99-1091Council File # qq � ��t
RESOLUTION
CITY OF
Presented By
Referred To
PAUL, MINNESOTA
Green Sheet # �(� t��{ � $'
�S
Committee: Date
2
3
4
5
6
7
WHEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-154 and pursuant to Saint Paul
Legislarive Code § 66.408 made application to the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission
(Commission) to appeal the decision of the Saint Paul Zoning Administrator to a11ow repairs to
storm damaged advertising signs located at 1820 Grand Avenue and at the southeast corner of
Ford Parkway and South Cleveland Avenue; and
8 WHEREAS, on August 6, 1998, the Commission's Zoning Committee conducted a
9 public hearing where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard and submitted
10 its recommendation to deny the appeal to the Commission; and
11
12 WHEREAS, in its Resolution No. 98-45, dated August 14, 1998, the Commission
13 decided to deny the appeal based upon the findings in Resolution 98-45 which is attached hereto
14 and incorporated herein by reference; and
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WHEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-247 and pursuant to the provisions of
Saint Paul Legislafive Code § 64.206, filed an appeal from the determination made by the
Commission and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City Council (Council) for the
purposes of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and
WIIEREAS, on October 7, 1998 and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§
64.206 - 64.208 with noUce to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
Council where al] interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and
WHEREAS, the Council having heard the statements made and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and
of the Planning Commission, does hereby;
RESOLVE, to affirm the decision of the Commission. The Council finds no error in any
fact, procedure or finding made by the Plax�ning Commission and that Zoning Code § 66301
applies to these non-conforming advertising signs ; and be it
1 a.g, -�� g,�
2 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall maii a copy of this resolution to Brian
3 Bates, Esq. on behalf of the appellant, Marvin Liszt, Esq, on behaif of the sign company, the
4 Zoning Administrator and the Plauuing Commission.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Apps
Byc
By:
Form Appro ed by City Attoxney
s ����� ��/t7/y5
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Adopted by Council: Date ���Q�
Adoption Certified by Council Secretasy
°l.�i, - �O �t-L
....�.��
.
GREEN SHEET
No104�78
Peter Warner
iT 8E ON CIXRJCIL AGH�IIN BY (Q4Tq
rta���vl�
OR06t
TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES
i� , -�_��
=� •�e
❑ an�naeEr ❑ anctsx
❑ wuxcu�mn+r.�soa ❑ wwio��a
❑Yratlatuasrwrtl ❑
(CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE�
Memoralizing the decision of the City Council on October 7, 1998 denying the appeal of
Scenic Minnesota, Highland Area Community Council, and Rogers Chambers to a decision of
the Planning Commission regarding storm-damaged billboards at 1820 �rand Avenue and at
Highland Village Shopping Center.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CIB COMMfITEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
IcY:. �e�
AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S
Has mie aeiswJfiim eexr Mwicea unaer a conhact for tnie �pamnemv
vES r�o
Fias thia perem/firm ever been a dly empbyee?
YES MO
poe6 this pe�aonlfi�m poscess a sidll rqt normallYPossessetl bY airy cunmt city employeeT
YES NO
Is this pereoNfirm a tarpetetl Mendoi?
YES NO
COSTIREVENUE BUDfiETED (qRLYE ON�
VES NO
SOURCE
ACTNIiY NUMBER
(EfPWN)
0.� - toq�
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: October 28, 1999
TO: Nancy Anderson
FROM: Peter Warner
RE: Resolution memorializing decision of City Council from 10-7-98 in the matter of
Scenic Minnesota, et a1. appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 98-45.
It came to my attention that the appeal of Scenic Minnesota of a decision of the Planning
Commission dated August 14,1998 had notbeen reducedto aresolutionmemorializing the decision
of the City Council as required under Saint Paul City Charter § 6.03.01. Accordingly please fmd
attached, for placement at your earliest convenience on the CounciPs Consent Agenda, a signed
original resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council to deny Scenic Minnesota's
appeal.
��`"iaa .,"��a�c."�°?'�w�?1t�
C�T � � ��99
� l�_2�--a�q
`t`1-lo g�
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number 98-45
�te August 14, 1998
�VHEREAS, SCENIC MINNESOTA, file � 98-154, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of
Section 66300(j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the Zoning Administrator's decision
regarding advertising sians damaged in a storm on May 30, 1993; and located at 1820 Grand
Avenue, the Hi�hland Villa�e Shoppin� Center, which is on the south side of Ford Pazkway
between Kenneth Street and Cleveland Avenue, and at 1142, 1184, and 1209 W. Seventh Street
(legal descriptions on file); and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on Au�ust 6, 1448, held a
public heazing at which alt persons present ���ere given an opportunity to be heazd pursuant to
said application in accordance �vith the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Plannin; Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zonin�
Committee at the public heazin� as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�ving
findings of fact:
A major wind storm hit the T�vin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damaee
to homes, trees, and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, city inspectors
checked the sites of dama�ed billboazds with Chris McCarver of Eller Media, Inc. On
June 10, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller Media that, as a result of the inspection, two
of the damaged billboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the middle billboazd structure at
Hi�hland Vi(la�e had not teceived structural d'ama�e; just the si�ns and poster panels,
w�hich provided the backing for the siQns, had blow�n down. Replacin� poster panels does
not, as a matter of standard City practice dating back many yeazs, require a building
peanit. Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to replace the poster panels on those
tW0 SIaIIS.
Ms. Lane's letter said that the other four billboazd locations--one at Highland Village
Shopping Center and three on W. Seventh Street--were found to have structural damage.
Therefore, she requested information abou[ the cost of repairs in relation to the
replacement cost of each sign. One of the tests in the Zoning Code for the repair of
nonconformin� siQns that have been damaaed is that the renovation costs aze less than 51
moved by Field
seconded by
in favor 10 (Field abstained)
against �
�j
percent of the replacement cost.
2. A(1 of the billboazds in question are owned by Eiler Media, Inc. (formerly Naegele and
then Universal), �vhich is a national billboard company. All of the biltboazds aze in B-2
(Community Business) zoning districts, where advertising signs aze permitted if they
meet certain size and spacing requirements unless an overlay special sign district imposes
stricter regulations. None of the billboards in question are conformina, they are all legal
nonconformina signs for one reason or another. The Grand Avenue and Highland Village
signs are in Special Sign DisTricts adopted in the 1980s w•here billboards aze prohibited.
The W. Seventh Street billboards aze in an interim Special Sign District approved by the
City Council earIier this yeaz, �vhere new construction and modification of biliboards aze
prohibited until new advertising sign regulations are adopted by the City Council.
Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16, 1998, appealed Ms.
Lane's decision to allo�v replacement of the poster panels at t�vo locations (1820 Grand
Avenue and the middle billboards on the Highland Vitlage Shopping Center), and her
request for cost estimates from Eller in relation to the 51 percent test as a basis for future
decisions about cvhether the other billboazds will be peanitted to be renovated. The
appeal contains five specific arguments.
4. The first specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising si�ns, the 51 percent
rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in the next section (66.302), which
is specifically about adverfising signs. The city staff from LIEP, PED, and tEie City
Attorney's Office have conferred and a�ree that nonconforming billboards aze regulated
by both sections and by applicable special sign districts; in the event of any appazent
inconsistency, whichever contains the most specific provisions controls. However, the
Zonin� Administrator's letter contained only a request for information, not a decision
about how the renovation cost information `vould be used. Therefore, since no decision
has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature.
5. Scenic Minnesota's second specific appeal is that if the 51 percent test �rere to apply, it
shoutd apply to the sign face as well as to the rest of the sign structure. Based on the
definitions for "sign" and "sign structure" in the code (66.121), this appeal has some
merit. But different terms are used in the para�raph on exemptions from getting building
permits (66.40�), which refers to "display surface" and "poster replacement". The Iatter
terms aze not defined in the code and, being subject to interpretation, are a responsibility
of the Zonin� Administrator. The Cit�• Council is expected to amendment advertising
sign re�ulations later this yeaz and tivill receive comments from the Plannin� Commission
before doing so. Code amendments ���ould be a better way to clazify how sign faces
shoutd be considered than tryin� to reach a decision through an appeals process.
6. Scenic Minnesota s third and fourth specific appeals azgue that the installation or
replacement of sien faces should rzquire a sign {building) permit. On replacement of the
sign face (poster panels), LIEP treated Eller Media the same as they have treated all
billboard companies. For many years the Zoning Administrator has interpreted 66.40� to
��
`� °l - to �l\
allow poster panei replacement without a sign permit. Poster panels come in kits of
interlockin� strips of galvanized sheet metal, �vhich aze assembled on site and typically
cost less than 20 percent of the construction cost of a billboard. For the set of billboazds
at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboazds on Highland V illage Shopping
Center, LIEP inspectors determined that no structural damage had occurred. Ms. Lane's
letter of June 10, 1998, is clearly consistent with established practice; any other decision
would have been discriminatory.
7. The fifth specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that the W. Seventh biliboazds cannot be
replaced or renovated at this time because of the interim Special Sign District for the �V.
Seventh neighborhood. In February 1998, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance
that created an Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to make
recommendations to the Council. During the study period, the ordinance provides that
district councils may apply for a special sign district by wTiting a letter. In early July, the
City Councii held a public heazin� and approved interim special sign districts in every
citizen participation district that applied. The �Vest Seventh Federation appiied on April
6, 1998, and the district became effective on May 6.
As with the 51 percent test, the Zoning Administrator has not rendered a decision about
whether or not the W. Seventh billboards can be renovated, and an appeai is premature.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
allow the replacement of the sign faces �vithout sign permits for the billboards at 1820 Grand
Avenue and for the middle set of billboards at Highland Villa�e Shoppin� Center is hereby
denied;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission renders no decision on this
appeal as regards the eastem set of billboards at Highland Village Shopping Center or the
billboazds on W. Seventh Street; since LIEP has only asked for information from Eller Media on
these storm-damaged billboards and has not yet made decisions on whether they can be
renovated, appeals about them are premature.
�i
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Pamela Wheelock, Di�ector
CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, Mayar
September 16, 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
CiTy Council Research O�ce
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
25 H'est Fourth Street
Saint Paut, MN i57D2
�.\��+t Ktsd�•'�+or�
pQ �
C.�
��� i
��
Telephome: 612d 66-6� 65
Facsim77e- 612-228-3314
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
October 7, 1998 for the following zoning case:
Applicants:
File Nuxnber:
Scenic Minnesota, Highland Area Community Council, and Rogers Chambers
98-247
Purpose: Appeal of Planning Commission decision regarding storm-damaged biliboards:
Planning Commission upheld action of LIEP to allow replacement of sign face
panels where the sign support structure was undamaged on billboards in the
Grand Avenue and Highland Special Sign Districts
Locations: 1820 Crrand Avenue (southwest corner of Grand and Fairview) and at Highland
V illage Shopping Center (southwest comer of Ford Pkwy. and Cleveland)
My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council on
September 23, 1998 and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Please call me at 266-6575 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Wr' '
LarrySo rholm ___ _
Principal Planner - Zoning
cc: Councilmember Benanav
Councilmember Harris
Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
, �.�.
� NOTICE OF POBLIC HEARING .� .
-c�. '
The Saint Paul City Covncil a'i11 cunduct a public hearing on Wednesday, October 7.
1998 at 5:30 p.m: in the City Council Chambers, Thicd Floor City Hall-Coart House. to
consider the appeai of Scenic Minnesota, Higkiland Area Community Conncil. and
Rogers Chambers to a decision of the Planning Cocnmissiun regarding storm-damaged
bil(boards at IS20 Grand Avenue (southwest corner of Grand and Fairview Avenues)
and�at Highland�ViHage Shopping Center (souihwest corner of Ford Pazkway and
Cleveland Avenuel. . � _ ,
Dafeda.Septemherl7, 1998
NANCYANDERSON " . .
Assistant City Cbtutcff SecreCary � � -
(9eptetttber 19. 1998) _.. �
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
September 30, 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
PameZa WheeZocl� Director � 9_� b � 1
25 West Fourth Sveet Telephone: 612-266-6565
Saint Paul, IvN 55102 Facsimile: 612-228-3314
RE: Zoning File # 98-247: SCENIC MINNESOTA, HIGHLAND AREA COMMUNITY
COLJNCIL, and ROGERS CHAMBERS (co-appellants)
City Council Hearing: October 7, 1998 at 530 p.m., City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision that allowed the replacement of sign face panels
� on two storm-damaged billboards located in special sign districts where the construction, replacement, or
renovation of billboards is prohibited. The Planning Commission denied an appeal filed by Scenic
Minnesota and the Highland Area Community Council of an administrative decision made by LIEP. The
Zoning Administrator in LIEP determined that sign face panels that had blown off could be replaced on
billboazds where the sign structures that support the sign faces were undamaged.
LOCATIONS: The billboards in question are at 1820 Grand Avenue (southwest comer of Fairview on
top of the Subway Sandwich shop) and at 2012 Ford Parkway (the middle billboard on top of the
Highland Village Shopping Center.) Both billboard structures are V-shaped with rivo billboard faces.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Deny appeal by Scenic Minnesota and the Highland area
community council, 10-0 (with 1 abstention)
ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATTON: Deny appeal, 3-1 (with 1 abstention)
STAFF RECQMMENDATION: Deny appeai but revise code to require building permits for sign face
panel replacement in the future
SUPPORT FOR APPEAL BY SCENIC MN: Co-appellants, plus one letter of support.
OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY SCENIC MN: Two representatives of the billboard industry and the
owner of the Highland Village Shopping Center.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
SCENIC MINNESOTA, the HIGHLAND AREA COMMIJNITY COLINCIL, and ROGERS
CHAMBERS have appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Plannina Commission to deny a previous
�l
` Ms. Nancy Anderson
CiTy Council Secretary
September 30, 1998
Page 2
appeal led by Scenic Minnesota of the Zoning Administrator's decision that sign face panels b(own down
by storms could be replaced on those billboards where the sign structure was not damaged, even on
billboards located in special sign districts where the construction, replacement, or renovation of
billboards is prohibited.
The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public heazing on the matter on August 6,
1998. Representatives of Scenic Minnesota and the Highland Area Community Council spoke in support
of the appeal. Two representatives of Eller Media Company and the owner of the Highland Village
Shopping Center spoke in opposition, that is, in support of the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of
the code. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 3 to 1 with 1 abstention to recommend
denial of the appeal. The Planning Commission considered the case on August 14, 1998; they supported
the Zoning Committee's recommendation and denied the appeal by a vote of 10 to 0 with 1 abstention.
The appeal to the Planning Commission initially involved six billboards, but the Planning Commission
found that in four cases the Zoning Administrator had not yet rendered a decision on whether the
billboards could be repaired, but had only requested information from Eller Media Company about the
extend of dama�e and estimated repair costs. Thus, the Planning Commission made decisions about
only rivo billboards; they upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Code and
denied the appeal. The present appeal to the City Council is about the two billboards, one on Grand
Avenue and the other at Highland Village Shopping Center, on which the Zoning Adminish�ator
authorized the installation of new sign face panels. These two billboards were put saon put back into
service within weeks after the storms. In several other cases around the city, storm-damaged billboards
remain out of service while information gathering and decisions aze made.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 7, 1998. Please call ma (266-6575)
if you have questions and please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of
the sites presented at the public hearing.
Sincerely,
L�holm
PrincipalPlanner- Zoning
Attachments
cc: City Council members
Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
Gayle Summers, HACC
Rogers Chambers
\�PED\SY52�SHAAED�SODERHOL�ZONRVU198?47CC2.L1R
Peter Warner, Asst. City Attomey
Wendy Lane, LIEP
Chris McCarver, Eller Media Co.
Mike Cronin, outdoor advertising consultant
�
�
�
'
�
q q _ togl
ATTACffiVIENTS
•
A.
B.
C.
D.
Appeal form and letter of explanation
�.���
Planning Commission Resolution and Planning Commission minutes for 8/14/98 �
Zoning Committee minutes for 8/6/98 �,�� 1`� `
���'
Staff Report of 7/25f98 with many attachments sent to the Zoning Committee
��
E. Location and zoning maps
P. �Z -�
�� �J
• UPED\SYS2\SHAREDVSODERHOL�ZONIlVG\98247CC2.LIR �
�lq - lo`l\
�
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Departme�:t af Planning and Econamic Development
Zoning Section
1100 City Hal! Annec
25 YT'est FourUr Stree�
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
�or�€ng �ae use
Fiie rto �� �`7' � -
Fs� � �`?�
�££1�3t1Y9 -#?2�i£liig �_ � - -
__..��'' �"�
. 't�_��- r _ -
APPELLANT Name SCtn�c. ��C`�''li7in�.nrn,eet,q<<t..
Address f�« �"`5 I�b � �r/��''+-�( �`'`�- �ni f � �S1°i
City St._ Zip Daytime phone �°� ° �� 6 �
�».+�'�+�5 11j�iY- 5 5i. ('a*-c ��°� � (Pr?v- 3`i�
�
PROPERTY
LOCATtON
Zoning File Name
Address/Location
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby mad�e for an appeaf to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �'City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to
appea4 a ecisio made by the �n�� ���n^�55��
on ����'-/ � , 19_ File number: 7 ^ 5
(date of decision) �
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding rnade by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
��inint�C.C'�- �ll�_ h���-�eS iN i '�z-►Jov.}Tia�S 8� �SL
�.� v�—�A�nn�Le�Q �rc�3�,�.ns .
< ,
�i�s SeL���n. j��s�e-��o•�S ��n.�pvar c� �r��r�,An.,�s k,��at
13 fl/�c rt�T fl ��Li�i�i�' v5�_
,
�1�.LGv,��s.�s in f�rEttyt�� � Or� �/}� N�. I���lL+nrTC.�
�
��
Attach additiona/ sheet rf necessary)
,!7 .
Appiicant's signature
s c�« /77 n
,7�� �: / . e . _ r
u� � �by
��
g�City agent ! .1�'�n'�� �/
�
O//icers: Ezecutice Otrettor
6rian 6afes
John Mannillo 1985 Grand Avenue
Jeanne Weigum Saint Paul, MIY 55105�
Michael Paymar SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA 612 690-9671
ftuby tlunt
September 1, 1998
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Planning and Economic Development
City Hall Annex, 25 West 4th Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 .
Re: Damaged Billboards Appeal.
Mr. Soderholm:
I ask that this writing and attached letter be made part of
the appeal lodged on August 24, 1998 by Scenic Minnesota, Highland
Area Community Council, and J. Rogers Chambers.
ScoRe
I understand the action being appealed is Zimited to that
portion oP LIEP Zoning Manager Wendy Lane's June 10, 1998, letter
in which she allowed the renovation and replacement of the two- �
paneled, middle, rooftop billboard on the building on the south-
east corner of Cleveland and Ford Parkway and the two-paneled,
�
rooftop billboard at 1820 Grand Avenue.
Background
An appeal of Zoning Manager Lane`s letter of June 10, 1998,
was filed at a cost of $150.00 on June 16, 1998. The appeal was
heard by the Zoning Committee of the Planninq Coaunission on August
6, 1998. That committee voted four to one, with Chair Field
abstaining�, to deny the appeal. Denial of the appeal was
formalized by the Planning Commission on Auqust 24, 2998.
Commissioner Field moved denial and, except for his abstention, the
� Litton Field derives income from a billboard on downtown �
Saint Paul property in which he has an interest.
�
aq-�o��
� motion passed unanimously.
On August 24, 1998, appellants filed this appeal in this
matter, again at a cost of $150.00. Appellants hereby appeal the
Planning Commission's denial of appellants' earlier appeal.
Appellants' Position
The crux of the issue before trie City Council on appeal is the
proper interpretation o£ the City Zoning Code. The industry has
argued the controlling Zoning Code provision is §66.301, which
pertains generally to "signs." Appellants argue the controlling
provision is §66.302, which pertains more specifically to
"advertising signs."
When interpreting the Zoning Code its lanquage is to be
construed according to the rules of construction contained in
� §60.102. The first rule of construction in that section requires
"the particular shall control the general." Further, the use of
the word "shall is mandatory." We conclude it is mandatory that
the particular control the general.
We further conclude §66.302, which pertains particularly to
advertising signs, must control §66.301, which pertains more
generally to advertising, as well as business, signs.
It is uncontested the subject billboards are nonconforming;
were damaged in a windstorm; were replaced and/or renovated; and
are located in special sign districts in which billboards are not
a permitted use.
Section 66.302 allows the replacement and/or renovation of any
�
2
�
7
nonconforming advertising siqn only if the advertising sign is �
located in a zoning district in which advertising signs are a
permitted use.
We conclude that nonconforming advertising signs in the Grand
Avenue Special District Sign Plan area and the xighland Village
Special District Sign Plan area cannot be replaced or renovated.
We further conclude replacing and/or renovating, or allowing the
replacement and/or renovation of, the subject billboards violates
the Saint Paul Zoning Code.
The subject billboards are illegal and must be removed in
their entirety immediately. Any other action would sanction a
violation of the Zoning Code.
PED's Position
In its Zoning Committee Staf£ Report, PED, after consultation .
with the City Attorney's office, made the following determinations:
1) The subject advertisinq signs are nonconforming;
2) Section 66.302 controls; �
3) Advertising signs are not a permitted use on Grand Avenue
and in Highland Village;
4) Renovation is "to restore to an earlier condition, to
improve by repairing." (PED did not discuss the term
"replace.")
PED concluded, and recommended, the subject billboards could
not be renovated, that is, returned to their earlier condition; the
51% damage test contained in §66.301 is not the,appropriate test
for damaged billboards; anything beyond minor repairs must meet the
standards of §66.302; and the City should require a sign permit for
the replacement o£ poster panels. See PED Zoning Committee Report.
3
C J
"5
49 �►d q1
�
LIEP's Departmental Practice
It has been suggested that LIEP acted appropriately when LIEP
did not require the issuance of a permit for, and thus allowed, the
renovation of the subject billboards. The argument goes that since
LIEP had a longstanding practice of not requiring the issuance of
permits for sign face replacement LIEP was right not to have done
so here. There are several £laws in this reasoning.
