, Subd. 4, the Council, at the conclusion of the December 17, 1997, public hearing, by separate resolufion, referred the proposed amendment to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 to the Planning Commission for a study, report and recommendation on the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, until such time as the required study, report and recommendation of the Planning Commission is completed and the Council has had an opportunity to take action on the report and recommendation, the Council desires, for the purpose of protecting the plamiing process and in aid thereof, to temporarily prohibit the estabiishxnent of any advertising sign in the zoning districts presently set forth in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214; NOW, THEREFORE,BEIT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 462357, Subd. 4, directs the Saint Paul Planning Commission to undertake a study of its proposed amendment to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 and to prepaze and submit to the Council, a report and recommendation on the proposed amendment within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this resolution; AND, BE IT � 37 FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon the receipt of the report and recommendation of the 38 Planning Commission, the Council will reopen the public hearing on the proposed amendment 39 far the purpose of taking additional testimony on the matter as may be necessary based upon the 40 report and recommendation of the Planning Commission; AND, BE IT �Q�� 2 FURTFIER RESOLVED, that under sepazate ordinance, The Council will direct the 3 Planning Commission to immediately undertake a study of the proposed amendment and to 4 submit a report and recommendation to the Councii; AND, BE IT 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 q�1. t 5�10 FURTHER RESOLVED, that pending adoption of an interun ordinance prohibiting advertising signs in the zoning districts set forth in Saint Paul Legislarive Code § 66.214 that might be inconsistent with the pending study, no permits sha11 be issued or granted to erect an advertising sign from this date and untii the expiration of ninety (90) days or until such time as the Council has taken action on the recommendations contained in the study and any amendment fo the zoning code is effective; AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the restriction in this resolution and in the said interim ardinance may be extended by action of the Councii for additional period of time not to exceed the thirty (30) months allowed for interim ordinances under Minn. Stat. § 462.355, Subd. 4 in the event that the study, report and recommendation of the Pluuung Commission and the deliberations of the Council require such extensions of time. Requested by Department of: �.ed by Cotmcil: Date �v�_ �� Lg�` j 1 � By: Form Approved by City Attorney BY:.�!.�l✓l��,,,.«*- �z.-r�-y� ion Ce� y Covncil Secreta� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council �_' By: �ed by rlayor: Da e /' `% J� �� `' �� a � 7 971 GREEN SHEET a� -ls�o n�o 60710 �t.- � t� -�6 � �.,,�.� a,,,�.. _ aGQJDA BY (��1 • wa816M �� NUYBERFOR ❑ GIYATiON16Y CTICIiRK ROIfTING ORDER ❑R1u�CC5LLaFRiICFSOW. FNYKJLLaFMU11CCi6 ❑MVOR(ORAi3RIl111t) ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) P�-•� � � /� �.� � �-��, .�`��' � ��°-�-�> �� PLANNING COMMISSIOM CIB CAMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE CAMMISSION OF TRANSACtION f SOURCE � � �e�z�� .-� � ,��.�- �,.� Has thic pe�soNfirm eser wal�d untler a canhact tor ihis tlepaAment'7 vES nio Hes mis ce�e�rm eaer heen a dh emvbvee4 YES NO Doesihis Pe�soNfifm P� a sldN nM nonnel�YP� bY �+Y �Urt�1 cilY �P�oY�? YES NO k thin pe�soMrm a tar0e[ed vendoY7 . YE3 NO COST/REVENUE BUDQETm (CIRCLE ON� ACTNI7Y NUMBER VES NO (�WM q _ isT � % �n��' Ca �� Z/z��`l7 � �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemun, Muror 390 Cirr Hull IS Wesr Ke!logg 6ou[evard Sainr Pauf, MN 55102 Telephone: 6/2-2668510 Facsimile: 61 Z-266-$513 � December 26, 1997 Council President David Thune and Saint Paul City Councilmembers 310 City Hal( Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: Veto of Council Files 97-15G9 and 1570/Sign Moratorium Dear Council President Thune: I am returning with my veto Council File Numbers 97-1569 and 97-1570 which were intended to enact a moratorium and initiate a study on the location of new advertising signs in the City. I would also veto Council File 97-1568, the proposed ordinance to finalize adoption of the moratorium, if the Council were to adopt it. The City CounciPs decision to enact a s�gnificant restraint on business-activity is not justified. The City has a very strict sign ordinance, there has not been a significant increase in the number of new advertising signs in recent years, and there is no evidence of any negative impact of signs on the community. The proposed