First, we challenge whether this "long-standing practice" is
a fact or merely a convenient explanation for allowing the subject
billboards to be renovated or replaced in violation of the Zoning
Code. We have seen no written internal policy on this point. We
are unaware of any instances where sign companies have applied for
permits for the replacement of sign faces and have been told in
� writing a permit was unnecessary. On the contrary, we are aware of
at least one recent instance where a permit application was
submitted, and a permit issued, for the replacement of a sign face
�
(2/26/98 issuance of a permit to Universal Outdoor to replace a
rooftop sign face on University near Prior).
Even if a"long-standing practice" can be estalalished, we
disagree the subject billboards can be renovated and/or replaced.
The logic that departmental practice should override provisions of
the Zoning Code leads to several distinct, and equally untenable,
results. The Zoning Administrator is required by the Zoning Code
to enforce trie provisions of the Zoning Code. See §66.401. This
provision becomes a nullity if the Zoning Administrator does not,
in fact, enforce all provisions of the Zoning Code. If the Zoning
�
4
✓
�
Code is not enforced in this instance it follows the Zoning Code �
can never be enforced. In all similar future circumstances sign
companies will, no doubt, argue that the City must treat them as
Universal sign company is now treated. Logically, this leads to
the effective rewriting of the Zoning Code by City staff. City
staff has no such authority.
Regardless, LIEP did not make reference to any "long-standing�'
internal policy when it wrote Universal Outdoor allowing
replacement of the subject billboards. LIEP referred to a specific
provision of the Zoning Code. In her June 10, 1998, letter, Ms.
Lane stated: "The replacement of poster panels is permitted without
a permit pursuant to Section 66.405(1) of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code." Section 66.405(1) reads:
The changing of the display surface on a painted or printed �
sign only. However this exception shall apply only to poster
replacement and/or on-site changes involving sign painting
elsewhere than directly on a building.
Ms. Lane used a Zoning Code provision, allowing the
replacement of an advertising poster, to allow the replacement of
� advertising poster panels. This is not a casual mistake. To
confuse posters and poster panels is to confuse paint and the
painting surface, a sign and a sign face, a bulletin and a bulletin
board, or chalk and a blackboard. Ms. Lane went to extraordinary
lengths to accommodate Universal outdoor.
A Word On Property Riahts
The Zoning Code specifically disallows vestinq oP property
rights with any billboard company or any billboard property owner.
Neither the billboard company, nor the property owner, has any �
5
lri
`C9 -�05\
� right to the continuation of any billboard use under the Zoning
Code. See § 66.411.
On the other hand, area residents do have vested property
rights. The residential property owners have a right to quiet
enjoyment of their properties. The replacement of the subject
billboards has interfered with area residential property rights.
See Chambers letter attached.
Relief
Appellants ask the City Council to declare the two subject
billboards nuisances per se pursuant to Zoning Code §66.413 and
order their immediate removal. Further, appellants ask the City
Council to order the return of $300.00 in filing fees to
appellants.'
�
L �r-- - �-���.�
Brian Bates
for: Scenic Minnesota
Highland Area Community Council
J. Rogers Chambers
� Appellants are aware that the issue of reimbursement of
filing fees has recently been before the Council. The Council
riqhtly declined to allow special rules for neighborhood or non-
profit groups. However, appellants now suggest the return of the
filing fees (no attorney fees) in any case where the appellant
prevails or substantially prevails on appeal.
In this case, appellants' filing fees were necessitated by
LIEP's error in judgment and the Planninq Commission's failure to
correct the error. Appellants suggest it is unfair that private
moneys be expended to en£orce the Zoning Code where public
� employees and officials have failed to do so.
6
�
�
August 5, 1998
St. Paul Zoning Committee
25 West 4"' Street
1100 City Hall Annex
St. Paui, Minnesota 55102
ATTN: Mr. larry Soderholm
Va Fax#651/228-3314
,
Dear Mr. Soderholm:
This letter is in support o# Scenic Minnesota's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
decision regarding the rebuilding of biAboards at the southwest corrier of Grand and
Fairview (1820 Grand Ave.} after they were damaged in the recent wind storms.
From the back of our home at 1834 Summit Avenue we can see the billboards and
consider them unsightly_ They are a very unpleasant aspect of fhe view from the
house, and they block a piece of sky we have a right to see.
As property owners in the neighborhoai, we were led to believe that if ever these
biilboards were destroyed by natural causes, they would not be replaced. After the
damage to them in May, we thought that we would not see the biliboards any longer.
We were very surprised, and much disappointed, to see them rebuilt.
We urge the Zoning Committee to grant Scenic Minnesota's appeal and reverse the
Administrator's decision aliowing the rebuilding of the biliboards. This form of
advertising is a bfight on the urban landscape and our neighbor wiil oniy be improved
by their removal.
We hope that you wi;l agree with our viewpoint, grant the appeai, and adhere to the
zoning code resfrictions as they current{y stand, disaliowing the billboards. We do not
need this type of adve �" in our neighborhood.
i
Sincerel � ��7
/n ��
J-Rogers Chambers
Shawn �. Chambers
1834 Summit Avenue
, , 'h`
��+1ri
�
i
�
�
`�q - �o ��
� city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number 98-_
date Au 14 1998
WHEREAS, SCENIC MIi� file � 98-154, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of
Section 66300(j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the Zoning Administrator's decision
re�azding advertising si�ns damaged in a storm on May 30, 1998; and loca[ed at 1820 Grand
Avenue, the Highland Village Shopping Center, which is on the south side of Ford Pazkway
between Kenneth Street and Cleveland Avenue, and at 1142, 1184, and 1209 �V. Seventh Street
(legal descriptions on file); and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on August 6, 1998, held a
public heazin� at which all persons present w�ere given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to
said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Pianning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning
Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following
� findings of fact:
1. A major �vind storm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of dama�e
to homes, trees, and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, city inspectors
checked the sites of damaged billboazds with Chris McCarver of Eller Media, Inc. On
June 10, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller Media that, as a result of the inspection, two
of the damaged billboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the middle billboazd structure at
Highland Village had not received structural damage; just the signs and poster panels,
which provided the backing for the signs, had blown down. Replacing poster panels does
not, as a matter of standard City practice dating back many years, require a building
permit. Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to replace the poster panels on those
two signs.
Ms. Lane's letter said that the other four billboazd locations--one at Highland Village
Shopping Center and three on W. Seventh Street--were found to have structural damage.
Therefore, she requested information about the cost of repairs in relation to the
replacement cost of each sign. One of the tests in the Zoning Code for the repair of
nonconformin� signs that have been dama�ed is that the renovation costs aze less than 51
moved by Field
� seconded by
in favor 10 (Field abstained)
against
�i
percent of the replacement cost.
2. All of the billboazds in question are owned by Eller Media, Inc. (formerly Naegele and
then Universal), which is a national biilboazd company. All of the biilboazds aze in B-2
(Community Business) zoning districts, where advertising signs aze permitted if they
meet certain size and spacing requirements unless an overlay speciat sign district imposes
stricter regulations. None of the billboazds in question are conformin�; they aze all legal
nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Grand Avenue and Highland Village
signs are in Special Sign Districts adopted in the 1980s where billboards are prohibited.
The W. Seventh Street bi116oards aze in an interim Special Sign District approved by the
City Council earlier this yeaz, where new construction and modification of billboards aze
prohibited until new advertising sign regulations aze adopted by the City Council.
Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16, 1998, appealed Ms.
Lane's decision to allow replacement of the poster panels at two locations (1820 Grand
Avenue and the middle billboazds on the Highland Village Shoppin� Center), and her
request for cost estimates from Eller in relation to the 51 percent test as a basis for future
decisions about whether the other billboazds will be permitted to be renovated. The
appeal contains five specific arguments.
�
4. The first specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising signs, the 51 percent
rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in the next section (66302), which �
is specifically about advertising signs. The city staff from LIEP, PED, and the City
Attomey's Office have conferred and agree that nonconforming billboards aze regulated
by both sections and by applicable special sign districts; in the event of any appazent
inconsistency, whichever contains the most specific provisipns controls. However, the
Zoning Administrator's letter contained only a request for information, not a decision
about how the renovation cost information would be used. Therefore, since no decision
has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature.
5. Scenic Minnesota's second specific appeal is that if the 51 percent test were to apply, it
should apply to the sign face as well as to the rest of the sign structure. Based on the
definitions for "si�n" and "sign structure" in the code (66.121), this appeal has some
merit. But different terms aze used in the paragraph on exemptions from getting building
permits (66.405), which refers to "display surface" and "poster replacemenP'. The latter
terms are not defined in the code and, being subject to interpretation, aze a responsibility
of the Zoning Administrator. The City Council is expected to amendment advertising
sign reQulaTions later this year and will receive comments from the Planniug Commission
before doing so. Code amendments would be a better way to clarify how sign faces
should be considered than trying to reach a decision through an appeals process.
6. Scenic Minnesota's third and fourth specific appeals azgue that the installation or
reptacement of sign faces should requirQ a sign (building) permit. On replacement of the
sign face (poster panels), LIEP treated Eller Media the same as tYiey have treated all �
billboard companies. For many years the Zoning AdminisYrator has interpreted 66.405 to
IG
�9 - Loq �
�
allow poster panel replacement without a sign permit. Poster panels come in kits of
interlocking strips of galvanized sheet metal, w�hich are assembled on site and typically
cost less than 20 percent of the construction cost of a billboazd. For the set of billboazds
at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboards on Highland Village Shopping
Center, LIEP inspectors determined that no structural damage had occurred. Ms. Lane's
letter of June 10, 1998, is cleazly consistent with established practice; any other decision
would have been discriminatory.
7. The fifth specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that the W. Seventh billboards cannot be
replaced or renovated at this time because of the interim Special Sign District for the W.
Seventh neighborhood. In February 1998, the City Councii adopted an interim ordinance
that created an Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to make
recommendations to the Council. During the study period, the ordinance provides that
district councils may apply for a special sign district by writing a letter. In early July, the
� City Council held a public hearing and approved interim special sign districts in every
citizen participation district that applied. The West Seventh Federation applied on April
6, 1998, and the district became effective on May 6.
As with the 51 percent test, the Zoning Administrator has nbt rendered a decision about
whether or not the W. Seventh billboards can be renovated, and an appeal is premature.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
allow the replacement of the sign faces without sign permits for the billboazds at 1820 Grand
Avenue and for the middle set of billboazds at Highland Village Shopping Center is hereby
denied;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission renders no decision on this
appeal as regards the eastem set of billboards at Highland Village Shopping Center or the
billboazds on W. Seventh Street; since LIEP has only asked for information from Eller Media on
these storm-damaged billboards and has not yet made decisions on whether they can be
renovated, appeals about them are premature.
.
N
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center ���� ,{�
15 Kellogg Boulevard West d �(�� '' � .
w��h �� �
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, August 14, 1998, at
8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
Mmes. Engh, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs. Field, Johnson,
Kramer, Mazdell, Mazgulies, and Nowlin.
Mmes. *Duarte, *Faricy and *Geisser and Messrs. *Chavez, Gervais, *Gordon,
Kong, McDonell, Sharpe, and Vaught.
*Excused
Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Acting Planning Administrator, Jean Birkholz, Domma Drummond,
Martha Faust, and Allan Torstenson, Department of Planning and Economic
Development staff.
I. Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton announced that all the applications for Liveable Communities Demonstration are
in and Saint Paul has rivo: 1) Lowertown: Urban Livability and Technology; and 2} Main street
on Payne: Renewed Urban Village
II. Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Soderholm announced that Ken Ford is on vacation.
Mr. Soderholm also announced that the Mayor's Office is taking applications for Planning
Commission members. The contact person is Deborah Wiley in the City Clerk's Office at 266-
8695.
There has been a request for a small area plan for the Irvine Avenue area from the CapitalRiver
Council (downtown). It will be put on PED's work program for 1999 unless there is a
development crisis which necessitates immediate action.
There has also been a request from the Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association
(SARPA) for updating the Summit Avenue plan done in 1986.
He announced a seminar coming up on housing. It is scheduled for Friday, September 18,
1998. "Building Inclusive Communities" is being presented by the Minnesota Fair Housing
Centers. Mr. Soderholm circulated Yhe brochure.
Mr. Soderholm referred to the current issue of Land Patterns, a publication of the 1000 Friends
.
i
�
��
`�� - t�q\
� 20 square feet to allow for a 50 square foot sign (30 squaze feet is code); variance of 11 feet to
allow for a 7'6" high sign 10 feet from property line (21 foot setback is required) along Arcade
Street (Allan Torstenson, 266-6579).
MOTION Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested sign variance to a11ow for
a 50 sq.ft sign in an area mhere 30 sq.ft was permitted; a setback variance to allow for 7' 6"
high sign 10 feet from t1:e property line at 669 Arcade Street which carried unanimously on a
voice vote. —
#98-154 Scenic Minnesota - Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding vazious
advertising signs damaged in recent storms located at 1142 West Seventh Street, 1184 West
Seventh Street, 1209 West Seventh Street, the southeast comer of Ford Pazkway and South
Cleveland, the southwest corner of Ford Parkway and Kenneth Street, and 1820 Grand Avenue
(Larry Soderholm, 266-6575).
Commissioner Field explained that the staff repor[ determined that there were only two signs
for which the appeat could be made because the Zoning Administrator had not made decisions
on the other signs. Mr. Soderholm agreed with Commissioner Field's explanation. He went on
to say that the Zoning Administrator, Wendy Lane, wrote to Eller Media, Inc. indicating that on
rivo of the damaged billboards there was no structural damage to the structure holding up the
board, and therefore, the sign panels could be replaced and the signs put back into service.
With regard to four other locations, she asked for more information about the extent of the
structural damage. Then Scenic Minnesota appealed Ms. Lane's letter. The City Attorney
� advised the Zoning Committee that they should act only on the two cases where a final decision
had been made, not on the matters where Ms. Lane had simpty asked the company for more
information. The rivo locations of the appeal are 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of
billboards on the roof of the Aighland Village Shopping Center.
Discussion to clarify followed.
MOTION Commissioner Field moved denial of this appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
decision regarding advertising signs that were damaged in recent storms located at 1820
Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboards at the Highland Village Shopping Center
which carried on a voice vote (Field abstaining).
�---
#98-163 Twin Citv Townhomes. Inc. - Special condition use permit to allow a cluster
development of 30 townhouse units south oFthe West Cottage Avenue cul-de-sac beriveen
Wheelock Parkway and Westem Avenue (Donna Drummond, 266-6556).
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use
permit, with conditions, to allow a cluster development of 30 townhouse units sauth of the
West Cottage Avenue cu[-de-sac between A'heelock Parkway and Western Avenue.
Commissioner Johnson asked Commissioner Field about the nature of the opposing testimony.
Commissioner Field responded that he thought it was the mass of the structuces related to the
size of the site. He also thought folks preferred to maintain the natural setting and green space
� for their enjoymennt.
,�
i�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, August 6, 1998 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Keliogg Boulevard
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
OTNERS
PRESENT:
Faricy, Field, Kramer, Morton, and Wencl
Chavez, Gordon, Vaught
Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, Geri Boyd, Donna Drummond, Martha Faust,
Larry Soderholm, Allan Torstenson, and Jim Zdon of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SCENIC MN - Zoning File 98-154 - Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision regarding various
advertising signs damaged in recent storms.
Larry Soderholm, PED, said that he received telephone cails from the West Seventh/Fort Road
Federation and the Highland Area Community Council requesting to join this appeal as co-
appellants. Mr. Soderholm also received a fax from Scenic MN stating that any district councils that
would like to join in the appeai may do so.
Mr. Soderhoim expfained that six bi(Iboard locafions are discussed in fhis case. Two of the
billboards did not have structural damage, except that the sign face panels blew away. Four of the
billboards had structural damage to the framing that hoids the sign face up. The city has not in the
past required sign permits for the replacement of sign face panels. Wendy Lane of LIEP sent a
letter to the billboard company, Eller Media, Inc., teiling them they could replace the sign panels on
the two billboards, but that they wouid need to submit more information about the extent of the
damage and get sign permits in order to repair the four biilboards with structural damage. Ms.
Lane's letter said that the decision about the two billboards was subject to appeal. Scenic MN
submitted an appeal regarding the two billboards and also regarding how the code is interpreted for
structurally damaged biilboards. The staff report as mailed responds to aU of Scenic MN's specific
questions. However, the staff from LIEP, PED, and the City Attorney's Office have discussed the
case since the staff report was written, and agree that the only actual decision made by the Zoning
Administrator was regarding the replacement of the sign face panels without requiring sign permits.
Mr. Soderholm then gave a slide presentation and reviewed the staff report. He stated staff is
recommending the appeal be denied.
in response to Commissioner Kramer's questions, Mr. Soderholm explained why the various signs
are legal nonconforming signs--special sign districts, size of sign, height of sig�, etc.
Upon questions of Commissioner Wencl, Mr. Soderholm confirmed that only the two signs where
the sign panels were replaced without permits should be decided at today's hearing. Mr. Warner
stated that no decision has been reach yet by the Zoning Administrator on the structurally damaged
billboards so there is no decision to appeal from. When LIEP receives the additional information
needed from the sign companies, the Zoning Administrator will make a determination. Ms. Lane
��(
�
�
�
aq_�a�l
Zoning committee Minutes
Meeting of August 6, 1998
� Scenic MN (98-154)
Page Two
stated they need the information before making any determination. At that time, either side may
file an appeal. However, in the meantime the sign company should not be doing any work on those
signs, other than the freestanding sign on West Seventh where metal overhanging the public
sidewalk caused a public hazard and should be removed.
At the question of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Soderholm stated that acts of nature are covered in the
zoning code and are not exceptions to the written code. If any type of nonconforming sign is more
than 51 percent destroyed, it cannot be replaced in its nonconforming position. Additional
restrictions apply to the renovation or replacement of advertising signs as opposed to on-premise
business signs.
Responding to Commissioner Kramer, Ms. Lane explained that new signs cannot be built on tops
of buildings except that existing rooftop signs can be replaced on the same lot if other condit'tons
are met and they can be built on another lot using billboard credits, again if other conditions are met.
Ms. Lane repeated that, regarding the signs on West Seventh, a decision hasn't been made yet.
Brian Bates, Executive Director of Scenic MN, stated that this appeal is about whether all of the
provisions in the code about nonconforming biliboard replacement are being followed; it is not just
about city permits. He also challenged the claim that LIEP never requires a permit for sign face
replacement. He understands that a sign face was recently done on University Avenue which
required a permit. Mr. Bates corrected Mr. Soderholm's staff report on which of the three biliboards
. at Highland Viliage are being appealed. It is the eastern two boards at Highland, not the western
board. The middle board is the one on which new sign faces have already been installed. He
suggested that the sign on Grand and Fairview be measured, that it appears to be too high. The
middle set of biilboards in Highland appear to spread wider than the 35 degree angle allowed. Mr.
Bates stated that these two billboards, which are the subject of today's hearing, were renovated and
they should not have been because they are in special sign distric�s that prohibit billboards. And
if Eller Media was allowed by the city to repair storm damage, they should have been required at the
same time to bring the boards into conformance with the code standards for height and angle.
Gail Summers the community organizerforthe Highland Area Community Council spoke regarding
the signs covered by the Highland Village Special Sign District. Her office is in the Highiand Village
Shopping Center so she sees what is being done there. She stated that the sign with structural
damage had been worked on at least three times since the storm, and at least twice with welding
equipment. She suspects that tf�e sign structure is being repaired without the required city permit.
The position of the Highland Business Associaiion and the Highfand Area Community Council is that
they want the Highiand Sign Plan adhered to. The damaged signs shouid come down.
Marvin Liszt, attorney for Eller Media lnc., appeared. Mr. Liszt objected that the Zoning Committee
is hearing an appeal by a statewide nonprofit organization. He stated that Section 66.408 of the
code indicates that persons affected by the decision of the Zoning Administrator may appeal.
Scenic MN certainly has a right to appear at this hearing, but they don't have standing to appeal.
Persons actually affected by the decision would be the lessor, lessee, the mortgagee, and so forth.
Regarding the two signs in question, the cost to repair these is negligible. It is far less than 51
percent of the replacement cost, with the cost to repair being approximately two thousand dollars
� versus twelve thousand to replace each of the signs. Regarding Section 66.301 of the Zoning
Code, Mr. Liszt emphasized that the two signs involved are legal nonconforming signs. Legal signs
have a right to remain.
i�
Zoning Committee Minutes
Meeting of August 6, 1998
Scenic MN (98-154)
Page Three
Howard Stacher, owner of the Highland Village Shopping Center appeared in opposition to Scenic
MN's appeal. He stated that he has a long-term relationship with Eller Media and he believes that
they have a right to repair the sign. If they are not allowed to do so, it will mean taking a valuable
property right away from him.
Thomas J. Klees, Director of Operations, Eller Media lnc., 3225 Spring Street NE appeared, stating
that he had inspected the signs involved. He said sign panels can last for different periods of time
depending on the climate. In Minnesota, where there is no sait in the air, the galvanized panels last
a long time, up to twenty years. Replacement of panels is more frequent near the coasts.
Mr. Bates came forward for rebuttal and stated that, according to the code, there are no vested
property rights in any billboard in the city. There are, however, vested property rights in surrou�ding
residential properties. He stated that the residential properties are impacted by these biliboards.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Morton moved denial of the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to allow
sign face replacements at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle billboard on the roof of the Highland
Village Shopping Center. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Faricy. Commissioner
Kramer spoke in opposition.
There was no further discussion, and the vote was called on the motion to deny the appeal.
Adopted: Yeas - 3 Nays - 1(Commissioner Kramer)
Commissioner Fieid stated that he abstained from voting on this item because he represents a
partnership that owns commercial property elsewhere and has a lease with Eller Media.
Drafted by:
Geri Boyd
Recording Secretary
Submitted by:
Team
Approved
/
Litton Field
Chair ,
�
�
�
(V
�q - ta� `
�
2.
FILE # 98-154
APPLICANT: SCENIC MINNESOTA DATE OF HEARING: 8/6/98
ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
CLASSIFICATION: Administrative Appeal
LOCATION: Various locations of storm-damaged billboazds (1142, 1184, and 1209 W.