moratorium was opposed by the Business Review Council, and I agree with their concern that a moratorium is an overreaction to concerns that have been expressed. I do understand, however, the concerns raised about the effectiveness of the City sign credit procedure. That procedure, which provides "credits" for the removal of certain signs, was adopted by the City Council in 1988 after a thorough study and subsequent amendment to the sign regulations wntained in the Zoning Code. This sign credit procedure has been greatly misunderstood, but it has not prevented the overall effectiveness of the sign ordinance from limiting the 1ocation and number of new signs which have been erected. Sign credits are used to construct new signs which cannot meet the present spacing and or the height limitations. There has been only one such case in the last five yeazs, and that sign was constructed at I-94 and Vandalia Street to repiace a sign that had been at that location for many years. Although constructed, the sign is not being used because the pernvt is under appeal. The sign it replaced was found to have been located, in error, on the public right-of-way and was ordered removed. In addition, for this sign to be utilized � a�_ j5�c� Council Presideat David Thune December 26, 1997 Page Z a variance wil( be required and the City Council will have the ultimate deternvnation on whether this sign can be utilized for advertising purposes. Given that our sign ordinance is working well in general, I support the request of the Office of License Inspections and Environmental Protection for a Planning Commission review limited to the sign credit procedure which is raising concems rather than rushing to enact a moratorium on all new signs and initiate a major new study. Again, because our present regulations are very restrictive and there aze few locations left in the City where new signs can be constructed, I am confident that there will be no rush to erect signs which will be of concern to members of the community in the absence of a moratorium. Sincerely, � �G� yZ��- , . L Norm Coleman Mayor attachments c: Robert Kessier, LIEP Director Pam Whee{ock, PED Director Peg Birk, City Attorney Peter Warner Assistant City Attorney Gerry Strathman, Council Secretary Saint Paul Planning Commission (wlattachments) H:\USERS�ZUSAMW PFILES�SiGNSTDY.V£T ►ZP,c'd lzl��ly� .�-n NI Qw�p.�J �/�u. T�h'► � Presented By Referred To Council File #�� — � S� Q Green Sheet # b�`�U RESOLUTION � CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA , I �� \ I� � � �___. o U Committee: Date � WHEREAS, Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 is a part of the Saint Paul Zoning Code. See, Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.100; and 4 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, in Council File No. 97-1447, initiated 5 a proposal to amend Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 pertaining to advertising signs located 6 in B-2, B-3, B-5 (as described therein), I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning dishicts; 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 WI�REAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul City Charter § 6.05, the proposed atnendment appeazed on the Agenda of the Council of the City of Saint Paul on December 3, 1997 and on December 10, 1997. On December 17, 1997, a public hearing on the proposed amendment was duly conducted by the Council where all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 462357, Subd.4, requires that proposed amendments to a zoning ordinance initiated by the Council shall be referred to the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission for a study, report and recommendation before being acted upon by the Council; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 462357, Subd. 4, the Council, at the conclusion of the December 17, 1997, public hearing, by separate resolufion, referred the proposed amendment to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 to the Planning Commission for a study, report and recommendation on the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, until such time as the required study, report and recommendation of the Planning Commission is completed and the Council has had an opportunity to take action on the report and recommendation, the Council desires, for the purpose of protecting the plamiing process and in aid thereof, to temporarily prohibit the estabiishxnent of any advertising sign in the zoning districts presently set forth in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214; NOW, THEREFORE,BEIT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 462357, Subd. 4, directs the Saint Paul Planning Commission to undertake a study of its proposed amendment to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 and to prepaze and submit to the Council, a report and recommendation on the proposed amendment within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this resolution; AND, BE IT � 37 FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon the receipt of the report and recommendation of the 38 Planning Commission, the Council will reopen the public hearing on the proposed amendment 39 far the purpose of taking additional testimony on the matter as may be necessary based upon the 40 report and recommendation of the Planning Commission; AND, BE IT �Q�� 2 FURTFIER RESOLVED, that under sepazate ordinance, The Council will direct the 3 Planning Commission to immediately undertake a study of the proposed amendment and to 4 submit a report and recommendation to the Councii; AND, BE IT 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 q�1. t 5�10 FURTHER RESOLVED, that pending adoption of an interun ordinance prohibiting advertising signs in the zoning districts set forth in Saint Paul Legislarive Code § 66.214 that might be inconsistent with the pending study, no permits sha11 be issued or granted to erect an advertising sign from this date and untii the expiration of ninety (90) days or until such time as the Council has taken action on the recommendations contained in the study and any amendment fo the zoning code is effective; AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the restriction in this resolution and in the said interim ardinance may be extended by action of the Councii for additional period of time not to exceed the thirty (30) months allowed for interim ordinances under Minn. Stat. § 462.355, Subd. 4 in the event that the study, report and recommendation of the Pluuung Commission and the deliberations of the Council require such extensions of time. Requested by Department of: �.ed by Cotmcil: Date �v�_ �� Lg�` j 1 � By: Form Approved by City Attorney BY:.�!.�l✓l��,,,.«*- �z.-r�-y� ion Ce� y Covncil Secreta� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council �_' By: �ed by rlayor: Da e /' `% J� �� `' �� a � 7 971 GREEN SHEET a� -ls�o n�o 60710 �t.- � t� -�6 � �.,,�.� a,,,�.. _ aGQJDA BY (��1 • wa816M �� NUYBERFOR ❑ GIYATiON16Y CTICIiRK ROIfTING ORDER ❑R1u�CC5LLaFRiICFSOW. FNYKJLLaFMU11CCi6 ❑MVOR(ORAi3RIl111t) ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) P�-•� � � /� �.� � �-��, .�`��' � ��°-�-�> �� PLANNING COMMISSIOM CIB CAMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE CAMMISSION OF TRANSACtION f SOURCE � � �e�z�� .-� � ,��.�- �,.� Has thic pe�soNfirm eser wal�d untler a canhact tor ihis tlepaAment'7 vES nio Hes mis ce�e�rm eaer heen a dh emvbvee4 YES NO Doesihis Pe�soNfifm P� a sldN nM nonnel�YP� bY �+Y �Urt�1 cilY �P�oY�? YES NO k thin pe�soMrm a tar0e[ed vendoY7 . YE3 NO COST/REVENUE BUDQETm (CIRCLE ON� ACTNI7Y NUMBER VES NO (�WM q _ isT � % �n��' Ca �� Z/z��`l7 � �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemun, Muror 390 Cirr Hull IS Wesr Ke!logg 6ou[evard Sainr Pauf, MN 55102 Telephone: 6/2-2668510 Facsimile: 61 Z-266-$513 � December 26, 1997 Council President David Thune and Saint Paul City Councilmembers 310 City Hal( Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: Veto of Council Files 97-15G9 and 1570/Sign Moratorium Dear Council President Thune: I am returning with my veto Council File Numbers 97-1569 and 97-1570 which were intended to enact a moratorium and initiate a study on the location of new advertising signs in the City. I would also veto Council File 97-1568, the proposed ordinance to finalize adoption of the moratorium, if the Council were to adopt it. The City CounciPs decision to enact a s�gnificant restraint on business-activity is not justified. The City has a very strict sign ordinance, there has not been a significant increase in the number of new advertising signs in recent years, and there is no evidence of any negative impact of signs on the community. The proposed moratorium was opposed by the Business Review Council, and I agree with their concern that a moratorium is an overreaction to concerns that have been expressed. I do understand, however, the concerns raised about the effectiveness of the City sign credit procedure. That procedure, which provides "credits" for the removal of certain signs, was adopted by the City Council in 1988 after a thorough study and subsequent amendment to the sign regulations wntained in the Zoning Code. This sign credit procedure has been greatly misunderstood, but it has not prevented the overall effectiveness of the sign ordinance from limiting the 1ocation and number of new signs which have been erected. Sign credits are used to construct new signs which cannot meet the present spacing and or the height limitations. There has been only one such case in the last five yeazs, and that sign was constructed at I-94 and Vandalia Street to repiace a sign that had been at that location for many years. Although constructed, the sign is not being used because the pernvt is under appeal. The sign it replaced was found to have been located, in