Seventh St., Highland Village Shopping Center at the southeast corner of Ford Parkway
and Cleveland Ave., and 1820 Grand Ave.)
4.
5.
6.
7.
� 8.
�
PLANNING DISTRICTS: 9, 14, and 15
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at PED
PRESENT ZONING: All signs are in B-2 districts
ZONING CODE REFERENCES: 66.408, 66.301, 66302(a)(1), 66.404, and 66.405(i)
STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 7/25/98 BY: Larry Soderholm
9. DATE RECEIVED: 06/16/98 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 8/15/98
NOTE ADDED 9/30/98 FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
At the Zoning Committee meeting on 8/6/98, the staff recommendations in this staff report
were revised orally. After consultation with the City Attorney's Office, PED staff
concluded that only two of the six billboard locations in question were ripe for action. In
the other four cases, the Zoning Administrator had requested information from the
billboard company but had not made appealable decisions on whether any of the billboards
could be repaired or reconstructed.
In the two "live" cases PED staff recommended denial of the appeal because replacement of
sign face panels without building permits was consistent with LIEP's past practice and past
interpretation of an ambiguous paragraph in the code. The ambiguity should be addressed
through zoning text amendments in the current advertising sign study initiated by the City
Council.
Ij
A. PURPOSE: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding advertising signs �
damaged in recent storms.
B. EXISTING LAND USE: All the billboazds in question are in neighborhood commercial
azeas. At five locations the billboazds are on rooftops. One of the W. Seventh St.
billboards is freestanding.
C. SURROUNDING LAND USE: All of the billboazds in question are in neighborhood
commercial areas. At 1820 Grand Ave., which is at the southwest corner of Fairview on
top of the Subway sandwich shop, the surrounding uses are commercial with single-
family residential across the alley to the south. At Highland Shopping Center, the
surrounding land uses are predominantly commercial with a church and pazochial school
on the next block to the south and a public playground on the block to the east. On W.
Seventh Street, the billboards in question are all within a standard city block (660') of one
another along a mixed use strip where there aze duplexes, apartments, a church,
commercial-residential mixed use buildings and businesses. Just off W. Seventh St. the
neighborhood is made up of single-family and duplex structures.
D. ZONING CODE CITATION:
E. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: All of the billboazds in question are owned by Eller Qutdoor �
Advertising (formerly Naegele and then Universal), which is a national billboard
company and the one that has the most signs in Minnesota. A major wind storm hit the
Twin Cities on the Saturday night of May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to
homes and trees and power lines, and also to some billboazds. The day following the
storms, Eller sent emergency crews out to clean up debris and stabilize any billboazd
structures that might represent a hazazd. Apart from securing signs, the crews did no
repair work on them.
On June 5, city inspectors checked the sites of damaged billboazds with Chris McCarver
of Eller. On June 10, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller that, as a result of the
inspection, two of the damaged biilboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the southeast comer of
Ford Parkway and S. Cleveland Ave. had not received structural damage. The sign and
poster panels that provide the backing for the sign had blown down. Replacing poster
panels does not, as a matter of standazd City practice, require a building permit.
Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to repiace the poster panels on those two
signs.
Ms. Lane's letter said the other four locations were found to have structural damage.
Therefore, she requested information about the cost of repairs in relation to the
replacement cost of each sib . In the Zoning Code, the standard test for the repair of
nonconforming signs that aze damaged is that the sign can be repaired if the damaged is �
2
t v.
�`� -��� �
� less than 51 percent of its replacement cost.
Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16 appealed Ms. Lane's
decision to allow replacement of the poster panels at two locations, and her use of the 51
percent test as the basis for future decisions about whether the other billboazds will be
permitted to be renovated. The appeal contains five specific azguments. This staff report
addresses each of the specifics.
F. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: PED staff has not received district
council recommendations at the time the staff report was written.
G. FINDINGS:
1. All of the billboards in question aze nonconforming for one reason or another. At 1820
Grand, the sign is in the Grand Ave. special sign district, which was approved by the City
Council in 1983 and prohibits any new billboazds. The billboazds in Highland Village are
in the Highland Village special sign district, was approved by the City Council in 1985
and prohibits any new billboazds as well as setting a goal of removing all existing
billboazds by 1995. The billboards on W. Seventh St. aze in an interim special sign
district, created earlier in 1998 at the request of the W. Seventh Federation, while the City
Council reviews and revises advertising sign regulations; the interim district also
� prohibits additional advertising signs and "the replacement of any damaged advertising
signs."
All of the billboazds in question are too closely spaced along the street except 1209 W.
Seventh. The billboazd at 1184 W. Seventh appears to be too high. The billboard at 1209
W. Seventh, which has three faces, is too big.
2. The first specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising signs, the 51 percent
rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in the next section (66302), which
is specifically about advertising signs.
A. At the beginning of the Zoning Code, there is a section on "Construction of
Language" (60.102). The first rule is that "the particular shall control the
general." Thus, to the extent there aze discrepancies between 66301, which is
about all types of signs, and 66302, which is exclusively about advertising signs,
the City should follow the regulations in 66302.
B. Section 66.302(1) says that a nonconforming billboazds may be "renovated" if it
is in a zoning district where billboards are permitted. Cleazly billboazds aze not
permitted on Grand Avenue or in Highland Village. For at least an interim
period, they are not allowed on W. Seventh St. either.
s
��
C. A dictionary definition of renovate is "to restore to an earlier condition, to
improve by repairing..." (American Heritage Dictionary). A higher level of sign
repair would be reconstruction, which is not permitted if damage exceeds 51
percent of the replacement cost. It is reasonable to suppose there is a lower levei
of sign repair than renovation--say, minor repairs or routine mainYenance—but
these terms aze not found explicitly in the Zoning Code on signs.
PED Staff Recommendation: The billboazds in question should not be renovated. The
51 percent test is not the proper test for damaged billboazds. Anything beyond "minor
repairs" should meet the standards in 66302.
3.
Scenic Minnesota's second specific appeal is that if the 51 percent test were to apply, it
should apply to the sign face as well as to the rest of the sign structure.
A. Billboazds aze made several standazd components and it is helpful to identify them
in relationship to "sign face." At the bottom is the "footing" or the rooftop sign
"pad." Next is the "upper structure" that carries and supports the sign. Bolted to
the upper structure is the "sign face," also referred to as the "poster panel", which
is the flat backing on which paper messages can be glued or vinyl messages can
be tied. Surrounding the sign face, many billboazds have a"frame", which is like
a large picture frame. The poster panel is made of light-gauge sheet metal.
Although the poster panel and the frame aze the obvious parts of the billboazd to
the viewer, they are not neazly as expensive as the footing and the upper structure.
C. The Zoning Code has definitions only for "sign" and "sign shucture" (66.121), as
follows: ,
Sign. "The use of words, numerals, figures, devices, designs, or trademazks the
purpose of which is to show or advertise a person, firm, profession, business,
product or message."
Sign structure. "Any structure which supports or is capable of supporting any
sign as defined in this chapter. A sign shucture may be a single pole; it may not
be an integral part of a building"
Choosing beriveen these defirutions, the sign face of a billboazd would be part of
the sign structure and the paper or vinyl message would be the actual sign.
�
PED Staff Recommendation: The sign face should be considered as part of the sign
structure.
Scenic Minnesota's third and fourth specific appeals azgue that the installation or
replacement of sign faces should require a sign permit.
0
�
� J
�
�
a� -�o�\
� A. On replacement of the sign face (poster panels) LIEP treated Eller Outdoor the
same as they have treated all billboazd companies. LIEP interprets 66.405 to
allow poster panel replacement without a sign permit. This is practical because
the replacement of poster panels after a certain number of years is routine upkeep.
B. But 66.405 grants exemption from permits to "the changing of the display surface
on a painted or printed sign only. However, this exemption shall apply only to
poster replacement and/or on-site changes involving sign painting elsewhere than
directly on a building." The reference is to posters, which probably means the
paper or vinyl with the printed or painted message, not the poster panel, which is
part of the sign structure.
PED Staff Recommendation: The City should require a sign permit for the replacement
of poster panels. While the replacement of poster panels may be routine for conforming
signs, it should not be routine for nonconforming ones.
6. Scenic Minnesota's fifth specific appeal is that the W. Seventh billboazds cannot be
replaced or renovated during the interim special sign district.
A. In February 1998, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that created an
Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to make recommendations to
� the Council. During the study period, the ordinance provides that district councils
may apply for a special sign district by writing a letter. Tn eazly July, the City
Council held a public heazing an approved interim special sign districts in every
citizen participation district that appiied. The West Seventh Federation applied on
Apri16, 1998, and the district became effective on May 6.
B. The Federation's letter applies to prohibit "modification of existing signs or the
replacement of any damaged signs." This may leave a question as to what level of
repair may be permitted.
The freestanding billboard at 1142 W. Seventh has twisted and failing upright
posts which are weakly anchored in substandard footings. The poster panel is
gone.
The billboard on top of Bill's "I'V had two faces; since the storm part of the sign
structure was removed so that it is now single-sided, and the single face has no
poster panels.
The triple-faced billboard at 1209 W. Seventh, which is on top of Big Wheel
Rossi, is missing most of its poster panels.
� PED Staff Recommendation: There is an interim speciat sign district in effect in the W.
5
v�
Seventh azea, but the application to prohibit the replacement of damaaed signs requires �
interpretation. The freestanding billboard at 1142 W. Seventh seems to require
replacement, which shouId be prohibited. The City's structural engineer says that Eller's
repair cost estimates aze too low. The missing sign structure for the second (west-facing)
billboard at 1184 W. Seventh should not be replaced. The others aze missing poster
panels.
Attachments:
Appeal and attached letters
Wendy Lane letter to Chris McCarver, 6/10/98
Information submitted by Eller Media Company
Letter of 7/1/98 to Eiler from City Structural Engineer Frank Berg
Letter received 4/6/98 from the W. Seventh Federation requesting special sign district
\�PID�SY52\SFiARID\SODERHOL�ZONLYG\98I54.WPD 6
�
�
�,v
�q_���
s
i
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Departmerrt oJPlarrtei�:g and Eco�von:ie Develapment
Zonii:g Sectio�:
II00 Cin' Hal1 Anner
25 {1 est FourtJr Street
Saint Paul, hi�' S5102
166-6589
APPELLANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Nam2 Sc'cn.�. ��)�on�
Address � � �� �F hn � f'1�`t
City �( .(�1�-.L St.ljln Zip SS/vSDaytime phone �y�
Zoning File Na
Address/Locati
zan�ng rn�i�e use on€y
Fi(e no. — �
Fse �' F � �� (3't�- �
Te�tativ= heari� date: _
c V� �
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeai to�e:
�
- 6oard of Zoning Appeals � City Council (L����� �� c�1m�55: �
; t
und>r tne provisions of Chapter�4, Section �C J , Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to
appeal a de isio? ma by thz �� Z�7+n L- /-�d�riv�� 5,-�z,3'��f2-
on �� ��' I/ J , 19 File number:
(Cate of decisio
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit. d=cision or refusal made by an administrative o`icial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
� C' f: f-�7'Tl}��� �r
�
A[tach additional sheet if necessary)
Applicant's signatu
;�
� � ��7� City ac
c:�<zi3S
C " . OU
��1��9:1
OJjiCers:
John Mannifto
Jeanne Weigum
Michael Paymar
Ruby Hunt
June 26, 1998
Chair Gladas Morton
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Storm-Damaged Billboards.
Dear Commissioner:
Esecultue Ofrector
6rian 8ates
1985 Grand Aveni
Saint Paui, Mf( 55t0
6l2 690-967I
Pursuant to Zoning Code §66.408, Scenic Minnesota hereby
appeals the decisions contained in the June l0, 1998 letter from
Saint Paul Department of License, Inspection, and Environmental
Protection Zoning bianager Ms. Wendy Lane to Mr. Chris McCarver of
Universal outdoor, Inc. (attached).
Specifically: (1) we appeal the decision that Zoning Code §
66.301(2) applies to. the damaged billboards. We rely on §66.302
for this position,
(2) We appeal the decision that if g66.301(2) were to apply,
that it only applies to the sign structure and not the sign face.
We rely on §66.301(2)("such sign or sign structure").
(3) We appeal the decision that the sign £aces may be replaced
without a permit. We rely on §66.404 {"A�pplications for sign
and/or sign structure permits ...").
(4) We appeal the decision that replacing the sign face
without a permit is allowed by §66.405(1). We rely on §§66.404 and
66.405(1).
(5) We appeal the decision that the West Seventh billboards
nay be replaced or renovated at this time. We rely on Ordinance
97-1568 dated 2/11/98, as amended and the West Seventh/Fort Road
Federation application £or a special sign district.
By reference, I include my memorandums of June 2 and June 3,
1998 to Jane Prince and Wendy Lane, ny letters of June 4 and June
11, 1998 to Ms. Wendy Lane, and my letter o£ June 12, 1998 to Dir.
Robert Kessler. This appeal is accompanied by a check for the
appropriate fee as determined by the Planninq Commission.
Regard� �_
,
' �,_� i5-�
Brian Bates
cc: Chris McCarver, Robert Kessler, Wendy Lane, Be'tty Moran, Gayle
Summers, Kathie Tarnowski, Jane Prince, Dan Smith, Gerry McInerney.
�71
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
�
�
7�
�tq - �og�
�
CITY OF SAItiT PAUL
Sonn Coltm.Jr.. 31a}'or
June 10, 1998
Chris blcCarver
tiniversal Outdoor, Inc.
322� Sprin� S[. N.E.
hlinneapolis, MN 5�413
Re: Storm Damaeed Siens
Dear b1r. McCarver:
OFFICE OF LICE�SE, t\SPECTIO�S A`D
E>:VIR6\�SE`TAL PROT[CTI6�
Rnbrrt f."rsslrr. D��rctar
LOtiRY" PROFESSIO.�:aL
BL7LDL�"G
Sir.'tr 300
3i0St PetzrStrzrt
SaiutPau{dLmtasotc 5=l0?-fiA%
Tzlzphor.t 6:1-?h5-9,s.
Fc:simi(e' 611-?h6-9'��i
61?-'6h-7!�'
� John Hard�ti�ick and Dave Ken}�on from this office accompanied you las� Friday in the
inspection of the CTniversal advertisins sians that �cere clamaged from th� storm last
wzzk. They determined that the sians at 1142 �V. 7th St., 1184 W. 7th S[., 1209 W.
7�h St. and at the southwest corner of Ford Pkwy. and Kenneth St. sustained structural
damaQz. Thz repair of these siens will require a pzrmit. Before a permit can be issued,
please submit s[ructural plans for each si�n structure. In addition, you ��'ill need to
shoce• ho�c the repair is in compliance with Section 66.301(2) of the Saint Paul
LeQisla[i�'z Code, �chich reeulates nonconformina si�ns as foliows:
Shoutd such siQn or sisn structurz bz destro}ed by an}� means to an� eztent
of more than fifr}�-one (� I) percent of its replacement cost, it shatl not be
reconstructed excepi in conforn �cith th� provisicas of this cha�:�r.
�
Piease submit detaii�d information about the repair cost and the replacement cost of each
sien structure.
The roof mounted signs a[ 1520 Grand Ave. and at the southeast corner of Ford Pkwy.
and S. Cles•eland A�'e. were missinQ the poster panels but did not sustain an}• visible
s�ruccural damaoe. The replacemen� of poster panels is pzrmitted �ei�hou[ a permit,
pursuan� tu Section 66.40�(1) of the Sain[ Pau1 Leoislative Code. Ho�+e�'er, sian
structure_ �vithout a displa}� surface area arz considered "unsightly'� a�d must be
reposted or the sian struc[ure removed within 1� days accordin� to Section 66.201(3).
Please take ac[ion to repost them ��'ithin the time specified.
An} pzrson affected by the decision in the preceeding para�raph may appeal this decision
/
2�
Chris McCarver
June 10, 1998
Pa�e 2
to the plannin� commission w�ithin thir[y calendar days of toda}�'s date, accordin� to
Section 66.403(a). There is a filin� fee for such appzal; $22� for sinole fami!}' or duples
appellants, 5300 for mult-family appeltants and �350 for commercial, industrial or
institutional appellants.
Please contact me if } ou have any questions regardin� this matter.
Sincerz(}�,
����� �i-�—�_
�Vend}� L e
Zonino Mana�er
266-9031
�
c: Bett}' Moran, �l'est Se�•enth/Fort Road Federation, Districct 9
Gay 1e Summers, Hiahland Area Communitc• Council, District 1� �
Kathie Tamo«'ski, Macalester Groveland Communi[y Council, District 14
�Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
Dan Smith, Councilmember Harris' Office
Larry Soderholm, PED
Robert Kessler, Director
John Hardwick, ZoninQ Specia[ist
.
��
OjJlcers:
� John Mannillo
Jeanne Weigum
Michaet Paymar
Ruby Hun[
June 4, 1998
Ms. Wendy Lane
Zoning Manager
LIEP
Suite 310
350 St. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Damaged Billboards.
Dear Wendy:
�q-���`
EFeCt<UVe D1rec[or
8rian Ba[es
1985 Grand Avenu�
Saint Paul, Mi( 55I OS
612 690-967!
Thanks for the heads-up about the anticipated permit requests.
As I have said, any non-conforming billboard located in a district
in which billboards are not a permitted use, cannot be renovated.
Zoning Code g 66.302(a)(1).
All the damaged billboards are non-conforming and located in
� districts in which billboards are not a permitted use. Billboards
are not a permitted use in Highland and on Gzand due to the long-
standing provisions in those special sign districts which state
explicitly that billboards are not permitted in the district.� The
West 7th boards cannot be repaired at this time because of the
provision in the request for a temporary� sign district which
disallows repairs to boards in that community council district.
I ask that I and the respective community councils be made
aware of any developments, industry arguments, or department
decisions in this natter. I ask that we be allowed an opportunity
to respond to industry arguments. Please also advise what appeal
procedures we may use if LIEP decides to issue the permits.
Regards,
� C ��:.r--
Brian Bates
ps. What's up with the Business Review Council Letterhead?
cc: Jane Prince
� ' This language is in the text of the special district sign
plans which is incorporated by reference into the zoning code.
�_^
r :�.
s , :
_.; { <
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
�✓�
O(Ticcrs:
John Mannillo
Jeanne Weigum
Michael Paymar
Ruby tiunt
�
SCEIYIC MIlY1YESOTA
June 11, 1998
Ms. Wendy Lane
LIEP
Suite 310
350 St. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minneso�a 55102-1510
RE: Damaged Signs
Dear Wendy:
EseCUttoc Dlrector
Brian Ba;es
1985 a�and Ave�
Saint Paul, M^f 55
612 690-96�
This is in response to your letter of June 10, 1998 to Mr.
McCarver of Universal outdoor, Inc.
As I have stated in past memorandums and letters on this
subject, specifically the memorandum dated June 3, 1998 and the
letter dated June 4, 1998, the first consideration for the
reolacement or renovation of any damaged billboard is whether the
billboard is a permitted use in the zoning district in which it is
located. See Zoning Code § 66.302(a)(1). This provision
specifically includes restrictions in "a special sign district�
approved by the city council." Section 66.216(b) allows special
sign districts to have more restrictive provision5 tha� Chapter
66.
Both Grand Avenue and Highland have�special sign districts
approved by the City Council which specifically include the
statement that billh,oards are not permitted. The West Seventh/Fort
Road Federation has recently applied for a special sign district
pursuant to Ordinance 97-1568 dated 2/11/98, as amended. The
Federation's application specifically states that damaged
billboards shall not be repaired.
The billboards in Highland and on Grand cannot be "replaced or
renovated" because they are not a permitted use. Your letter of
June 10, 1998 not only allows the replacement and renovation of one
of the billboards in Highland and the billboard on Grand but seems
to encouraqe the replacement within 15 days. You allow and
encourage activity which seems to conflict with the zoning code.
Ordinance 97-1568 dated 2/11/98, as amehded, includes the
provision that any permits issued for the modification of any
existing billboard, a£ter a Community Council applies for a special
sign district and an objection thereto has been received by the
Director of LIEP shall be conditional. No permittee shall engage
in any construction, installation or work after an objection i�
lodged. Any construction, installation or work shall no
thereafter commence if the prohibitions contained in the special
c
��
qR - l�R\
� Ms. Lane
June 11, 1998
Page 2.
sign district application become e£fective as provided. one of the
provisions in the Federation's special sign district application is
that damaged billboards not be repaired.
Your letter of June l0, 1998 avoids both any discussion of
g66.302(a)(1) or the e££ect of the Federation's application for a
special sign district despite the fact I have raised these issues
in previous writings.
Be aware that Scenic Minnesota and/or the respective community
councils will appeal the decisions contained in your letter o£ June
10, 1998. Your office, and the City of Saint Paul, assumes
responsibility for any actions taken, and construction expenses
incurred, which result £rom a decision by your office which
violates the provisions of the zoning code. I suggest that your
office disaliow any repair, renovation, or work on any of the
damaged billboards �ntil this matter if finally resolved through
the appeal process.
Regards,
� � � `�
i
�
Brian Bates
cc: Chris McCarver, Universal outdoor, Inc+
Jane Prince
Dan Smith
Betty Moran
Gayle Summers
Kathie Tarnowski
Larry Soderholm
Robert Kessler
John Hardwick
�
��1
OJj7cers:
John Manniilo
Jeanne K'eiyum
Michael Paymar
ftuby tlim[
June 12, 1998
Mr. Robert Kessler
LIEP
Suite 310
350 St. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Damaged Billboards.
Dear Mr. Kessler: �
E.secaLtuc Dlrec[or
6rian Brtes
1985 Grand Aven
Saint Paul. Mil 55
6f2 690-9h�
I write to express concern over your department�s recent
decisions to allow the replacement of certain billboard "poster
panels" and to apply the 51% damage rule to other billboard
structures. These decisions coupled with pro-industry decisions ir.
the past seriously undermine the credibility of your department as
the, supposedly, impartial interpreter and enforcer of the zoning
code.