error, on the public right-of-way and was ordered removed. In addition, for this sign to be utilized � a�_ j5�c� Council Presideat David Thune December 26, 1997 Page Z a variance wil( be required and the City Council will have the ultimate deternvnation on whether this sign can be utilized for advertising purposes. Given that our sign ordinance is working well in general, I support the request of the Office of License Inspections and Environmental Protection for a Planning Commission review limited to the sign credit procedure which is raising concems rather than rushing to enact a moratorium on all new signs and initiate a major new study. Again, because our present regulations are very restrictive and there aze few locations left in the City where new signs can be constructed, I am confident that there will be no rush to erect signs which will be of concern to members of the community in the absence of a moratorium. Sincerely, � �G� yZ��- , . L Norm Coleman Mayor attachments c: Robert Kessier, LIEP Director Pam Whee{ock, PED Director Peg Birk, City Attorney Peter Warner Assistant City Attorney Gerry Strathman, Council Secretary Saint Paul Planning Commission (wlattachments) H:\USERS�ZUSAMW PFILES�SiGNSTDY.V£T ►ZP,c'd lzl��ly� .�-n NI Qw�p.�J �/�u. T�h'► � Presented By Referred To Council File #�� — � S� Q Green Sheet # b�`�U RESOLUTION � CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA , I �� \ I� � � �___. o U Committee: Date � WHEREAS, Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 is a part of the Saint Paul Zoning Code. See, Saint Paul Legislative Code § 60.100; and 4 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, in Council File No. 97-1447, initiated 5 a proposal to amend Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 pertaining to advertising signs located 6 in B-2, B-3, B-5 (as described therein), I-1, I-2 and I-3 zoning dishicts; 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 WI�REAS, pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul City Charter § 6.05, the proposed atnendment appeazed on the Agenda of the Council of the City of Saint Paul on December 3, 1997 and on December 10, 1997. On December 17, 1997, a public hearing on the proposed amendment was duly conducted by the Council where all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 462357, Subd.4, requires that proposed amendments to a zoning ordinance initiated by the Council shall be referred to the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission for a study, report and recommendation before being acted upon by the Council; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 462357, Subd. 4, the Council, at the conclusion of the December 17, 1997, public hearing, by separate resolufion, referred the proposed amendment to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 to the Planning Commission for a study, report and recommendation on the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, until such time as the required study, report and recommendation of the Planning Commission is completed and the Council has had an opportunity to take action on the report and recommendation, the Council desires, for the purpose of protecting the plamiing process and in aid thereof, to temporarily prohibit the estabiishxnent of any advertising sign in the zoning districts presently set forth in Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214; NOW, THEREFORE,BEIT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul, in accordance with Minn. Stat. 462357, Subd. 4, directs the Saint Paul Planning Commission to undertake a study of its proposed amendment to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.214 and to prepaze and submit to the Council, a report and recommendation on the proposed amendment within ninety (90) days of the effective date of this resolution; AND, BE IT � 37 FURTHER RESOLVED, that upon the receipt of the report and recommendation of the 38 Planning Commission, the Council will reopen the public hearing on the proposed amendment 39 far the purpose of taking additional testimony on the matter as may be necessary based upon the 40 report and recommendation of the Planning Commission; AND, BE IT �Q�� 2 FURTFIER RESOLVED, that under sepazate ordinance, The Council will direct the 3 Planning Commission to immediately undertake a study of the proposed amendment and to 4 submit a report and recommendation to the Councii; AND, BE IT 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 q�1. t 5�10 FURTHER RESOLVED, that pending adoption of an interun ordinance prohibiting advertising signs in the zoning districts set forth in Saint Paul Legislarive Code § 66.214 that might be inconsistent with the pending study, no permits sha11 be issued or granted to erect an advertising sign from this date and untii the expiration of ninety (90) days or until such time as the Council has taken action on the recommendations contained in the study and any amendment fo the zoning code is effective; AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the restriction in this resolution and in the said interim ardinance may be extended by action of the Councii for additional period of time not to exceed the thirty (30) months allowed for interim ordinances under Minn. Stat. § 462.355, Subd. 4 in the event that the study, report and recommendation of the Pluuung Commission and the deliberations of the Council require such extensions of time. Requested by Department of: �.ed by Cotmcil: Date �v�_ �� Lg�` j 1 � By: Form Approved by City Attorney BY:.