While the zoning code is somewhat convoluted, it is
decipherable_ Section 66.301 pertains to all nonconforming signs,
including nonconforming advertising signs. Whereas, section 66.302
is an exception to section 66.301 and pertains specifically to any
nonconforming advertising sign existinq as of the date of this
section (February 2, 1988] which is located in a zoning district
which does not permit advertising signs or which does not conforr�
to the size height and/or spacing requirements of this chapter."
Whenever a nonconforming advertising sign, existing in 1988,
is "replaced, relocated or renovated" for any reason that action
must comply with the provisions of §66.302. There is no
requirement in secti�on 66.302 that a certain degree of damage occur
before that section applies.
The billboards on Grand and in Highland are nonconforming both
because of spacing requirements and because they are in zoning
districts in which billboards are not a permitted use. (The
Highland and Grand special sign districts declaring billboards not
pernitted were enacted in 1985.) These billboards existed in 1988.
Therefore any replacement, relocation, or renovation of the
billboards on Grand cr in Highland nust comply with §66.302.
Whether the non-conforming billboards are to be "replaced,
relocated, or renovated" on the same or different zoning 2ot, th
first consideration oP §66.302 is that the zoning lot be within a
zoning district "in which advertising signs are a permitted use.
�
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
�
�tq - ��`� \
. Mr. Kessler
June 12, 1998
Page 2.
See §§66.302(a)(1) �and (b)(1). BilZboards located in zoning
districts in which billboards are not a permitted use cannot be
replaced or renovated. Such billboards can onZy be relocated in a
zoning district in which billboards are a permitted use. The Grand
and Highland billboards cannot be replaced or renovated.
But accept, £or the sake of argument, your staff's
interpretation that the 51� damage threshold in §66.301 must be
exceeded before g66.302 applies. Section 66.301(2) states:
Should such sign �r. sign structure be destroyed by any means
to any extent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its
replacement cost, it sha11 not be reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of thi5 chapter.
The 51% damage threshold applies to the "sign or sign structure."
The use of the disjunctive must mean that if 51% of the replacement
cost of the sign or 51% of the replacement cost of the sign
structure is exceeded the sign or the sign structure may not be
replaced except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.
� Your staff has interpreted the 51� damage threshold to apply
only to the sign st�ucture and has allowed the replacement of the
sign faces at Grand and in Highland under an exemption designed to
allow "poster replacement and/or sign painting" without a permit.
§66.405(1). A sign face is not a poster.
�
These interpretations are illogical and, when coupled with
past failures to enforce�, give the appearance of a department
catering to the interests of the billboard industry rather than
protecting the public interest.
I would welcome any reaction.
Regards,
� �---�--_� / �
Brian Bates
� On April 28, 1997 you wrote a letter to Midwest Outdoor
Advertising statinc� Midwest had built a freeway billboard a�
Valdalia and I-94 21 feet hiqher than Midwest had specified ir
� their permit application and 21 feet higher than is allowed by the
Zoning Code. You told that company to get a height variance or
decrease the height. Midwest was denied the height variance lona
ago and yet the sign still stands.
�1
NOTES ON ST. PAUL STORM DAMAGE REPAIR COSTS
ELLER MEDiA COMPANY
1. Removal of hazards, securing structures and cleaning area immediately after the storm of May
30, on Sunday, May 31, 1998.
S
On Sunday ten Elier sign hangers worked ten hours each responding to the emergency conditions
caused by the damage to the storm the night before. Crews were immediately assigned to Highland
in St. Paut where 5 sign faces at 2 locations were damaged, and to sites in south Minneapolis
where faces and structures where left in hazardous condition by the storm. As work was completed
in Minneapolis the crews were rotated to assist the crew in Highland and to respond other damage
on W. 7th and at a site on Grand. By the end of Sunday ali crews were working in St. Paul.
The assignment to each crew was:
1. Respond to and eliminate any hazardous conditions created by the wind damage the
night before.
2. Stabilize and secure the structure, removing (often by cutting away) any damaged or
unsecured parts.
3. Clean up the area, removing any parts or other debris that had falien from the sign.
4. Move on to the ne>ct damaged location.
No repairs of the signs were attempted or completed. No signs in St. Paul were made usable or
returned to service as a result of the work done by the emergency crews on Sunday, May 31. All
the expense that day was labor. No rePlacement materials were in'stalled or permanent repairs
attempted or completed.
�
Eller crews spent approximately 70 hours in St. Paul that day securing, stabilizing and cleaning up
around our damaged signs. The crews were paid at an overtime rate of $44.40 per hour.
Our local crews were assisted in the cleanup at one St. Paul location, 1184 W. 7th Street, on
Wednesday June 3, by a three person contract Quantum crew from Chicago. The Quantum crew
spent 9 hours at this one location in St. Paui at a rate of $ 40.00 per hour.
The costs assigned to each location are provided on the Worksheet for that focation.
2. Cost of materials
Billboards constructed at the time and in the places affected in St. Paul typicaily had two
standardized elements and two custom elements. From front to back they are:
a. Trim. This the standardized "picture frame" around the sign face (see exhibit one). This
trim is now typicaily of fiberglass. The FORMETCO, INC. order acceptance provides the cost�
of our most recent purchase of trim kits (see exhibit two) the four pieces that make up the
frame and the assorted clips and fasteners.
��
�
�� � ��� \
Notes on St. Paul Storm Damage, Eller Media Company
� b. Sign face. This is also a standardized element (see exhibit one}. The faces are made of
interlocking paneis of light gauge steel that Eller assembles in its shop, brings compiete to
the site, and swings into place with a crane. Traditionally we have used vertical interiocking
panels, but now have switched to horizontal inter{ocking pane{s. The quotation for sign faces
from Tiffin Metai Products (exhibit three) provides the current cost of a sign face assembly.
c. Upper structure. This is the metal framing that supports the sign face. These are similar in
the materiais used (stock angle and channei iron and steel) but can be custom in design,
depending on when it was built, whether it is attached to the ground or is on a roof, and how it
rests on the roof or wali. Upper structures are a combination of verticai supports, often in the
shape of an "A" and horizontal stringers for stability.
The upper structure for the affected signs could have been fabricated in our shop or on site
from standard, typically salvaged, materiais. We have found no benefit in using identical
new material. The upper structure is assembled by standard bolts and weiding techniques.
Each of our crane trucks is equipped with gas and electric welding equipment and suppiies
and typically at least one member of each crew is a trained welder.
Because the upper structure is built of standard stock materials we as a practice keep a
stockpile of these materials (the long pieces) we have saivaged from signs we have retired.
We have salvaged materials on hand for all the proposed repairs described in the attached
June 19 letter (exhibits four and four a) firom our structural engineer. We will have no external
� cost for those materiais. If we had needed to purchase materiai we would purchase it from a
salvage yard. The salvage yards price the material by the pound rather than by the foot. To
avoid that calculation, we requested quotes for new material from South St.Paul Steel
Supply Co. Exhibit five provides their quotes for new materiai. These are the values used in
our estimates. Salvaged material is typically available for purchase for one third the cost of
new material.
The design and fabrication of the upper structure is the primary difference between the "new
identical structure" and the "new replacement structure" values on the worksheets. If we were
building a new sign, we would use a new unitized design and fabrication system for the
upper structure.
d. Foundation. This supports the upper structure. These are custom to each site. With the
exception of one member at one site, these elements sustained no damage during the storm
{see exhibits four and Tour a), and therefore no repairs are proposed to these elements.
3. Replacement Cost
Two costs for rebuilding the entire structure are provided. First, the cost of buiiding an
identical new structure, same materials, same design (identicai structure). The basis for
these costs is our testimony in condemnation hearings. Given the choice, we would not
choose to rebuild an identical structure. We would use different materials and a different
i design (replacement structure). The basis for this cost is the cost of a recently instailed
� structure in Minneapolis (exhibit six)
2 ,�
STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET
ELLER MEDIA COMPANY
LOCATION Ford Pkwy & Cieveland DISPLAY 2 Poster Faces
A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS
1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS (1}
ft angle iron @ per ft
ft "C" channel @ per ft
2. SIGN FACE AND TRIM (2)
2 sign faces @$499 per face
2 trim kits C��220 per face
B. LABOR
24 hours @ $22.00 per hour
COST OF REPAIRS
Estimated cost of new identical structure(4)
Estimated cost of new replacement structure(4)
Estimate of cost of securing, stabilizing and clean up
on May 31(3),i4 hrs af $44.00 per hour
(1) See note 2c
(2) See notes 2 a& b
(3) See note 1
(4) see note 3
Ail costs are direct costs
none
none
$998.00
$440.00
$528.00
$1966.00
$12,230
�29,500
$616.00
�
�
�
�
�t`t - t���
�
STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET
ELLER MEDIA COMPANY
LOCATION 1820 Grand DISPLAY 2 Poster Faces
A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS
1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS (1)
ft angle iron @ per ft
ft"C" channel C� per ft
2. SIGN FACE AND TRIM (2)
.
�
2 sign face(s) C$499 per face
2 trim kits @$220 per face
L�
24 hours C$22.00 per hour
COST OF REPAIRS
Estimated cost of new identicai structure(4)
Estimated cost of new replacement structure(4}
Estimate of cost of securing, stabilizing and clean up
on May 31(3) 2 hrs at $44.00 per hour
(1) See note 2c
(2) See notes 2 a& b
(3) See note 1
(4) See note 3
All costs are direct costs
none
none
$998.00
440.00
$528.00
$1966.00
$12, 230
$29,500
$88.00
��
Tiffin's 24 and 30-Sheet Poster
Panels, vertical or horizontal, are
made of the finest steel, meeting
the highest mill requirements.
Tiffin's special engineering and
design offers speedy assembly
and easy erection and instailations
on-site.
Tiffin Posiers can 6e
completely assembled on the
floorofyourshop,orthe
ground, on-site and quickly
and easily lifted into piace on
yaur structure.
-��� �
� -�- c�v�
A smooth, continuous surf2ce is formed
with Tiffin's Rib-Locking or interlacking
sections. Tiffin has always been the fore-
runner of newdesigns and innovations in
outdoor advertising to improve appearance
and life, 2nd make installation faster and
simpler.
RitrLock Sections fit instantly with Tiffin
Sprits. Tiffin sections, parts and hard-
ware are interchangeabie with your
. . .. . ... - .existinginuer�tories...
�
_�
PLAN VIEW
�24'-0� eign face
.. � � 8_O• � 8 • � 4_O•-
frame A� column pipe ��me "B'
� � ^I
0
�
� Raaf f
m Iadtler
0
cl
II
n
�
p
�._I
Column
n^
9 9
c
� n
b
0
Undieturbed yp0 ps(
aandY 9raM or beH
Drilied coMiete
/
/ I I 1
1 I
�I _ /
/
tail
�1' '.d�� �.
I. .. . J �
Aa' �i �
� � a-� �
'� .. p Y
�I,
1 I �
' � d � �
i
i
i i�
�. ' i �
r '' i'
i Qi
�. I.�
� i f.
?�1 � ° I�
__i
Found
dpmeter
(ses sehedule)
�vanaN
�`l • ��`� \
E
° e.
b
e
.� _ _�
�
m
�-
ha�
5 ts
roar walfc�voy
7' nng plote
I V I I v
i i
g` I I 5/i6
o I I
`a I i
� ' I ";
L 1
1/4V ' 1' ring plote
Column pipe
w x L
80 45'
w=t+5/16 3'max
L = 4't diamater —�
w = widM of weld
L = la�gth of weld
t = wall thiekness of
Lower column pipe SPLJCE DEfAI�
COLUMN PIPE & FOUNDATIOt
OVERALL HEIGHT COLUMN PIPE
0'-0' - 42'-6" 24"0 x .375'
42'-7" - 47'-6' 30'6 x .3i2"
47'-7' - 59'-6' 30"0 x .375'
59'-7' - 72'-6" 36"4 x .375'
��/� 72�-7' - 81'-6' 36"0 x .4�6"
= e walkway /
i . e '
i
}`' O m
' G
� O
iH
`
�
�
�
-`.�� •_ � �: " Y -
_ - _ :.�
' ' O
N D
:� N
�
f `•
. .. . :k�i _ i, _ " .
0
�
�
E
a
w
O
�
�
.£-,L L
.0-.8
`V'
��
��
,�
� ��
��
r�
��
��
��
! i
� a �
'�` a
v
; c a
a
� � �
� a
Q Q 3
'O � i a.
G Y p
_ . __ . _.� . . .,.-- �'---
�b-, l l-
�
W
5
Q..
U �
F �
Y
O� O
� �
�
�
RR -1��\
�: -:.
_ .
_- :-'(,
_ �
_, � �
�'� .
;� �
. am aE �
�;`�it, �':. � $
- � E £
- Q. Q . �
_ ' m
':� m �
' , I 6 �� . � � °�'
�' � .� �:- -' ;t . t� n .
' t�
y :r _ _
I i
�1.�.�' . . . .
r:d:i _' �� , , a' �
'_" ._. .. _C,� $
- L N
m �
�� N
_ ,x_ ' �
a
"i:'lc: �? - . ' v,; �S "
�
��e':: ' ' . .
�>✓
�,'?� �[.�= � :.,' �', ,.:-. ` .
"'.iir`F,'� �
s
�C
3p
O
p9
G p
�
r7i E
�
g
a d
.°. u
� ° w
.°.. Q
o
� 9 �
GCId� � M
M '
Y1
i
� � n
� � J
�
•�1 OIXBM
�
�
_ 3
$�' Olx9M
F
.8
eoo; u .0-,Zl
�' w s
�. 3 � a D
a `o a. �a �` a
�a s ^u aa
pe O XU \
NL 3 N �
�g. I ^ ��
,1� " ��
I � N 0
8
N
M
0
9
\
h
�
N
�I \
�
3
i;
c
,8 � �
�o
,9 � �
� o
oM�
Y� �
o'p3
3 -� 3
J
� Q
��
r
S p
9 N
�O
w
N P
c
_ _ _ — ,��
ty
�
MAY-21-19�8 13�20 FROM FORMETCO,INC.
P.o_ Pox 1989
2963 Pleasant Hill Ad_
Duluth, Ga 30095
Date: ti5/21/98
F O R M E T C O
OFFICE:
TO 16128697082 P.01
I N C.
EAX
GRDER ACCEPTANCE
Sold �o=
�LLE� L�fED�A
3225 SPRING ST NE
�fINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413
ATTN: Tom Klees
612-80"9-190G Fax:612-"oEi9-7082
JP
770-476-7000
fi00-367-638�
k300-239
'770-497-9014
� ryr � r � No L Ax
sn�L Lo: �
ELLER MEDIA
3225 SPRING �T IvE
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55913
ATTN: TOM KLEES
612-869-1900 Fax:67_2-869-7082
Sales Order Order Date Cust No. SLS P.O. Number Shi.p Via
86511 OS/21l98 ELL023 1 Sh�p Via
-----------------
---------------------------------------------�
Ord Qty Stem NLwzber / Description Unit Price U/M Ext. Price
-----------------------------------------------
5 ^ *90 FXMP7 **Parent Item �
_n Kit*' 5145.55 EkCH 5727-75
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIiI WH=TE ,
10 90-FXWV
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRI� WH::TE VERTICAL
20 90-FX:vH
FORMA 300 TRIM WHITE HORIZONTAL
50 *90-FX-TRIM **Parent Item in KitF*
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM BRACfCET
90 90-fx-trim-bkt
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM BRACKET
360 10-32501
TRIM SCREwS - #14 ZP
81 1Q-95102
HOOK BOLTS/NUTS 2
5 10-21C90
F-109 FORMATIC SPRITS
5 F10-21092 **Parent Item in Kit**
r-1_09 Z HADiGEf2 PLATES & BOLTS/NUTS
S 10-210921
F-109 Z HANGER PLP.TES WZTHOUT B/N
$1.79 EACH
SC.26 EACF;
$:34.55 EAC�±
$3.10 EACH
�
$161.10
$Z1.0'c
S17Z.7J
$15_SC
����
L � / ^ j
�� �
s
��
Page: �
� / JU%. 6.1998 1�41PM TIFFIN METRL PRODUC�� _/ � r
�-,t�
/ i
�
�
�
�
� � ` . t�
METAL PRODUCTS
450 W ali Street, Tiffin, Ofiio 44883 /(419) 447-8414
Sa.� • 9�
May 12, 19�8 � � < �� �,�
�CX �J
Mr. Tom Klees
ELLER MEDIA COMPANY
3225 Spring Street, N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Deaz Tom,
l0 T"�
,
�
Phone:#6i2-869-1900
Fax: r6i2-869-7082
v�a ,�
���� ����
It was a pleasure speaking with you! Per your request, we are pl�ased to provide� our
quotation for the following:
�,2' x 24' HORT70NTAL F'�.(`E�LESS TRIM� TO INC U1�G_
(8) Each 18" x 24'S-1/2" Horizontal Sections
(3) Each Sprits ,_ _ -------_-�`
(2'� Each 2" Hook Bolts �
� —_
(4) Each Hanger Plates �
TOTAL PER �f�.�„E �499.25
(4) Each #95-158 Comer �:tpport Brackets f9r Fiberglass Trim $2.€,�)/Ea.ch
(14) Each #1026 Brackets $1.�'E,!Each
*F.O.B., Tiffin, Ohio
*Ta�c not inciuded
Tom, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to oontact me arrgGt at 1-800-53 ?• 0983.
We are looking tozwazd to worldng with your glant again.
Sincerely,
TIFFIN METAL PRODUCTS
��
Peg Wenner
Sales Manager/Outdoor Products Division
CREATIVE DESIGN W I�AETAL FABRIC'�""IOP!
,1 _I
N0.176 P.3 ��
WATS 1-800-537-0983
FAX 1-41 q-447-8512
�� ���.
a��(��i
� �/ , �
3�. E;?
.� �� .
�
)
.�
.
F
e � � r � .�� � x6
� �
P - � � � � �
, # 19� z ....,.�. ., : �
��r
'- .I E 7 ` s
14
16
�7
2
�'
r1
b �
F
������
..
���
3 �. ���,`�,
G
aL. �I.... �!`� F�...-i>.I , 'I AIc .....aa\� � �1
- ro R s' i \ \
�� � �
a p 1.-° F � �. �
.s' , ;" " J
� p �' /i
e � / •
�� ae
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRIC'I'S
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Q
f
SL7NRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD
HA7.EL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE
DAYTON'S BLUFF
PAYNE-PHAI.EN
NORTH END
THOVfAS-DALE
SUMMIT-UiVIVERSITY
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE-MIDWAY
ST. ANTHONY PARK
MERFZIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAML.INE-SNELLING HAMLI�TE
MACALESTER GROVELf�ND
HIGHLAND
SUMi�fIT HILL
DOWN`fOWN
ZON{NG FILE Q�'�
�
3 0`O���O��'Q r �O�O't�'�'��4p� �M�r�:��
� f k k� G k�� � V
--- AVE.
� 1 k� e�f
j€� Cl�7
^ W —
—'
�F�6���oC! D
F . � : . e
�
o �a
1,2
av
O'Oi0�0
�
a
e Q
d
.•—
�'; �
.
•
•
, � �,
.i �
� • '
• '� ' �
��
• •
a • •
• • ± •` • • •
( s . e . • s ` • • • •
.� ,�� � • �
■;
�.'�� . � � '� �� �
�
i
� i '
����� C�`'���'a =� ,
��� . . �
; '__�
�11,�� �l��.
•
_' _ 1 �
�����: �I
.
.
♦
� Q �
� O �4p
16
15 O
� ` �.d�
/ P�B
V
a �s
^ ,4
°°°�I I°Q
�! i
1 P, t
� 1 I I
� �
'°HILLCREST
t �� t
•
'�BaNLAND
�\
��.
.�
'r ; C> �,� • .
'- F:
j"r..
���
� •,'r r t�
t - .,
z �: � r ,., r
t - --"�" � ,
w �'�' ?��
z ' r- ��:
z <.e �., c�.'
Y +, � �'-
�'� ' f'i
: �.
I:
' � � f"-. .
I� ._
..�. '�
_/�/� . . _.______ ____
. ..______ ____ _ ,_
�.��f��-�"���"��_ ' � �_ VV ���� -�..�1�. _ �_l_L��... �
[ _
(" :�O`�"_ �\ � c.:..o.n..-_._. /.l':I:I�Ci$.:i_%i,__...� �
'_'__ � '___ ___'"__'__ --_____
��;�_ \�— )S -- ` _.. {,,;��;:i,;:, ..:���;::�(,-�; -f, -' �i - . �
I>i.I
F �: � �. ,. .
. i:" [):o : ._ � � � ,. . . - t
�
'_"_ _
�,
"'___-_'______ i., .: . . ' _ '_"__"______ '' Cq i: �;fillJ ;, r�. _":
"'�:- ' iL"J �:i���� �.. � .., �:. I . .
� � I �.- I , . _ "
^'' y '_ . _. ' � ) l;t.11�llll �_, � v '
'__-._ ______'_ ""___"_'_'___- . . ._. � �'
��
_ _' __ ' "___'_ � '
i I �iV
. .. . . ... . �` V
` �. .
I • •�• • • • • • • • r � • • � �
•
f
• . • . • . • • •
�
�
�'i°.
e
�
���
.
OB��n�
���
��� • • ���■� • • • � • � • • �� • • ��� �
— - . . =-+a�� s.
lI� - �
• • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . � .
,. ,.
���!�� • ��������
"""' ` ���
` ':� �1 3 . ��_��1�1 �' '%
, , -�
�
� � �i� ��� �..� �����'
�,�
�-- _---� C
O OIO
0
�u�� ��e���ee e����� .. .. --�
... ... ... ......... �...::..easaa���.
�� : .
� _
- `F':y' —_-__ — _ --_ 9
1 �_�__
�,�>����:;F,�,, �_ Sce � c �t1 N ---
� LEG=.:�
�'U;�POS�_��- -- °•s�� zoning d�slricE t��und
� - .. C / _.
.- �- i�
,�
F,__ ° �+i [) I t -- rlT_///// s �,� "� ErG,�—i;. ���
_
_ , - - .
.
t � T � -�
... ,
---- --- -- - '
-- -� ------------ � � •_ _ ,.._n :
p � , n ,
i_ i :., _ O I i'f -------., t; F. . --.� �---- `� ' _ '
Ufi° f?'tTl�� ti n
f COiiln�._:��'�
� �
S � �� �i �� �'.';O f1:11�1.. _ �,
—� �; J �
I Q t.c. I:7:iU5i'i:' I
�i�.-_.. __, �', yQ mui:i�;� t�����1:� V v2c2^, I
�
�'��
✓'l
`'^w �• ' I
� �vv�SN/ ` - :.
' A� �•:
���..
t.:' y �P.'. � .'
�,�� r
w, ,.. �; ,
� .__
��, C
� �__��
_.:..,. a/��'
���
. . ... �..�.,.
,�:
h�
: � �r'�ar-.c
_1
�
r>s�E , ��8��
uM �MREv
��
i� - _ � . �t---
� � �►�. �at � .
. • • -
; �RE�� :��;
a..; :
;. "j�
�__..;
�
� 1-- �
` �'"'�:a ' . - f. - � ^'• " .
.� ��• " '' - ' :• . " - - i
c ''. °�' - s . . • ' '
��"fi� -r' .
..� __�' �;;: .- ' �". •,
-:�� •. . .. .:
;�-:i t - ° �,� �:�-=
f' !1 f ~ �+`, �' f 4 �J� ..,.�
�S �.)... • G ' � � •
K�
ry .♦ M� -
.�' m& �-''� y � � � : . .
� \ 4
� *. 1� ������ f � '�`'{��'_ �•
1 J
. '' � '� ! 1 . ' � /� N.' �\-
.^+ , � .� ry '^Y
w.;� �s _ ;_ ' . � �� . �� .
, ^ ' �
�-.��'
T ' y .R,.+ 7 r-.'^"' ��y`:_ � .ry � .
�'��] ,. `i. o- �F �� !- . '�r'� .
k
� . . . � . ' . i ' ' ' i �
� - _ _> _ •-�.r,�_...
Council File # qq � ��t
RESOLUTION
CITY OF
Presented By
Referred To
PAUL, MINNESOTA
Green Sheet # �(� t��{ � $'
�S
Committee: Date
2
3
4
5
6
7
WHEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-154 and pursuant to Saint Paul
Legislarive Code § 66.408 made application to the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission
(Commission) to appeal the decision of the Saint Paul Zoning Administrator to a11ow repairs to
storm damaged advertising signs located at 1820 Grand Avenue and at the southeast corner of
Ford Parkway and South Cleveland Avenue; and
8 WHEREAS, on August 6, 1998, the Commission's Zoning Committee conducted a
9 public hearing where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard and submitted
10 its recommendation to deny the appeal to the Commission; and
11
12 WHEREAS, in its Resolution No. 98-45, dated August 14, 1998, the Commission
13 decided to deny the appeal based upon the findings in Resolution 98-45 which is attached hereto
14 and incorporated herein by reference; and
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WHEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-247 and pursuant to the provisions of
Saint Paul Legislafive Code § 64.206, filed an appeal from the determination made by the
Commission and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City Council (Council) for the
purposes of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and
WIIEREAS, on October 7, 1998 and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§
64.206 - 64.208 with noUce to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
Council where al] interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and
WHEREAS, the Council having heard the statements made and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and
of the Planning Commission, does hereby;
RESOLVE, to affirm the decision of the Commission. The Council finds no error in any
fact, procedure or finding made by the Plax�ning Commission and that Zoning Code § 66301
applies to these non-conforming advertising signs ; and be it
1 a.g, -�� g,�
2 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall maii a copy of this resolution to Brian
3 Bates, Esq. on behalf of the appellant, Marvin Liszt, Esq, on behaif of the sign company, the
4 Zoning Administrator and the Plauuing Commission.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Apps
Byc
By:
Form Appro ed by City Attoxney
s ����� ��/t7/y5
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Adopted by Council: Date ���Q�
Adoption Certified by Council Secretasy
°l.�i, - �O �t-L
....�.��
.
GREEN SHEET
No104�78
Peter Warner
iT 8E ON CIXRJCIL AGH�IIN BY (Q4Tq
rta���vl�
OR06t
TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES
i� , -�_��
=� •�e
❑ an�naeEr ❑ anctsx
❑ wuxcu�mn+r.�soa ❑ wwio��a
❑Yratlatuasrwrtl ❑
(CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE�
Memoralizing the decision of the City Council on October 7, 1998 denying the appeal of
Scenic Minnesota, Highland Area Community Council, and Rogers Chambers to a decision of
the Planning Commission regarding storm-damaged billboards at 1820 �rand Avenue and at
Highland Village Shopping Center.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CIB COMMfITEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
IcY:. �e�
AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S
Has mie aeiswJfiim eexr Mwicea unaer a conhact for tnie �pamnemv
vES r�o
Fias thia perem/firm ever been a dly empbyee?
YES MO
poe6 this pe�aonlfi�m poscess a sidll rqt normallYPossessetl bY airy cunmt city employeeT
YES NO
Is this pereoNfirm a tarpetetl Mendoi?
YES NO
COSTIREVENUE BUDfiETED (qRLYE ON�
VES NO
SOURCE
ACTNIiY NUMBER
(EfPWN)
0.� - toq�
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: October 28, 1999
TO: Nancy Anderson
FROM: Peter Warner
RE: Resolution memorializing decision of City Council from 10-7-98 in the matter of
Scenic Minnesota, et a1. appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 98-45.
It came to my attention that the appeal of Scenic Minnesota of a decision of the Planning
Commission dated August 14,1998 had notbeen reducedto aresolutionmemorializing the decision
of the City Council as required under Saint Paul City Charter § 6.03.01. Accordingly please fmd
attached, for placement at your earliest convenience on the CounciPs Consent Agenda, a signed
original resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council to deny Scenic Minnesota's
appeal.
��`"iaa .,"��a�c."�°?'�w�?1t�
C�T � � ��99
� l�_2�--a�q
`t`1-lo g�
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number 98-45
�te August 14, 1998
�VHEREAS, SCENIC MINNESOTA, file � 98-154, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of
Section 66300(j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the Zoning Administrator's decision
regarding advertising sians damaged in a storm on May 30, 1993; and located at 1820 Grand
Avenue, the Hi�hland Villa�e Shoppin� Center, which is on the south side of Ford Pazkway
between Kenneth Street and Cleveland Avenue, and at 1142, 1184, and 1209 W. Seventh Street
(legal descriptions on file); and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on Au�ust 6, 1448, held a
public heazing at which alt persons present ���ere given an opportunity to be heazd pursuant to
said application in accordance �vith the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Plannin; Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zonin�
Committee at the public heazin� as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�ving
findings of fact:
A major wind storm hit the T�vin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damaee
to homes, trees, and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, city inspectors
checked the sites of dama�ed billboazds with Chris McCarver of Eller Media, Inc. On
June 10, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller Media that, as a result of the inspection, two
of the damaged billboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the middle billboazd structure at
Hi�hland Vi(la�e had not teceived structural d'ama�e; just the si�ns and poster panels,
w�hich provided the backing for the siQns, had blow�n down. Replacin� poster panels does
not, as a matter of standard City practice dating back many yeazs, require a building
peanit. Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to replace the poster panels on those
tW0 SIaIIS.
Ms. Lane's letter said that the other four billboazd locations--one at Highland Village
Shopping Center and three on W. Seventh Street--were found to have structural damage.
Therefore, she requested information abou[ the cost of repairs in relation to the
replacement cost of each sign. One of the tests in the Zoning Code for the repair of
nonconformin� siQns that have been damaaed is that the renovation costs aze less than 51
moved by Field
seconded by
in favor 10 (Field abstained)
against �
�j
percent of the replacement cost.
2. A(1 of the billboazds in question are owned by Eiler Media, Inc. (formerly Naegele and
then Universal), �vhich is a national billboard company. All of the biltboazds aze in B-2
(Community Business) zoning districts, where advertising signs aze permitted if they
meet certain size and spacing requirements unless an overlay special sign district imposes
stricter regulations. None of the billboards in question are conformina, they are all legal
nonconformina signs for one reason or another. The Grand Avenue and Highland Village
signs are in Special Sign DisTricts adopted in the 1980s w•here billboards aze prohibited.
The W. Seventh Street billboards aze in an interim Special Sign District approved by the
City Council earIier this yeaz, �vhere new construction and modification of biliboards aze
prohibited until new advertising sign regulations are adopted by the City Council.
Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16, 1998, appealed Ms.
Lane's decision to allo�v replacement of the poster panels at t�vo locations (1820 Grand
Avenue and the middle billboards on the Highland Vitlage Shopping Center), and her
request for cost estimates from Eller in relation to the 51 percent test as a basis for future
decisions about cvhether the other billboazds will be peanitted to be renovated. The
appeal contains five specific arguments.
4. The first specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising si�ns, the 51 percent
rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in the next section (66.302), which
is specifically about adverfising signs. The city staff from LIEP, PED, and tEie City
Attorney's Office have conferred and a�ree that nonconforming billboards aze regulated
by both sections and by applicable special sign districts; in the event of any appazent
inconsistency, whichever contains the most specific provisions controls. However, the
Zonin� Administrator's letter contained only a request for information, not a decision
about how the renovation cost information `vould be used. Therefore, since no decision
has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature.
5. Scenic Minnesota's second specific appeal is that if the 51 percent test �rere to apply, it
shoutd apply to the sign face as well as to the rest of the sign structure. Based on the
definitions for "sign" and "sign structure" in the code (66.121), this appeal has some
merit. But different terms are used in the para�raph on exemptions from getting building
permits (66.40�), which refers to "display surface" and "poster replacement". The Iatter
terms aze not defined in the code and, being subject to interpretation, are a responsibility
of the Zonin� Administrator. The Cit�• Council is expected to amendment advertising
sign re�ulations later this yeaz and tivill receive comments from the Plannin� Commission
before doing so. Code amendments ���ould be a better way to clazify how sign faces
shoutd be considered than tryin� to reach a decision through an appeals process.
6. Scenic Minnesota s third and fourth specific appeals azgue that the installation or
replacement of sien faces should rzquire a sign {building) permit. On replacement of the
sign face (poster panels), LIEP treated Eller Media the same as they have treated all
billboard companies. For many years the Zoning Administrator has interpreted 66.40� to
��
`� °l - to �l\
allow poster panei replacement without a sign permit. Poster panels come in kits of
interlockin� strips of galvanized sheet metal, �vhich aze assembled on site and typically
cost less than 20 percent of the construction cost of a billboard. For the set of billboazds
at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboazds on Highland V illage Shopping
Center, LIEP inspectors determined that no structural damage had occurred. Ms. Lane's
letter of June 10, 1998, is clearly consistent with established practice; any other decision
would have been discriminatory.
7. The fifth specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that the W. Seventh biliboazds cannot be
replaced or renovated at this time because of the interim Special Sign District for the �V.
Seventh neighborhood. In February 1998, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance
that created an Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to make
recommendations to the Council. During the study period, the ordinance provides that
district councils may apply for a special sign district by wTiting a letter. In early July, the
City Councii held a public heazin� and approved interim special sign districts in every
citizen participation district that applied. The �Vest Seventh Federation appiied on April
6, 1998, and the district became effective on May 6.
As with the 51 percent test, the Zoning Administrator has not rendered a decision about
whether or not the W. Seventh billboards can be renovated, and an appeai is premature.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
allow the replacement of the sign faces �vithout sign permits for the billboards at 1820 Grand
Avenue and for the middle set of billboards at Highland Villa�e Shoppin� Center is hereby
denied;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission renders no decision on this
appeal as regards the eastem set of billboards at Highland Village Shopping Center or the
billboazds on W. Seventh Street; since LIEP has only asked for information from Eller Media on
these storm-damaged billboards and has not yet made decisions on whether they can be
renovated, appeals about them are premature.
�i
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Pamela Wheelock, Di�ector
CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, Mayar
September 16, 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
CiTy Council Research O�ce
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
25 H'est Fourth Street
Saint Paut, MN i57D2
�.\��+t Ktsd�•'�+or�
pQ �
C.�
��� i
��
Telephome: 612d 66-6� 65
Facsim77e- 612-228-3314
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
October 7, 1998 for the following zoning case:
Applicants:
File Nuxnber:
Scenic Minnesota, Highland Area Community Council, and Rogers Chambers
98-247
Purpose: Appeal of Planning Commission decision regarding storm-damaged biliboards:
Planning Commission upheld action of LIEP to allow replacement of sign face
panels where the sign support structure was undamaged on billboards in the
Grand Avenue and Highland Special Sign Districts
Locations: 1820 Crrand Avenue (southwest corner of Grand and Fairview) and at Highland
V illage Shopping Center (southwest comer of Ford Pkwy. and Cleveland)
My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council on
September 23, 1998 and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Please call me at 266-6575 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Wr' '
LarrySo rholm ___ _
Principal Planner - Zoning
cc: Councilmember Benanav
Councilmember Harris
Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
, �.�.
� NOTICE OF POBLIC HEARING .� .
-c�. '
The Saint Paul City Covncil a'i11 cunduct a public hearing on Wednesday, October 7.
1998 at 5:30 p.m: in the City Council Chambers, Thicd Floor City Hall-Coart House. to
consider the appeai of Scenic Minnesota, Higkiland Area Community Conncil. and
Rogers Chambers to a decision of the Planning Cocnmissiun regarding storm-damaged
bil(boards at IS20 Grand Avenue (southwest corner of Grand and Fairview Avenues)
and�at Highland�ViHage Shopping Center (souihwest corner of Ford Pazkway and
Cleveland Avenuel. . � _ ,
Dafeda.Septemherl7, 1998
NANCYANDERSON " . .
Assistant City Cbtutcff SecreCary � � -
(9eptetttber 19. 1998) _.. �
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
September 30, 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
PameZa WheeZocl� Director � 9_� b � 1
25 West Fourth Sveet Telephone: 612-266-6565
Saint Paul, IvN 55102 Facsimile: 612-228-3314
RE: Zoning File # 98-247: SCENIC MINNESOTA, HIGHLAND AREA COMMUNITY
COLJNCIL, and ROGERS CHAMBERS (co-appellants)
City Council Hearing: October 7, 1998 at 530 p.m., City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision that allowed the replacement of sign face panels
� on two storm-damaged billboards located in special sign districts where the construction, replacement, or
renovation of billboards is prohibited. The Planning Commission denied an appeal filed by Scenic
Minnesota and the Highland Area Community Council of an administrative decision made by LIEP. The
Zoning Administrator in LIEP determined that sign face panels that had blown off could be replaced on
billboazds where the sign structures that support the sign faces were undamaged.
LOCATIONS: The billboards in question are at 1820 Grand Avenue (southwest comer of Fairview on
top of the Subway Sandwich shop) and at 2012 Ford Parkway (the middle billboard on top of the
Highland Village Shopping Center.) Both billboard structures are V-shaped with rivo billboard faces.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Deny appeal by Scenic Minnesota and the Highland area
community council, 10-0 (with 1 abstention)
ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATTON: Deny appeal, 3-1 (with 1 abstention)
STAFF RECQMMENDATION: Deny appeai but revise code to require building permits for sign face
panel replacement in the future
SUPPORT FOR APPEAL BY SCENIC MN: Co-appellants, plus one letter of support.
OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY SCENIC MN: Two representatives of the billboard industry and the
owner of the Highland Village Shopping Center.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
SCENIC MINNESOTA, the HIGHLAND AREA COMMIJNITY COLINCIL, and ROGERS
CHAMBERS have appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Plannina Commission to deny a previous
�l
` Ms. Nancy Anderson
CiTy Council Secretary
September 30, 1998
Page 2
appeal led by Scenic Minnesota of the Zoning Administrator's decision that sign face panels b(own down
by storms could be replaced on those billboards where the sign structure was not damaged, even on
billboards located in special sign districts where the construction, replacement, or renovation of
billboards is prohibited.
The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public heazing on the matter on August 6,
1998. Representatives of Scenic Minnesota and the Highland Area Community Council spoke in support
of the appeal. Two representatives of Eller Media Company and the owner of the Highland Village
Shopping Center spoke in opposition, that is, in support of the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of
the code. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 3 to 1 with 1 abstention to recommend
denial of the appeal. The Planning Commission considered the case on August 14, 1998; they supported
the Zoning Committee's recommendation and denied the appeal by a vote of 10 to 0 with 1 abstention.
The appeal to the Planning Commission initially involved six billboards, but the Planning Commission
found that in four cases the Zoning Administrator had not yet rendered a decision on whether the
billboards could be repaired, but had only requested information from Eller Media Company about the
extend of dama�e and estimated repair costs. Thus, the Planning Commission made decisions about
only rivo billboards; they upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Code and
denied the appeal. The present appeal to the City Council is about the two billboards, one on Grand
Avenue and the other at Highland Village Shopping Center, on which the Zoning Adminish�ator
authorized the installation of new sign face panels. These two billboards were put saon put back into
service within weeks after the storms. In several other cases around the city, storm-damaged billboards
remain out of service while information gathering and decisions aze made.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 7, 1998. Please call ma (266-6575)
if you have questions and please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of
the sites presented at the public hearing.
Sincerely,
L�holm
PrincipalPlanner- Zoning
Attachments
cc: City Council members
Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
Gayle Summers, HACC
Rogers Chambers
\�PED\SY52�SHAAED�SODERHOL�ZONRVU198?47CC2.L1R
Peter Warner, Asst. City Attomey
Wendy Lane, LIEP
Chris McCarver, Eller Media Co.
Mike Cronin, outdoor advertising consultant
�
�
�
'
�
q q _ togl
ATTACffiVIENTS
•
A.
B.
C.
D.
Appeal form and letter of explanation
�.���
Planning Commission Resolution and Planning Commission minutes for 8/14/98 �
Zoning Committee minutes for 8/6/98 �,�� 1`� `
���'
Staff Report of 7/25f98 with many attachments sent to the Zoning Committee
��
E. Location and zoning maps
P. �Z -�
�� �J
• UPED\SYS2\SHAREDVSODERHOL�ZONIlVG\98247CC2.LIR �
�lq - lo`l\
�
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Departme�:t af Planning and Econamic Development
Zoning Section
1100 City Hal! Annec
25 YT'est FourUr Stree�
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
�or�€ng �ae use
Fiie rto �� �`7' � -
Fs� � �`?�
�££1�3t1Y9 -#?2�i£liig �_ � - -
__..��'' �"�
. 't�_��- r _ -
APPELLANT Name SCtn�c. ��C`�''li7in�.nrn,eet,q<<t..
Address f�« �"`5 I�b � �r/��''+-�( �`'`�- �ni f � �S1°i
City St._ Zip Daytime phone �°� ° �� 6 �
�».+�'�+�5 11j�iY- 5 5i. ('a*-c ��°� � (Pr?v- 3`i�
�
PROPERTY
LOCATtON
Zoning File Name
Address/Location
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby mad�e for an appeaf to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �'City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to
appea4 a ecisio made by the �n�� ���n^�55��
on ����'-/ � , 19_ File number: 7 ^ 5
(date of decision) �
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding rnade by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
��inint�C.C'�- �ll�_ h���-�eS iN i '�z-►Jov.}Tia�S 8� �SL
�.� v�—�A�nn�Le�Q �rc�3�,�.ns .
< ,
�i�s SeL���n. j��s�e-��o•�S ��n.�pvar c� �r��r�,An.,�s k,��at
13 fl/�c rt�T fl ��Li�i�i�' v5�_
,
�1�.LGv,��s.�s in f�rEttyt�� � Or� �/}� N�. I���lL+nrTC.�
�
��
Attach additiona/ sheet rf necessary)
,!7 .
Appiicant's signature
s c�« /77 n
,7�� �: / . e . _ r
u� � �by
��
g�City agent ! .1�'�n'�� �/
�
O//icers: Ezecutice Otrettor
6rian 6afes
John Mannillo 1985 Grand Avenue
Jeanne Weigum Saint Paul, MIY 55105�
Michael Paymar SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA 612 690-9671
ftuby tlunt
September 1, 1998
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Planning and Economic Development
City Hall Annex, 25 West 4th Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 .
Re: Damaged Billboards Appeal.
Mr. Soderholm:
I ask that this writing and attached letter be made part of
the appeal lodged on August 24, 1998 by Scenic Minnesota, Highland
Area Community Council, and J. Rogers Chambers.
ScoRe
I understand the action being appealed is Zimited to that
portion oP LIEP Zoning Manager Wendy Lane's June 10, 1998, letter
in which she allowed the renovation and replacement of the two- �
paneled, middle, rooftop billboard on the building on the south-
east corner of Cleveland and Ford Parkway and the two-paneled,
�
rooftop billboard at 1820 Grand Avenue.
Background
An appeal of Zoning Manager Lane`s letter of June 10, 1998,
was filed at a cost of $150.00 on June 16, 1998. The appeal was
heard by the Zoning Committee of the Planninq Coaunission on August
6, 1998. That committee voted four to one, with Chair Field
abstaining�, to deny the appeal. Denial of the appeal was
formalized by the Planning Commission on Auqust 24, 2998.
Commissioner Field moved denial and, except for his abstention, the
� Litton Field derives income from a billboard on downtown �
Saint Paul property in which he has an interest.
�
aq-�o��
� motion passed unanimously.
On August 24, 1998, appellants filed this appeal in this
matter, again at a cost of $150.00. Appellants hereby appeal the
Planning Commission's denial of appellants' earlier appeal.
Appellants' Position
The crux of the issue before trie City Council on appeal is the
proper interpretation o£ the City Zoning Code. The industry has
argued the controlling Zoning Code provision is §66.301, which
pertains generally to "signs." Appellants argue the controlling
provision is §66.302, which pertains more specifically to
"advertising signs."
When interpreting the Zoning Code its lanquage is to be
construed according to the rules of construction contained in
� §60.102. The first rule of construction in that section requires
"the particular shall control the general." Further, the use of
the word "shall is mandatory." We conclude it is mandatory that
the particular control the general.
We further conclude §66.302, which pertains particularly to
advertising signs, must control §66.301, which pertains more
generally to advertising, as well as business, signs.