�!.�l✓l��,,,.«*- �z.-r�-y� ion Ce� y Covncil Secreta� Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council �_' By: �ed by rlayor: Da e /' `% J� �� `' �� a � 7 971 GREEN SHEET a� -ls�o n�o 60710 �t.- � t� -�6 � �.,,�.� a,,,�.. _ aGQJDA BY (��1 • wa816M �� NUYBERFOR ❑ GIYATiON16Y CTICIiRK ROIfTING ORDER ❑R1u�CC5LLaFRiICFSOW. FNYKJLLaFMU11CCi6 ❑MVOR(ORAi3RIl111t) ❑ TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) P�-•� � � /� �.� � �-��, .�`��' � ��°-�-�> �� PLANNING COMMISSIOM CIB CAMMITTEE CNIL SERVICE CAMMISSION OF TRANSACtION f SOURCE � � �e�z�� .-� � ,��.�- �,.� Has thic pe�soNfirm eser wal�d untler a canhact tor ihis tlepaAment'7 vES nio Hes mis ce�e�rm eaer heen a dh emvbvee4 YES NO Doesihis Pe�soNfifm P� a sldN nM nonnel�YP� bY �+Y �Urt�1 cilY �P�oY�? YES NO k thin pe�soMrm a tar0e[ed vendoY7 . YE3 NO COST/REVENUE BUDQETm (CIRCLE ON� ACTNI7Y NUMBER VES NO (�WM q _ isT � % �n��' Ca �� Z/z��`l7 � �� CITY OF SAINT PAUL Norm Colemun, Muror 390 Cirr Hull IS Wesr Ke!logg 6ou[evard Sainr Pauf, MN 55102 Telephone: 6/2-2668510 Facsimile: 61 Z-266-$513 � December 26, 1997 Council President David Thune and Saint Paul City Councilmembers 310 City Hal( Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Re: Veto of Council Files 97-15G9 and 1570/Sign Moratorium Dear Council President Thune: I am returning with my veto Council File Numbers 97-1569 and 97-1570 which were intended to enact a moratorium and initiate a study on the location of new advertising signs in the City. I would also veto Council File 97-1568, the proposed ordinance to finalize adoption of the moratorium, if the Council were to adopt it. The City CounciPs decision to enact a s�gnificant restraint on business-activity is not justified. The City has a very strict sign ordinance, there has not been a significant increase in the number of new advertising signs in recent years, and there is no evidence of any negative impact of signs on the community. The proposed moratorium was opposed by the Business Review Council, and I agree with their concern that a moratorium is an overreaction to concerns that have been expressed. I do understand, however, the concerns raised about the effectiveness of the City sign credit procedure. That procedure, which provides "credits" for the removal of certain signs, was adopted by the City Council in 1988 after a thorough study and subsequent amendment to the sign regulations wntained in the Zoning Code. This sign credit procedure has been greatly misunderstood, but it has not prevented the overall effectiveness of the sign ordinance from limiting the 1ocation and number of new signs which have been erected. Sign credits are used to construct new signs which cannot meet the present spacing and or the height limitations. There has been only one such case in the last five yeazs, and that sign was constructed at I-94 and Vandalia Street to repiace a sign that had been at that location for many years. Although constructed, the sign is not being used because the pernvt is under appeal. The sign it replaced was found to have been located, in error, on the public right-of-way and was ordered removed. In addition, for this sign to be utilized � a�_ j5�c� Council Presideat David Thune December 26, 1997 Page Z a variance wil( be required and the City Council will have the ultimate deternvnation on whether this sign can be utilized for advertising purposes. Given that our sign ordinance is working well in general, I support the request of the Office of License Inspections and Environmental Protection for a Planning Commission review limited to the sign credit procedure which is raising concems rather than rushing to enact a moratorium on all new signs and initiate a major new study. Again, because our present regulations are very restrictive and there aze few locations left in the City where new signs can be constructed, I am confident that there will be no rush to erect signs which will be of concern to members of the community in the absence of a moratorium. Sincerely, � �G� yZ��- , . L Norm Coleman Mayor attachments c: Robert Kessier, LIEP Director Pam Whee{ock, PED Director Peg Birk, City Attorney Peter Warner Assistant City Attorney Gerry Strathman, Council Secretary Saint Paul Planning Commission (wlattachments) H:\USERS�ZUSAMW PFILES�SiGNSTDY.V£T