It is uncontested the subject billboards are nonconforming;
were damaged in a windstorm; were replaced and/or renovated; and
are located in special sign districts in which billboards are not
a permitted use.
Section 66.302 allows the replacement and/or renovation of any
�
2
�
7
nonconforming advertising siqn only if the advertising sign is �
located in a zoning district in which advertising signs are a
permitted use.
We conclude that nonconforming advertising signs in the Grand
Avenue Special District Sign Plan area and the xighland Village
Special District Sign Plan area cannot be replaced or renovated.
We further conclude replacing and/or renovating, or allowing the
replacement and/or renovation of, the subject billboards violates
the Saint Paul Zoning Code.
The subject billboards are illegal and must be removed in
their entirety immediately. Any other action would sanction a
violation of the Zoning Code.
PED's Position
In its Zoning Committee Staf£ Report, PED, after consultation .
with the City Attorney's office, made the following determinations:
1) The subject advertisinq signs are nonconforming;
2) Section 66.302 controls; �
3) Advertising signs are not a permitted use on Grand Avenue
and in Highland Village;
4) Renovation is "to restore to an earlier condition, to
improve by repairing." (PED did not discuss the term
"replace.")
PED concluded, and recommended, the subject billboards could
not be renovated, that is, returned to their earlier condition; the
51% damage test contained in §66.301 is not the,appropriate test
for damaged billboards; anything beyond minor repairs must meet the
standards of §66.302; and the City should require a sign permit for
the replacement o£ poster panels. See PED Zoning Committee Report.
3
C J
"5
49 �►d q1
�
LIEP's Departmental Practice
It has been suggested that LIEP acted appropriately when LIEP
did not require the issuance of a permit for, and thus allowed, the
renovation of the subject billboards. The argument goes that since
LIEP had a longstanding practice of not requiring the issuance of
permits for sign face replacement LIEP was right not to have done
so here. There are several £laws in this reasoning.
First, we challenge whether this "long-standing practice" is
a fact or merely a convenient explanation for allowing the subject
billboards to be renovated or replaced in violation of the Zoning
Code. We have seen no written internal policy on this point. We
are unaware of any instances where sign companies have applied for
permits for the replacement of sign faces and have been told in
� writing a permit was unnecessary. On the contrary, we are aware of
at least one recent instance where a permit application was
submitted, and a permit issued, for the replacement of a sign face
�
(2/26/98 issuance of a permit to Universal Outdoor to replace a
rooftop sign face on University near Prior).
Even if a"long-standing practice" can be estalalished, we
disagree the subject billboards can be renovated and/or replaced.
The logic that departmental practice should override provisions of
the Zoning Code leads to several distinct, and equally untenable,
results. The Zoning Administrator is required by the Zoning Code
to enforce trie provisions of the Zoning Code. See §66.401. This
provision becomes a nullity if the Zoning Administrator does not,
in fact, enforce all provisions of the Zoning Code. If the Zoning
�
4
✓
�
Code is not enforced in this instance it follows the Zoning Code �
can never be enforced. In all similar future circumstances sign
companies will, no doubt, argue that the City must treat them as
Universal sign company is now treated. Logically, this leads to
the effective rewriting of the Zoning Code by City staff. City
staff has no such authority.
Regardless, LIEP did not make reference to any "long-standing�'
internal policy when it wrote Universal Outdoor allowing
replacement of the subject billboards. LIEP referred to a specific
provision of the Zoning Code. In her June 10, 1998, letter, Ms.
Lane stated: "The replacement of poster panels is permitted without
a permit pursuant to Section 66.405(1) of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code." Section 66.405(1) reads:
The changing of the display surface on a painted or printed �
sign only. However this exception shall apply only to poster
replacement and/or on-site changes involving sign painting
elsewhere than directly on a building.
Ms. Lane used a Zoning Code provision, allowing the
replacement of an advertising poster, to allow the replacement of
� advertising poster panels. This is not a casual mistake. To
confuse posters and poster panels is to confuse paint and the
painting surface, a sign and a sign face, a bulletin and a bulletin
board, or chalk and a blackboard. Ms. Lane went to extraordinary
lengths to accommodate Universal outdoor.
A Word On Property Riahts
The Zoning Code specifically disallows vestinq oP property
rights with any billboard company or any billboard property owner.
Neither the billboard company, nor the property owner, has any �
5
lri
`C9 -�05\
� right to the continuation of any billboard use under the Zoning
Code. See § 66.411.
On the other hand, area residents do have vested property
rights. The residential property owners have a right to quiet
enjoyment of their properties. The replacement of the subject
billboards has interfered with area residential property rights.
See Chambers letter attached.
Relief
Appellants ask the City Council to declare the two subject
billboards nuisances per se pursuant to Zoning Code §66.413 and
order their immediate removal. Further, appellants ask the City
Council to order the return of $300.00 in filing fees to
appellants.'
�
L �r-- - �-���.�
Brian Bates
for: Scenic Minnesota
Highland Area Community Council
J. Rogers Chambers
� Appellants are aware that the issue of reimbursement of
filing fees has recently been before the Council. The Council
riqhtly declined to allow special rules for neighborhood or non-
profit groups. However, appellants now suggest the return of the
filing fees (no attorney fees) in any case where the appellant
prevails or substantially prevails on appeal.
In this case, appellants' filing fees were necessitated by
LIEP's error in judgment and the Planninq Commission's failure to
correct the error. Appellants suggest it is unfair that private
moneys be expended to en£orce the Zoning Code where public
� employees and officials have failed to do so.
6
�
�
August 5, 1998
St. Paul Zoning Committee
25 West 4"' Street
1100 City Hall Annex
St. Paui, Minnesota 55102
ATTN: Mr. larry Soderholm
Va Fax#651/228-3314
,
Dear Mr. Soderholm:
This letter is in support o# Scenic Minnesota's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
decision regarding the rebuilding of biAboards at the southwest corrier of Grand and
Fairview (1820 Grand Ave.} after they were damaged in the recent wind storms.
From the back of our home at 1834 Summit Avenue we can see the billboards and
consider them unsightly_ They are a very unpleasant aspect of fhe view from the
house, and they block a piece of sky we have a right to see.
As property owners in the neighborhoai, we were led to believe that if ever these
biilboards were destroyed by natural causes, they would not be replaced. After the
damage to them in May, we thought that we would not see the biliboards any longer.
We were very surprised, and much disappointed, to see them rebuilt.
We urge the Zoning Committee to grant Scenic Minnesota's appeal and reverse the
Administrator's decision aliowing the rebuilding of the biliboards. This form of
advertising is a bfight on the urban landscape and our neighbor wiil oniy be improved
by their removal.
We hope that you wi;l agree with our viewpoint, grant the appeai, and adhere to the
zoning code resfrictions as they current{y stand, disaliowing the billboards. We do not
need this type of adve �" in our neighborhood.
i
Sincerel � ��7
/n ��
J-Rogers Chambers
Shawn �. Chambers
1834 Summit Avenue
, , 'h`
��+1ri
�
i
�
�
`�q - �o ��
� city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number 98-_
date Au 14 1998
WHEREAS, SCENIC MIi� file � 98-154, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of
Section 66300(j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the Zoning Administrator's decision
re�azding advertising si�ns damaged in a storm on May 30, 1998; and loca[ed at 1820 Grand
Avenue, the Highland Village Shopping Center, which is on the south side of Ford Pazkway
between Kenneth Street and Cleveland Avenue, and at 1142, 1184, and 1209 �V. Seventh Street
(legal descriptions on file); and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on August 6, 1998, held a
public heazin� at which all persons present w�ere given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to
said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Pianning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning
Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following
� findings of fact:
1. A major �vind storm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of dama�e
to homes, trees, and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, city inspectors
checked the sites of damaged billboazds with Chris McCarver of Eller Media, Inc. On
June 10, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller Media that, as a result of the inspection, two
of the damaged billboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the middle billboazd structure at
Highland Village had not received structural damage; just the signs and poster panels,
which provided the backing for the signs, had blown down. Replacing poster panels does
not, as a matter of standard City practice dating back many years, require a building
permit. Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to replace the poster panels on those
two signs.
Ms. Lane's letter said that the other four billboazd locations--one at Highland Village
Shopping Center and three on W. Seventh Street--were found to have structural damage.
Therefore, she requested information about the cost of repairs in relation to the
replacement cost of each sign. One of the tests in the Zoning Code for the repair of
nonconformin� signs that have been dama�ed is that the renovation costs aze less than 51
moved by Field
� seconded by
in favor 10 (Field abstained)
against
�i
percent of the replacement cost.
2. All of the billboazds in question are owned by Eller Media, Inc. (formerly Naegele and
then Universal), which is a national biilboazd company. All of the biilboazds aze in B-2
(Community Business) zoning districts, where advertising signs aze permitted if they
meet certain size and spacing requirements unless an overlay speciat sign district imposes
stricter regulations. None of the billboazds in question are conformin�; they aze all legal
nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Grand Avenue and Highland Village
signs are in Special Sign Districts adopted in the 1980s where billboards are prohibited.
The W. Seventh Street bi116oards aze in an interim Special Sign District approved by the
City Council earlier this yeaz, where new construction and modification of billboards aze
prohibited until new advertising sign regulations aze adopted by the City Council.
Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16, 1998, appealed Ms.
Lane's decision to allow replacement of the poster panels at two locations (1820 Grand
Avenue and the middle billboazds on the Highland Village Shoppin� Center), and her
request for cost estimates from Eller in relation to the 51 percent test as a basis for future
decisions about whether the other billboazds will be permitted to be renovated. The
appeal contains five specific arguments.
�
4. The first specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising signs, the 51 percent
rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in the next section (66302), which �
is specifically about advertising signs. The city staff from LIEP, PED, and the City
Attomey's Office have conferred and agree that nonconforming billboards aze regulated
by both sections and by applicable special sign districts; in the event of any appazent
inconsistency, whichever contains the most specific provisipns controls. However, the
Zoning Administrator's letter contained only a request for information, not a decision
about how the renovation cost information would be used. Therefore, since no decision
has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature.
5. Scenic Minnesota's second specific appeal is that if the 51 percent test were to apply, it
should apply to the sign face as well as to the rest of the sign structure. Based on the
definitions for "si�n" and "sign structure" in the code (66.121), this appeal has some
merit. But different terms aze used in the paragraph on exemptions from getting building
permits (66.405), which refers to "display surface" and "poster replacemenP'. The latter
terms are not defined in the code and, being subject to interpretation, aze a responsibility
of the Zoning Administrator. The City Council is expected to amendment advertising
sign reQulaTions later this year and will receive comments from the Planniug Commission
before doing so. Code amendments would be a better way to clarify how sign faces
should be considered than trying to reach a decision through an appeals process.
6. Scenic Minnesota's third and fourth specific appeals azgue that the installation or
reptacement of sign faces should requirQ a sign (building) permit. On replacement of the
sign face (poster panels), LIEP treated Eller Media the same as tYiey have treated all �
billboard companies. For many years the Zoning AdminisYrator has interpreted 66.405 to
IG
�9 - Loq �
�
allow poster panel replacement without a sign permit. Poster panels come in kits of
interlocking strips of galvanized sheet metal, w�hich are assembled on site and typically
cost less than 20 percent of the construction cost of a billboazd. For the set of billboazds
at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboards on Highland Village Shopping
Center, LIEP inspectors determined that no structural damage had occurred. Ms. Lane's
letter of June 10, 1998, is cleazly consistent with established practice; any other decision
would have been discriminatory.
7. The fifth specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that the W. Seventh billboards cannot be
replaced or renovated at this time because of the interim Special Sign District for the W.
Seventh neighborhood. In February 1998, the City Councii adopted an interim ordinance
that created an Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to make
recommendations to the Council. During the study period, the ordinance provides that
district councils may apply for a special sign district by writing a letter. In early July, the
� City Council held a public hearing and approved interim special sign districts in every
citizen participation district that applied. The West Seventh Federation applied on April
6, 1998, and the district became effective on May 6.
As with the 51 percent test, the Zoning Administrator has nbt rendered a decision about
whether or not the W. Seventh billboards can be renovated, and an appeal is premature.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
allow the replacement of the sign faces without sign permits for the billboazds at 1820 Grand
Avenue and for the middle set of billboazds at Highland Village Shopping Center is hereby
denied;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission renders no decision on this
appeal as regards the eastem set of billboards at Highland Village Shopping Center or the
billboazds on W. Seventh Street; since LIEP has only asked for information from Eller Media on
these storm-damaged billboards and has not yet made decisions on whether they can be
renovated, appeals about them are premature.
.
N
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center ���� ,{�
15 Kellogg Boulevard West d �(�� '' � .
w��h �� �
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, August 14, 1998, at
8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
Mmes. Engh, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs. Field, Johnson,
Kramer, Mazdell, Mazgulies, and Nowlin.
Mmes. *Duarte, *Faricy and *Geisser and Messrs. *Chavez, Gervais, *Gordon,
Kong, McDonell, Sharpe, and Vaught.
*Excused
Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Acting Planning Administrator, Jean Birkholz, Domma Drummond,
Martha Faust, and Allan Torstenson, Department of Planning and Economic
Development staff.
I. Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton announced that all the applications for Liveable Communities Demonstration are
in and Saint Paul has rivo: 1) Lowertown: Urban Livability and Technology; and 2} Main street
on Payne: Renewed Urban Village
II. Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Soderholm announced that Ken Ford is on vacation.
Mr. Soderholm also announced that the Mayor's Office is taking applications for Planning
Commission members. The contact person is Deborah Wiley in the City Clerk's Office at 266-
8695.
There has been a request for a small area plan for the Irvine Avenue area from the CapitalRiver
Council (downtown). It will be put on PED's work program for 1999 unless there is a
development crisis which necessitates immediate action.
There has also been a request from the Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association
(SARPA) for updating the Summit Avenue plan done in 1986.
He announced a seminar coming up on housing. It is scheduled for Friday, September 18,
1998. "Building Inclusive Communities" is being presented by the Minnesota Fair Housing
Centers. Mr. Soderholm circulated Yhe brochure.
Mr. Soderholm referred to the current issue of Land Patterns, a publication of the 1000 Friends
.
i
�
��
`�� - t�q\
� 20 square feet to allow for a 50 square foot sign (30 squaze feet is code); variance of 11 feet to
allow for a 7'6" high sign 10 feet from property line (21 foot setback is required) along Arcade
Street (Allan Torstenson, 266-6579).
MOTION Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested sign variance to a11ow for
a 50 sq.ft sign in an area mhere 30 sq.ft was permitted; a setback variance to allow for 7' 6"
high sign 10 feet from t1:e property line at 669 Arcade Street which carried unanimously on a
voice vote. —
#98-154 Scenic Minnesota - Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding vazious
advertising signs damaged in recent storms located at 1142 West Seventh Street, 1184 West
Seventh Street, 1209 West Seventh Street, the southeast comer of Ford Pazkway and South
Cleveland, the southwest corner of Ford Parkway and Kenneth Street, and 1820 Grand Avenue
(Larry Soderholm, 266-6575).
Commissioner Field explained that the staff repor[ determined that there were only two signs
for which the appeat could be made because the Zoning Administrator had not made decisions
on the other signs. Mr. Soderholm agreed with Commissioner Field's explanation. He went on
to say that the Zoning Administrator, Wendy Lane, wrote to Eller Media, Inc. indicating that on
rivo of the damaged billboards there was no structural damage to the structure holding up the
board, and therefore, the sign panels could be replaced and the signs put back into service.
With regard to four other locations, she asked for more information about the extent of the
structural damage. Then Scenic Minnesota appealed Ms. Lane's letter. The City Attorney
� advised the Zoning Committee that they should act only on the two cases where a final decision
had been made, not on the matters where Ms. Lane had simpty asked the company for more
information. The rivo locations of the appeal are 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of
billboards on the roof of the Aighland Village Shopping Center.
Discussion to clarify followed.
MOTION Commissioner Field moved denial of this appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
decision regarding advertising signs that were damaged in recent storms located at 1820
Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboards at the Highland Village Shopping Center
which carried on a voice vote (Field abstaining).
�---
#98-163 Twin Citv Townhomes. Inc. - Special condition use permit to allow a cluster
development of 30 townhouse units south oFthe West Cottage Avenue cul-de-sac beriveen
Wheelock Parkway and Westem Avenue (Donna Drummond, 266-6556).
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use
permit, with conditions, to allow a cluster development of 30 townhouse units sauth of the
West Cottage Avenue cu[-de-sac between A'heelock Parkway and Western Avenue.
Commissioner Johnson asked Commissioner Field about the nature of the opposing testimony.
Commissioner Field responded that he thought it was the mass of the structuces related to the
size of the site. He also thought folks preferred to maintain the natural setting and green space
� for their enjoymennt.
,�
i�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, August 6, 1998 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Keliogg Boulevard
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
OTNERS
PRESENT:
Faricy, Field, Kramer, Morton, and Wencl
Chavez, Gordon, Vaught
Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, Geri Boyd, Donna Drummond, Martha Faust,
Larry Soderholm, Allan Torstenson, and Jim Zdon of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SCENIC MN - Zoning File 98-154 - Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision regarding various
advertising signs damaged in recent storms.
Larry Soderholm, PED, said that he received telephone cails from the West Seventh/Fort Road
Federation and the Highland Area Community Council requesting to join this appeal as co-
appellants. Mr. Soderholm also received a fax from Scenic MN stating that any district councils that
would like to join in the appeai may do so.
Mr. Soderhoim expfained that six bi(Iboard locafions are discussed in fhis case. Two of the
billboards did not have structural damage, except that the sign face panels blew away. Four of the
billboards had structural damage to the framing that hoids the sign face up. The city has not in the
past required sign permits for the replacement of sign face panels. Wendy Lane of LIEP sent a
letter to the billboard company, Eller Media, Inc., teiling them they could replace the sign panels on
the two billboards, but that they wouid need to submit more information about the extent of the
damage and get sign permits in order to repair the four biilboards with structural damage. Ms.
Lane's letter said that the decision about the two billboards was subject to appeal. Scenic MN
submitted an appeal regarding the two billboards and also regarding how the code is interpreted for
structurally damaged biilboards. The staff report as mailed responds to aU of Scenic MN's specific
questions. However, the staff from LIEP, PED, and the City Attorney's Office have discussed the
case since the staff report was written, and agree that the only actual decision made by the Zoning
Administrator was regarding the replacement of the sign face panels without requiring sign permits.
Mr. Soderholm then gave a slide presentation and reviewed the staff report. He stated staff is
recommending the appeal be denied.
in response to Commissioner Kramer's questions, Mr. Soderholm explained why the various signs
are legal nonconforming signs--special sign districts, size of sign, height of sig�, etc.
Upon questions of Commissioner Wencl, Mr. Soderholm confirmed that only the two signs where
the sign panels were replaced without permits should be decided at today's hearing. Mr. Warner
stated that no decision has been reach yet by the Zoning Administrator on the structurally damaged
billboards so there is no decision to appeal from. When LIEP receives the additional information
needed from the sign companies, the Zoning Administrator will make a determination. Ms. Lane
��(
�
�
�
aq_�a�l
Zoning committee Minutes
Meeting of August 6, 1998
� Scenic MN (98-154)
Page Two
stated they need the information before making any determination. At that time, either side may
file an appeal. However, in the meantime the sign company should not be doing any work on those
signs, other than the freestanding sign on West Seventh where metal overhanging the public
sidewalk caused a public hazard and should be removed.
At the question of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Soderholm stated that acts of nature are covered in the
zoning code and are not exceptions to the written code. If any type of nonconforming sign is more
than 51 percent destroyed, it cannot be replaced in its nonconforming position. Additional
restrictions apply to the renovation or replacement of advertising signs as opposed to on-premise
business signs.
Responding to Commissioner Kramer, Ms. Lane explained that new signs cannot be built on tops
of buildings except that existing rooftop signs can be replaced on the same lot if other condit'tons
are met and they can be built on another lot using billboard credits, again if other conditions are met.
Ms. Lane repeated that, regarding the signs on West Seventh, a decision hasn't been made yet.
Brian Bates, Executive Director of Scenic MN, stated that this appeal is about whether all of the
provisions in the code about nonconforming biliboard replacement are being followed; it is not just
about city permits. He also challenged the claim that LIEP never requires a permit for sign face
replacement. He understands that a sign face was recently done on University Avenue which
required a permit. Mr. Bates corrected Mr. Soderholm's staff report on which of the three biliboards
. at Highland Viliage are being appealed. It is the eastern two boards at Highland, not the western
board. The middle board is the one on which new sign faces have already been installed. He
suggested that the sign on Grand and Fairview be measured, that it appears to be too high. The
middle set of biilboards in Highland appear to spread wider than the 35 degree angle allowed. Mr.
Bates stated that these two billboards, which are the subject of today's hearing, were renovated and
they should not have been because they are in special sign distric�s that prohibit billboards. And
if Eller Media was allowed by the city to repair storm damage, they should have been required at the
same time to bring the boards into conformance with the code standards for height and angle.
Gail Summers the community organizerforthe Highland Area Community Council spoke regarding
the signs covered by the Highland Village Special Sign District. Her office is in the Highiand Village
Shopping Center so she sees what is being done there. She stated that the sign with structural
damage had been worked on at least three times since the storm, and at least twice with welding
equipment. She suspects that tf�e sign structure is being repaired without the required city permit.
The position of the Highland Business Associaiion and the Highfand Area Community Council is that
they want the Highiand Sign Plan adhered to. The damaged signs shouid come down.
Marvin Liszt, attorney for Eller Media lnc., appeared. Mr. Liszt objected that the Zoning Committee
is hearing an appeal by a statewide nonprofit organization. He stated that Section 66.408 of the
code indicates that persons affected by the decision of the Zoning Administrator may appeal.
Scenic MN certainly has a right to appear at this hearing, but they don't have standing to appeal.
Persons actually affected by the decision would be the lessor, lessee, the mortgagee, and so forth.
Regarding the two signs in question, the cost to repair these is negligible. It is far less than 51
percent of the replacement cost, with the cost to repair being approximately two thousand dollars
� versus twelve thousand to replace each of the signs. Regarding Section 66.301 of the Zoning
Code, Mr. Liszt emphasized that the two signs involved are legal nonconforming signs. Legal signs
have a right to remain.
i�
Zoning Committee Minutes
Meeting of August 6, 1998
Scenic MN (98-154)
Page Three
Howard Stacher, owner of the Highland Village Shopping Center appeared in opposition to Scenic
MN's appeal. He stated that he has a long-term relationship with Eller Media and he believes that
they have a right to repair the sign. If they are not allowed to do so, it will mean taking a valuable
property right away from him.
Thomas J. Klees, Director of Operations, Eller Media lnc., 3225 Spring Street NE appeared, stating
that he had inspected the signs involved. He said sign panels can last for different periods of time
depending on the climate. In Minnesota, where there is no sait in the air, the galvanized panels last
a long time, up to twenty years. Replacement of panels is more frequent near the coasts.
Mr. Bates came forward for rebuttal and stated that, according to the code, there are no vested
property rights in any billboard in the city. There are, however, vested property rights in surrou�ding
residential properties. He stated that the residential properties are impacted by these biliboards.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Morton moved denial of the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to allow
sign face replacements at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle billboard on the roof of the Highland
Village Shopping Center. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Faricy. Commissioner
Kramer spoke in opposition.
There was no further discussion, and the vote was called on the motion to deny the appeal.
Adopted: Yeas - 3 Nays - 1(Commissioner Kramer)
Commissioner Fieid stated that he abstained from voting on this item because he represents a
partnership that owns commercial property elsewhere and has a lease with Eller Media.
Drafted by:
Geri Boyd
Recording Secretary
Submitted by:
Team
Approved
/
Litton Field
Chair ,
�
�
�
(V
�q - ta� `
�
2.
FILE # 98-154
APPLICANT: SCENIC MINNESOTA DATE OF HEARING: 8/6/98
ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
CLASSIFICATION: Administrative Appeal
LOCATION: Various locations of storm-damaged billboazds (1142, 1184, and 1209 W.
Seventh St., Highland Village Shopping Center at the southeast corner of Ford Parkway
and Cleveland Ave., and 1820 Grand Ave.)
4.
5.
6.
7.
� 8.
�
PLANNING DISTRICTS: 9, 14, and 15
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at PED
PRESENT ZONING: All signs are in B-2 districts
ZONING CODE REFERENCES: 66.408, 66.301, 66302(a)(1), 66.404, and 66.405(i)
STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 7/25/98 BY: Larry Soderholm
9. DATE RECEIVED: 06/16/98 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 8/15/98
NOTE ADDED 9/30/98 FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
At the Zoning Committee meeting on 8/6/98, the staff recommendations in this staff report
were revised orally. After consultation with the City Attorney's Office, PED staff
concluded that only two of the six billboard locations in question were ripe for action. In
the other four cases, the Zoning Administrator had requested information from the
billboard company but had not made appealable decisions on whether any of the billboards
could be repaired or reconstructed.
In the two "live" cases PED staff recommended denial of the appeal because replacement of
sign face panels without building permits was consistent with LIEP's past practice and past
interpretation of an ambiguous paragraph in the code. The ambiguity should be addressed
through zoning text amendments in the current advertising sign study initiated by the City
Council.
Ij
A. PURPOSE: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding advertising signs �
damaged in recent storms.
B. EXISTING LAND USE: All the billboazds in question are in neighborhood commercial
azeas. At five locations the billboazds are on rooftops. One of the W. Seventh St.
billboards is freestanding.
C. SURROUNDING LAND USE: All of the billboazds in question are in neighborhood
commercial areas. At 1820 Grand Ave., which is at the southwest corner of Fairview on
top of the Subway sandwich shop, the surrounding uses are commercial with single-
family residential across the alley to the south. At Highland Shopping Center, the
surrounding land uses are predominantly commercial with a church and pazochial school
on the next block to the south and a public playground on the block to the east. On W.
Seventh Street, the billboards in question are all within a standard city block (660') of one
another along a mixed use strip where there aze duplexes, apartments, a church,
commercial-residential mixed use buildings and businesses. Just off W. Seventh St. the
neighborhood is made up of single-family and duplex structures.
D. ZONING CODE CITATION:
E. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: All of the billboazds in question are owned by Eller Qutdoor �
Advertising (formerly Naegele and then Universal), which is a national billboard
company and the one that has the most signs in Minnesota. A major wind storm hit the
Twin Cities on the Saturday night of May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to
homes and trees and power lines, and also to some billboazds. The day following the
storms, Eller sent emergency crews out to clean up debris and stabilize any billboazd
structures that might represent a hazazd. Apart from securing signs, the crews did no
repair work on them.
On June 5, city inspectors checked the sites of damaged billboazds with Chris McCarver
of Eller. On June 10, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller that, as a result of the
inspection, two of the damaged biilboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the southeast comer of
Ford Parkway and S. Cleveland Ave. had not received structural damage. The sign and
poster panels that provide the backing for the sign had blown down. Replacing poster
panels does not, as a matter of standazd City practice, require a building permit.
Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to repiace the poster panels on those two
signs.
Ms. Lane's letter said the other four locations were found to have structural damage.
Therefore, she requested information about the cost of repairs in relation to the
replacement cost of each sib . In the Zoning Code, the standard test for the repair of
nonconforming signs that aze damaged is that the sign can be repaired if the damaged is �
2
t v.
�`� -��� �
� less than 51 percent of its replacement cost.
Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16 appealed Ms. Lane's
decision to allow replacement of the poster panels at two locations, and her use of the 51
percent test as the basis for future decisions about whether the other billboazds will be
permitted to be renovated. The appeal contains five specific azguments. This staff report
addresses each of the specifics.
F. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: PED staff has not received district
council recommendations at the time the staff report was written.
G. FINDINGS:
1. All of the billboards in question aze nonconforming for one reason or another. At 1820
Grand, the sign is in the Grand Ave. special sign district, which was approved by the City
Council in 1983 and prohibits any new billboazds. The billboazds in Highland Village are
in the Highland Village special sign district, was approved by the City Council in 1985
and prohibits any new billboazds as well as setting a goal of removing all existing
billboazds by 1995. The billboards on W. Seventh St. aze in an interim special sign
district, created earlier in 1998 at the request of the W. Seventh Federation, while the City
Council reviews and revises advertising sign regulations; the interim district also
� prohibits additional advertising signs and "the replacement of any damaged advertising
signs."
All of the billboazds in question are too closely spaced along the street except 1209 W.
Seventh. The billboazd at 1184 W. Seventh appears to be too high. The billboard at 1209
W. Seventh, which has three faces, is too big.
2. The first specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising signs, the 51 percent
rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in the next section (66302), which
is specifically about advertising signs.
A. At the beginning of the Zoning Code, there is a section on "Construction of
Language" (60.102). The first rule is that "the particular shall control the
general." Thus, to the extent there aze discrepancies between 66301, which is
about all types of signs, and 66302, which is exclusively about advertising signs,
the City should follow the regulations in 66302.
B. Section 66.302(1) says that a nonconforming billboazds may be "renovated" if it
is in a zoning district where billboards are permitted. Cleazly billboazds aze not
permitted on Grand Avenue or in Highland Village. For at least an interim
period, they are not allowed on W. Seventh St. either.
s
��
C. A dictionary definition of renovate is "to restore to an earlier condition, to
improve by repairing..." (American Heritage Dictionary). A higher level of sign
repair would be reconstruction, which is not permitted if damage exceeds 51
percent of the replacement cost. It is reasonable to suppose there is a lower levei
of sign repair than renovation--say, minor repairs or routine mainYenance—but
these terms aze not found explicitly in the Zoning Code on signs.
PED Staff Recommendation: The billboazds in question should not be renovated. The
51 percent test is not the proper test for damaged billboazds. Anything beyond "minor
repairs" should meet the standards in 66302.
3.
Scenic Minnesota's second specific appeal is that if the 51 percent test were to apply, it
should apply to the sign face as well as to the rest of the sign structure.
A. Billboazds aze made several standazd components and it is helpful to identify them
in relationship to "sign face." At the bottom is the "footing" or the rooftop sign
"pad." Next is the "upper structure" that carries and supports the sign. Bolted to
the upper structure is the "sign face," also referred to as the "poster panel", which
is the flat backing on which paper messages can be glued or vinyl messages can
be tied. Surrounding the sign face, many billboazds have a"frame", which is like
a large picture frame. The poster panel is made of light-gauge sheet metal.
Although the poster panel and the frame aze the obvious parts of the billboazd to
the viewer, they are not neazly as expensive as the footing and the upper structure.
C. The Zoning Code has definitions only for "sign" and "sign shucture" (66.121), as
follows: ,
Sign. "The use of words, numerals, figures, devices, designs, or trademazks the
purpose of which is to show or advertise a person, firm, profession, business,
product or message."
Sign structure. "Any structure which supports or is capable of supporting any
sign as defined in this chapter. A sign shucture may be a single pole; it may not
be an integral part of a building"
Choosing beriveen these defirutions, the sign face of a billboazd would be part of
the sign structure and the paper or vinyl message would be the actual sign.
�
PED Staff Recommendation: The sign face should be considered as part of the sign
structure.
Scenic Minnesota's third and fourth specific appeals azgue that the installation or
replacement of sign faces should require a sign permit.
0
�
� J
�
�
a� -�o�\
� A. On replacement of the sign face (poster panels) LIEP treated Eller Outdoor the
same as they have treated all billboazd companies. LIEP interprets 66.405 to
allow poster panel replacement without a sign permit. This is practical because
the replacement of poster panels after a certain number of years is routine upkeep.
B. But 66.405 grants exemption from permits to "the changing of the display surface
on a painted or printed sign only. However, this exemption shall apply only to
poster replacement and/or on-site changes involving sign painting elsewhere than
directly on a building." The reference is to posters, which probably means the
paper or vinyl with the printed or painted message, not the poster panel, which is
part of the sign structure.
PED Staff Recommendation: The City should require a sign permit for the replacement
of poster panels. While the replacement of poster panels may be routine for conforming
signs, it should not be routine for nonconforming ones.
6. Scenic Minnesota's fifth specific appeal is that the W. Seventh billboazds cannot be
replaced or renovated during the interim special sign district.
A. In February 1998, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that created an
Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to make recommendations to
� the Council. During the study period, the ordinance provides that district councils
may apply for a special sign district by writing a letter. Tn eazly July, the City
Council held a public heazing an approved interim special sign districts in every
citizen participation district that appiied. The West Seventh Federation applied on
Apri16, 1998, and the district became effective on May 6.
B. The Federation's letter applies to prohibit "modification of existing signs or the
replacement of any damaged signs." This may leave a question as to what level of
repair may be permitted.
The freestanding billboard at 1142 W. Seventh has twisted and failing upright
posts which are weakly anchored in substandard footings. The poster panel is
gone.
The billboard on top of Bill's "I'V had two faces; since the storm part of the sign
structure was removed so that it is now single-sided, and the single face has no
poster panels.
The triple-faced billboard at 1209 W. Seventh, which is on top of Big Wheel
Rossi, is missing most of its poster panels.
� PED Staff Recommendation: There is an interim speciat sign district in effect in the W.
5
v�
Seventh azea, but the application to prohibit the replacement of damaaed signs requires �
interpretation. The freestanding billboard at 1142 W. Seventh seems to require
replacement, which shouId be prohibited. The City's structural engineer says that Eller's
repair cost estimates aze too low. The missing sign structure for the second (west-facing)
billboard at 1184 W. Seventh should not be replaced. The others aze missing poster
panels.
Attachments:
Appeal and attached letters
Wendy Lane letter to Chris McCarver, 6/10/98
Information submitted by Eller Media Company
Letter of 7/1/98 to Eiler from City Structural Engineer Frank Berg
Letter received 4/6/98 from the W. Seventh Federation requesting special sign district
\�PID�SY52\SFiARID\SODERHOL�ZONLYG\98I54.WPD 6
�
�
�,v
�q_���
s
i
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Departmerrt oJPlarrtei�:g and Eco�von:ie Develapment
Zonii:g Sectio�:
II00 Cin' Hal1 Anner
25 {1 est FourtJr Street
Saint Paul, hi�' S5102
166-6589
APPELLANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Nam2 Sc'cn.�. ��)�on�
Address � � �� �F hn � f'1�`t
City �( .(�1�-.L St.ljln Zip SS/vSDaytime phone �y�
Zoning File Na
Address/Locati
zan�ng rn�i�e use on€y
Fi(e no. — �
Fse �' F � �� (3't�- �
Te�tativ= heari� date: _
c V� �
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeai to�e:
�
- 6oard of Zoning Appeals � City Council (L����� �� c�1m�55: �
; t
und>r tne provisions of Chapter�4, Section �C J , Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to
appeal a de isio? ma by thz �� Z�7+n L- /-�d�riv�� 5,-�z,3'��f2-
on �� ��' I/ J , 19 File number:
(Cate of decisio
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit. d=cision or refusal made by an administrative o`icial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
� C' f: f-�7'Tl}��� �r
�
A[tach additional sheet if necessary)
Applicant's signatu
;�
� � ��7� City ac
c:�<zi3S
C " . OU
��1��9:1
OJjiCers:
John Mannifto
Jeanne Weigum
Michael Paymar
Ruby Hunt
June 26, 1998
Chair Gladas Morton
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Storm-Damaged Billboards.
Dear Commissioner:
Esecultue Ofrector
6rian 8ates
1985 Grand Aveni
Saint Paui, Mf( 55t0
6l2 690-967I
Pursuant to Zoning Code §66.408, Scenic Minnesota hereby
appeals the decisions contained in the June l0, 1998 letter from
Saint Paul Department of License, Inspection, and Environmental
Protection Zoning bianager Ms. Wendy Lane to Mr. Chris McCarver of
Universal outdoor, Inc. (attached).
Specifically: (1) we appeal the decision that Zoning Code §
66.301(2) applies to. the damaged billboards. We rely on §66.302
for this position,
(2) We appeal the decision that if g66.301(2) were to apply,
that it only applies to the sign structure and not the sign face.
We rely on §66.301(2)("such sign or sign structure").
(3) We appeal the decision that the sign £aces may be replaced
without a permit. We rely on §66.404 {"A�pplications for sign
and/or sign structure permits ...").
(4) We appeal the decision that replacing the sign face
without a permit is allowed by §66.405(1). We rely on §§66.404 and
66.405(1).
(5) We appeal the decision that the West Seventh billboards
nay be replaced or renovated at this time. We rely on Ordinance
97-1568 dated 2/11/98, as amended and the West Seventh/Fort Road
Federation application £or a special sign district.
By reference, I include my memorandums of June 2 and June 3,
1998 to Jane Prince and Wendy Lane, ny letters of June 4 and June
11, 1998 to Ms. Wendy Lane, and my letter o£ June 12, 1998 to Dir.
Robert Kessler. This appeal is accompanied by a check for the
appropriate fee as determined by the Planninq Commission.
Regard� �_
,
' �,_� i5-�
Brian Bates
cc: Chris McCarver, Robert Kessler, Wendy Lane, Be'tty Moran, Gayle
Summers, Kathie Tarnowski, Jane Prince, Dan Smith, Gerry McInerney.
�71
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
�
�
7�
�tq - �og�
�
CITY OF SAItiT PAUL
Sonn Coltm.Jr.. 31a}'or
June 10, 1998
Chris blcCarver
tiniversal Outdoor, Inc.
322� Sprin� S[. N.E.
hlinneapolis, MN 5�413
Re: Storm Damaeed Siens
Dear b1r. McCarver:
OFFICE OF LICE�SE, t\SPECTIO�S A`D
E>:VIR6\�SE`TAL PROT[CTI6�
Rnbrrt f."rsslrr. D��rctar
LOtiRY" PROFESSIO.�:aL
BL7LDL�"G
Sir.'tr 300
3i0St PetzrStrzrt
SaiutPau{dLmtasotc 5=l0?-fiA%
Tzlzphor.t 6:1-?h5-9,s.
Fc:simi(e' 611-?h6-9'��i
61?-'6h-7!�'
� John Hard�ti�ick and Dave Ken}�on from this office accompanied you las� Friday in the
inspection of the CTniversal advertisins sians that �cere clamaged from th� storm last
wzzk. They determined that the sians at 1142 �V. 7th St., 1184 W. 7th S[., 1209 W.
7�h St. and at the southwest corner of Ford Pkwy. and Kenneth St. sustained structural
damaQz. Thz repair of these siens will require a pzrmit. Before a permit can be issued,
please submit s[ructural plans for each si�n structure. In addition, you ��'ill need to
shoce• ho�c the repair is in compliance with Section 66.301(2) of the Saint Paul
LeQisla[i�'z Code, �chich reeulates nonconformina si�ns as foliows:
Shoutd such siQn or sisn structurz bz destro}ed by an}� means to an� eztent
of more than fifr}�-one (� I) percent of its replacement cost, it shatl not be
reconstructed excepi in conforn �cith th� provisicas of this cha�:�r.
�
Piease submit detaii�d information about the repair cost and the replacement cost of each
sien structure.
The roof mounted signs a[ 1520 Grand Ave. and at the southeast corner of Ford Pkwy.
and S. Cles•eland A�'e. were missinQ the poster panels but did not sustain an}• visible
s�ruccural damaoe. The replacemen� of poster panels is pzrmitted �ei�hou[ a permit,
pursuan� tu Section 66.40�(1) of the Sain[ Pau1 Leoislative Code. Ho�+e�'er, sian
structure_ �vithout a displa}� surface area arz considered "unsightly'� a�d must be
reposted or the sian struc[ure removed within 1� days accordin� to Section 66.201(3).
Please take ac[ion to repost them ��'ithin the time specified.
An} pzrson affected by the decision in the preceeding para�raph may appeal this decision
/
2�
Chris McCarver
June 10, 1998
Pa�e 2
to the plannin� commission w�ithin thir[y calendar days of toda}�'s date, accordin� to
Section 66.403(a). There is a filin� fee for such appzal; $22� for sinole fami!}' or duples
appellants, 5300 for mult-family appeltants and �350 for commercial, industrial or
institutional appellants.
Please contact me if } ou have any questions regardin� this matter.
Sincerz(}�,
����� �i-�—�_
�Vend}� L e
Zonino Mana�er
266-9031
�
c: Bett}' Moran, �l'est Se�•enth/Fort Road Federation, Districct 9
Gay 1e Summers, Hiahland Area Communitc• Council, District 1� �
Kathie Tamo«'ski, Macalester Groveland Communi[y Council, District 14
�Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
Dan Smith, Councilmember Harris' Office
Larry Soderholm, PED
Robert Kessler, Director
John Hardwick, ZoninQ Specia[ist
.
��
OjJlcers:
� John Mannillo
Jeanne Weigum
Michaet Paymar
Ruby Hun[
June 4, 1998
Ms. Wendy Lane
Zoning Manager
LIEP
Suite 310
350 St. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Damaged Billboards.
Dear Wendy:
�q-���`
EFeCt<UVe D1rec[or
8rian Ba[es
1985 Grand Avenu�
Saint Paul, Mi( 55I OS
612 690-967!
Thanks for the heads-up about the anticipated permit requests.
As I have said, any non-conforming billboard located in a district
in which billboards are not a permitted use, cannot be renovated.
Zoning Code g 66.302(a)(1).
All the damaged billboards are non-conforming and located in
� districts in which billboards are not a permitted use. Billboards
are not a permitted use in Highland and on Gzand due to the long-
standing provisions in those special sign districts which state
explicitly that billboards are not permitted in the district.� The
West 7th boards cannot be repaired at this time because of the
provision in the request for a temporary� sign district which
disallows repairs to boards in that community council district.
I ask that I and the respective community councils be made
aware of any developments, industry arguments, or department
decisions in this natter. I ask that we be allowed an opportunity
to respond to industry arguments. Please also advise what appeal
procedures we may use if LIEP decides to issue the permits.
Regards,
� C ��:.r--
Brian Bates
ps. What's up with the Business Review Council Letterhead?
cc: Jane Prince
� ' This language is in the text of the special district sign
plans which is incorporated by reference into the zoning code.
�_^
r :�.
s , :
_.; { <
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
�✓�
O(Ticcrs:
John Mannillo
Jeanne Weigum
Michael Paymar
Ruby tiunt
�
SCEIYIC MIlY1YESOTA
June 11, 1998
Ms. Wendy Lane
LIEP
Suite 310
350 St. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minneso�a 55102-1510
RE: Damaged Signs
Dear Wendy:
EseCUttoc Dlrector
Brian Ba;es
1985 a�and Ave�
Saint Paul, M^f 55
612 690-96�
This is in response to your letter of June 10, 1998 to Mr.
McCarver of Universal outdoor, Inc.
As I have stated in past memorandums and letters on this
subject, specifically the memorandum dated June 3, 1998 and the
letter dated June 4, 1998, the first consideration for the
reolacement or renovation of any damaged billboard is whether the
billboard is a permitted use in the zoning district in which it is
located. See Zoning Code § 66.302(a)(1). This provision
specifically includes restrictions in "a special sign district�
approved by the city council." Section 66.216(b) allows special
sign districts to have more restrictive provision5 tha� Chapter
66.
Both Grand Avenue and Highland have�special sign districts
approved by the City Council which specifically include the
statement that billh,oards are not permitted. The West Seventh/Fort
Road Federation has recently applied for a special sign district
pursuant to Ordinance 97-1568 dated 2/11/98, as amended. The
Federation's application specifically states that damaged
billboards shall not be repaired.
The billboards in Highland and on Grand cannot be "replaced or
renovated" because they are not a permitted use. Your letter of
June 10, 1998 not only allows the replacement and renovation of one
of the billboards in Highland and the billboard on Grand but seems
to encouraqe the replacement within 15 days. You allow and
encourage activity which seems to conflict with the zoning code.
Ordinance 97-1568 dated 2/11/98, as amehded, includes the
provision that any permits issued for the modification of any
existing billboard, a£ter a Community Council applies for a special
sign district and an objection thereto has been received by the
Director of LIEP shall be conditional. No permittee shall engage
in any construction, installation or work after an objection i�
lodged. Any construction, installation or work shall no
thereafter commence if the prohibitions contained in the special
c
��
qR - l�R\
� Ms. Lane
June 11, 1998
Page 2.
sign district application become e£fective as provided. one of the
provisions in the Federation's special sign district application is
that damaged billboards not be repaired.
Your letter of June l0, 1998 avoids both any discussion of
g66.302(a)(1) or the e££ect of the Federation's application for a
special sign district despite the fact I have raised these issues
in previous writings.
Be aware that Scenic Minnesota and/or the respective community
councils will appeal the decisions contained in your letter o£ June
10, 1998. Your office, and the City of Saint Paul, assumes
responsibility for any actions taken, and construction expenses
incurred, which result £rom a decision by your office which
violates the provisions of the zoning code. I suggest that your
office disaliow any repair, renovation, or work on any of the
damaged billboards �ntil this matter if finally resolved through
the appeal process.
Regards,
� � � `�
i
�
Brian Bates
cc: Chris McCarver, Universal outdoor, Inc+
Jane Prince
Dan Smith
Betty Moran
Gayle Summers
Kathie Tarnowski
Larry Soderholm
Robert Kessler
John Hardwick
�
��1
OJj7cers:
John Manniilo
Jeanne K'eiyum
Michael Paymar
ftuby tlim[
June 12, 1998
Mr. Robert Kessler
LIEP
Suite 310
350 St. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Damaged Billboards.
Dear Mr. Kessler: �
E.secaLtuc Dlrec[or
6rian Brtes
1985 Grand Aven
Saint Paul. Mil 55
6f2 690-9h�
I write to express concern over your department�s recent
decisions to allow the replacement of certain billboard "poster
panels" and to apply the 51% damage rule to other billboard
structures. These decisions coupled with pro-industry decisions ir.
the past seriously undermine the credibility of your department as
the, supposedly, impartial interpreter and enforcer of the zoning
code.
While the zoning code is somewhat convoluted, it is
decipherable_ Section 66.301 pertains to all nonconforming signs,
including nonconforming advertising signs. Whereas, section 66.302
is an exception to section 66.301 and pertains specifically to any
nonconforming advertising sign existinq as of the date of this
section (February 2, 1988] which is located in a zoning district
which does not permit advertising signs or which does not conforr�
to the size height and/or spacing requirements of this chapter."
Whenever a nonconforming advertising sign, existing in 1988,
is "replaced, relocated or renovated" for any reason that action
must comply with the provisions of §66.302. There is no
requirement in secti�on 66.302 that a certain degree of damage occur
before that section applies.
The billboards on Grand and in Highland are nonconforming both
because of spacing requirements and because they are in zoning
districts in which billboards are not a permitted use. (The
Highland and Grand special sign districts declaring billboards not
pernitted were enacted in 1985.) These billboards existed in 1988.
Therefore any replacement, relocation, or renovation of the
billboards on Grand cr in Highland nust comply with §66.302.
Whether the non-conforming billboards are to be "replaced,
relocated, or renovated" on the same or different zoning 2ot, th
first consideration oP §66.302 is that the zoning lot be within a
zoning district "in which advertising signs are a permitted use.
�
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
�
�tq - ��`� \
. Mr. Kessler
June 12, 1998
Page 2.
See §§66.302(a)(1) �and (b)(1). BilZboards located in zoning
districts in which billboards are not a permitted use cannot be
replaced or renovated. Such billboards can onZy be relocated in a
zoning district in which billboards are a permitted use. The Grand
and Highland billboards cannot be replaced or renovated.
But accept, £or the sake of argument, your staff's
interpretation that the 51� damage threshold in §66.301 must be
exceeded before g66.302 applies. Section 66.301(2) states:
Should such sign �r. sign structure be destroyed by any means
to any extent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its
replacement cost, it sha11 not be reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of thi5 chapter.
The 51% damage threshold applies to the "sign or sign structure."
The use of the disjunctive must mean that if 51% of the replacement
cost of the sign or 51% of the replacement cost of the sign
structure is exceeded the sign or the sign structure may not be
replaced except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.
� Your staff has interpreted the 51� damage threshold to apply
only to the sign st�ucture and has allowed the replacement of the
sign faces at Grand and in Highland under an exemption designed to
allow "poster replacement and/or sign painting" without a permit.
§66.405(1). A sign face is not a poster.
�
These interpretations are illogical and, when coupled with
past failures to enforce�, give the appearance of a department
catering to the interests of the billboard industry rather than
protecting the public interest.
I would welcome any reaction.
Regards,
� �---�--_� / �
Brian Bates
� On April 28, 1997 you wrote a letter to Midwest Outdoor
Advertising statinc� Midwest had built a freeway billboard a�
Valdalia and I-94 21 feet hiqher than Midwest had specified ir
� their permit application and 21 feet higher than is allowed by the
Zoning Code. You told that company to get a height variance or
decrease the height. Midwest was denied the height variance lona
ago and yet the sign still stands.
�1
NOTES ON ST. PAUL STORM DAMAGE REPAIR COSTS
ELLER MEDiA COMPANY
1. Removal of hazards, securing structures and cleaning area immediately after the storm of May
30, on Sunday, May 31, 1998.
S
On Sunday ten Elier sign hangers worked ten hours each responding to the emergency conditions
caused by the damage to the storm the night before. Crews were immediately assigned to Highland
in St. Paut where 5 sign faces at 2 locations were damaged, and to sites in south Minneapolis
where faces and structures where left in hazardous condition by the storm. As work was completed
in Minneapolis the crews were rotated to assist the crew in Highland and to respond other damage
on W. 7th and at a site on Grand. By the end of Sunday ali crews were working in St. Paul.
The assignment to each crew was:
1. Respond to and eliminate any hazardous conditions created by the wind damage the
night before.
2. Stabilize and secure the structure, removing (often by cutting away) any damaged or
unsecured parts.
3. Clean up the area, removing any parts or other debris that had falien from the sign.
4. Move on to the ne>ct damaged location.
No repairs of the signs were attempted or completed. No signs in St. Paul were made usable or
returned to service as a result of the work done by the emergency crews on Sunday, May 31. All
the expense that day was labor. No rePlacement materials were in'stalled or permanent repairs
attempted or completed.
�
Eller crews spent approximately 70 hours in St. Paul that day securing, stabilizing and cleaning up
around our damaged signs. The crews were paid at an overtime rate of $44.40 per hour.
Our local crews were assisted in the cleanup at one St. Paul location, 1184 W. 7th Street, on
Wednesday June 3, by a three person contract Quantum crew from Chicago. The Quantum crew
spent 9 hours at this one location in St. Paui at a rate of $ 40.00 per hour.
The costs assigned to each location are provided on the Worksheet for that focation.
2. Cost of materials
Billboards constructed at the time and in the places affected in St. Paul typicaily had two
standardized elements and two custom elements. From front to back they are:
a. Trim. This the standardized "picture frame" around the sign face (see exhibit one). This
trim is now typicaily of fiberglass. The FORMETCO, INC. order acceptance provides the cost�
of our most recent purchase of trim kits (see exhibit two) the four pieces that make up the
frame and the assorted clips and fasteners.
��
�
�� � ��� \
Notes on St. Paul Storm Damage, Eller Media Company
� b. Sign face. This is also a standardized element (see exhibit one}. The faces are made of
interlocking paneis of light gauge steel that Eller assembles in its shop, brings compiete to
the site, and swings into place with a crane. Traditionally we have used vertical interiocking
panels, but now have switched to horizontal inter{ocking pane{s. The quotation for sign faces
from Tiffin Metai Products (exhibit three) provides the current cost of a sign face assembly.
c. Upper structure. This is the metal framing that supports the sign face. These are similar in
the materiais used (stock angle and channei iron and steel) but can be custom in design,
depending on when it was built, whether it is attached to the ground or is on a roof, and how it
rests on the roof or wali. Upper structures are a combination of verticai supports, often in the
shape of an "A" and horizontal stringers for stability.
The upper structure for the affected signs could have been fabricated in our shop or on site
from standard, typically salvaged, materiais. We have found no benefit in using identical
new material. The upper structure is assembled by standard bolts and weiding techniques.
Each of our crane trucks is equipped with gas and electric welding equipment and suppiies
and typically at least one member of each crew is a trained welder.
Because the upper structure is built of standard stock materials we as a practice keep a
stockpile of these materials (the long pieces) we have saivaged from signs we have retired.
We have salvaged materials on hand for all the proposed repairs described in the attached
June 19 letter (exhibits four and four a) firom our structural engineer. We will have no external
� cost for those materiais. If we had needed to purchase materiai we would purchase it from a
salvage yard. The salvage yards price the material by the pound rather than by the foot. To
avoid that calculation, we requested quotes for new material from South St.Paul Steel
Supply Co. Exhibit five provides their quotes for new materiai. These are the values used in
our estimates. Salvaged material is typically available for purchase for one third the cost of
new material.
The design and fabrication of the upper structure is the primary difference between the "new
identical structure" and the "new replacement structure" values on the worksheets. If we were
building a new sign, we would use a new unitized design and fabrication system for the
upper structure.
d. Foundation. This supports the upper structure. These are custom to each site. With the
exception of one member at one site, these elements sustained no damage during the storm
{see exhibits four and Tour a), and therefore no repairs are proposed to these elements.
3. Replacement Cost
Two costs for rebuilding the entire structure are provided. First, the cost of buiiding an
identical new structure, same materials, same design (identicai structure). The basis for
these costs is our testimony in condemnation hearings. Given the choice, we would not
choose to rebuild an identical structure. We would use different materials and a different
i design (replacement structure). The basis for this cost is the cost of a recently instailed
� structure in Minneapolis (exhibit six)
2 ,�
STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET
ELLER MEDIA COMPANY
LOCATION Ford Pkwy & Cieveland DISPLAY 2 Poster Faces
A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS
1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS (1}
ft angle iron @ per ft
ft "C" channel @ per ft
2. SIGN FACE AND TRIM (2)
2 sign faces @$499 per face
2 trim kits C��220 per face
B. LABOR
24 hours @ $22.00 per hour
COST OF REPAIRS
Estimated cost of new identical structure(4)
Estimated cost of new replacement structure(4)
Estimate of cost of securing, stabilizing and clean up
on May 31(3),i4 hrs af $44.00 per hour
(1) See note 2c
(2) See notes 2 a& b
(3) See note 1
(4) see note 3
Ail costs are direct costs
none
none
$998.00
$440.00
$528.00
$1966.00
$12,230
�29,500
$616.00
�
�
�
�
�t`t - t���
�
STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET
ELLER MEDIA COMPANY
LOCATION 1820 Grand DISPLAY 2 Poster Faces
A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS
1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS (1)
ft angle iron @ per ft
ft"C" channel C� per ft
2. SIGN FACE AND TRIM (2)
.
�
2 sign face(s) C$499 per face
2 trim kits @$220 per face
L�
24 hours C$22.00 per hour
COST OF REPAIRS
Estimated cost of new identicai structure(4)
Estimated cost of new replacement structure(4}
Estimate of cost of securing, stabilizing and clean up
on May 31(3) 2 hrs at $44.00 per hour
(1) See note 2c
(2) See notes 2 a& b
(3) See note 1
(4) See note 3
All costs are direct costs
none
none
$998.00
440.00
$528.00
$1966.00
$12, 230
$29,500
$88.00
��
Tiffin's 24 and 30-Sheet Poster
Panels, vertical or horizontal, are
made of the finest steel, meeting
the highest mill requirements.
Tiffin's special engineering and
design offers speedy assembly
and easy erection and instailations
on-site.
Tiffin Posiers can 6e
completely assembled on the
floorofyourshop,orthe
ground, on-site and quickly
and easily lifted into piace on
yaur structure.
-��� �
� -�- c�v�
A smooth, continuous surf2ce is formed
with Tiffin's Rib-Locking or interlacking
sections. Tiffin has always been the fore-
runner of newdesigns and innovations in
outdoor advertising to improve appearance
and life, 2nd make installation faster and
simpler.
RitrLock Sections fit instantly with Tiffin
Sprits. Tiffin sections, parts and hard-
ware are interchangeabie with your
. . .. . ... - .existinginuer�tories...
�
_�
PLAN VIEW
�24'-0� eign face
.. � � 8_O• � 8 • � 4_O•-
frame A� column pipe ��me "B'
� � ^I
0
�
� Raaf f
m Iadtler
0
cl
II
n
�
p
�._I
Column
n^
9 9
c
� n
b
0
Undieturbed yp0 ps(
aandY 9raM or beH
Drilied coMiete
/
/ I I 1
1 I
�I _ /
/
tail
�1' '.d�� �.
I. .. . J �
Aa' �i �
� � a-� �
'� .. p Y
�I,
1 I �
' � d � �
i
i
i i�
�. ' i �
r '' i'
i Qi
�. I.�
� i f.
?�1 � ° I�
__i
Found
dpmeter
(ses sehedule)
�vanaN
�`l • ��`� \
E
° e.
b
e
.� _ _�
�
m
�-
ha�
5 ts
roar walfc�voy
7' nng plote
I V I I v
i i
g` I I 5/i6
o I I
`a I i
� ' I ";
L 1
1/4V ' 1' ring plote
Column pipe
w x L
80 45'
w=t+5/16 3'max
L = 4't diamater —�
w = widM of weld
L = la�gth of weld
t = wall thiekness of
Lower column pipe SPLJCE DEfAI�
COLUMN PIPE & FOUNDATIOt
OVERALL HEIGHT COLUMN PIPE
0'-0' - 42'-6" 24"0 x .375'
42'-7" - 47'-6' 30'6 x .3i2"
47'-7' - 59'-6' 30"0 x .375'
59'-7' - 72'-6" 36"4 x .375'
��/� 72�-7' - 81'-6' 36"0 x .4�6"
= e walkway /
i . e '
i
}`' O m
' G
� O
iH
`
�
�
�
-`.�� •_ � �: " Y -
_ - _ :.�
' ' O
N D
:� N
�
f `•
. .. . :k�i _ i, _ " .
0
�
�
E
a
w
O
�
�
.£-,L L
.0-.8
`V'
��
��
,�
� ��
��
r�
��
��
��
! i
� a �
'�` a
v
; c a
a
� � �
� a
Q Q 3
'O � i a.
G Y p
_ . __ . _.� . . .,.-- �'---
�b-, l l-
�
W
5
Q..
U �
F �
Y
O� O
� �
�
�
RR -1��\
�: -:.
_ .
_- :-'(,
_ �
_, � �
�'� .
;� �
. am aE �
�;`�it, �':. � $
- � E £
- Q. Q . �
_ ' m
':� m �
' , I 6 �� . � � °�'
�' � .� �:- -' ;t . t� n .
' t�
y :r _ _
I i
�1.�.�' . . . .
r:d:i _' �� , , a' �
'_" ._. .. _C,� $
- L N
m �
�� N
_ ,x_ ' �
a
"i:'lc: �? - . ' v,; �S "
�
��e':: ' ' . .
�>✓
�,'?� �[.�= � :.,' �', ,.:-. ` .
"'.iir`F,'� �
s
�C
3p
O
p9
G p
�
r7i E
�
g
a d
.°. u
� ° w
.°.. Q
o
� 9 �
GCId� � M
M '
Y1
i
� � n
� � J
�
•�1 OIXBM
�
�
_ 3
$�' Olx9M
F
.8
eoo; u .0-,Zl
�' w s
�. 3 � a D
a `o a. �a �` a
�a s ^u aa
pe O XU \
NL 3 N �
�g. I ^ ��
,1� " ��
I � N 0
8
N
M
0
9
\
h
�
N
�I \
�
3
i;
c
,8 � �
�o
,9 � �
� o
oM�
Y� �
o'p3
3 -� 3
J
� Q
��
r
S p
9 N
�O
w
N P
c
_ _ _ — ,��
ty
�
MAY-21-19�8 13�20 FROM FORMETCO,INC.
P.o_ Pox 1989
2963 Pleasant Hill Ad_
Duluth, Ga 30095
Date: ti5/21/98
F O R M E T C O
OFFICE:
TO 16128697082 P.01
I N C.
EAX
GRDER ACCEPTANCE
Sold �o=
�LLE� L�fED�A
3225 SPRING ST NE
�fINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413
ATTN: Tom Klees
612-80"9-190G Fax:612-"oEi9-7082
JP
770-476-7000
fi00-367-638�
k300-239
'770-497-9014
� ryr � r � No L Ax
sn�L Lo: �
ELLER MEDIA
3225 SPRING �T IvE
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55913
ATTN: TOM KLEES
612-869-1900 Fax:67_2-869-7082
Sales Order Order Date Cust No. SLS P.O. Number Shi.p Via
86511 OS/21l98 ELL023 1 Sh�p Via
-----------------
---------------------------------------------�
Ord Qty Stem NLwzber / Description Unit Price U/M Ext. Price
-----------------------------------------------
5 ^ *90 FXMP7 **Parent Item �
_n Kit*' 5145.55 EkCH 5727-75
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIiI WH=TE ,
10 90-FXWV
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRI� WH::TE VERTICAL
20 90-FX:vH
FORMA 300 TRIM WHITE HORIZONTAL
50 *90-FX-TRIM **Parent Item in KitF*
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM BRACfCET
90 90-fx-trim-bkt
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM BRACKET
360 10-32501
TRIM SCREwS - #14 ZP
81 1Q-95102
HOOK BOLTS/NUTS 2
5 10-21C90
F-109 FORMATIC SPRITS
5 F10-21092 **Parent Item in Kit**
r-1_09 Z HADiGEf2 PLATES & BOLTS/NUTS
S 10-210921
F-109 Z HANGER PLP.TES WZTHOUT B/N
$1.79 EACH
SC.26 EACF;
$:34.55 EAC�±
$3.10 EACH
�
$161.10
$Z1.0'c
S17Z.7J
$15_SC
����
L � / ^ j
�� �
s
��
Page: �
� / JU%. 6.1998 1�41PM TIFFIN METRL PRODUC�� _/ � r
�-,t�
/ i
�
�
�
�
� � ` . t�
METAL PRODUCTS
450 W ali Street, Tiffin, Ofiio 44883 /(419) 447-8414
Sa.� • 9�
May 12, 19�8 � � < �� �,�
�CX �J
Mr. Tom Klees
ELLER MEDIA COMPANY
3225 Spring Street, N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Deaz Tom,
l0 T"�
,
�
Phone:#6i2-869-1900
Fax: r6i2-869-7082
v�a ,�
���� ����
It was a pleasure speaking with you! Per your request, we are pl�ased to provide� our
quotation for the following:
�,2' x 24' HORT70NTAL F'�.(`E�LESS TRIM� TO INC U1�G_
(8) Each 18" x 24'S-1/2" Horizontal Sections
(3) Each Sprits ,_ _ -------_-�`
(2'� Each 2" Hook Bolts �
� —_
(4) Each Hanger Plates �
TOTAL PER �f�.�„E �499.25
(4) Each #95-158 Comer �:tpport Brackets f9r Fiberglass Trim $2.€,�)/Ea.ch
(14) Each #1026 Brackets $1.�'E,!Each
*F.O.B., Tiffin, Ohio
*Ta�c not inciuded
Tom, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to oontact me arrgGt at 1-800-53 ?• 0983.
We are looking tozwazd to worldng with your glant again.
Sincerely,
TIFFIN METAL PRODUCTS
��
Peg Wenner
Sales Manager/Outdoor Products Division
CREATIVE DESIGN W I�AETAL FABRIC'�""IOP!
,1 _I
N0.176 P.3 ��
WATS 1-800-537-0983
FAX 1-41 q-447-8512
�� ���.
a��(��i
� �/ , �
3�. E;?
.� �� .
�
)
.�
.
F
e � � r � .�� � x6
� �
P - � � � � �
, # 19� z ....,.�. ., : �
��r
'- .I E 7 ` s
14
16
�7
2
�'
r1
b �
F
������
..
���
3 �. ���,`�,
G
aL. �I.... �!`� F�...-i>.I , 'I AIc .....aa\� � �1
- ro R s' i \ \
�� � �
a p 1.-° F � �. �
.s' , ;" " J
� p �' /i
e � / •
�� ae
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRIC'I'S
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Q
f
SL7NRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD
HA7.EL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE
DAYTON'S BLUFF
PAYNE-PHAI.EN
NORTH END
THOVfAS-DALE
SUMMIT-UiVIVERSITY
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE-MIDWAY
ST. ANTHONY PARK
MERFZIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAML.INE-SNELLING HAMLI�TE
MACALESTER GROVELf�ND
HIGHLAND
SUMi�fIT HILL
DOWN`fOWN
ZON{NG FILE Q�'�
�
3 0`O���O��'Q r �O�O't�'�'��4p� �M�r�:��
� f k k� G k�� � V
--- AVE.
� 1 k� e�f
j€� Cl�7
^ W —
—'
�F�6���oC! D
F . � : . e
�
o �a
1,2
av
O'Oi0�0
�
a
e Q
d
.•—
�'; �
.
•
•
, � �,
.i �
� • '
• '� ' �
��
• •
a • •
• • ± •` • • •
( s . e . • s ` • • • •
.� ,�� � • �
■;
�.'�� . � � '� �� �
�
i
� i '
����� C�`'���'a =� ,
��� . . �
; '__�
�11,�� �l��.
•
_' _ 1 �
�����: �I
.
.
♦
� Q �
� O �4p
16
15 O
� ` �.d�
/ P�B
V
a �s
^ ,4
°°°�I I°Q
�! i
1 P, t
� 1 I I
� �
'°HILLCREST
t �� t
•
'�BaNLAND
�\
��.
.�
'r ; C> �,� • .
'- F:
j"r..
���
� •,'r r t�
t - .,
z �: � r ,., r
t - --"�" � ,
w �'�' ?��
z ' r- ��:
z <.e �., c�.'
Y +, � �'-
�'� ' f'i
: �.
I:
' � � f"-. .
I� ._
..�. '�
_/�/� . . _.______ ____
. ..______ ____ _ ,_
�.��f��-�"���"��_ ' � �_ VV ���� -�..�1�. _ �_l_L��... �
[ _
(" :�O`�"_ �\ � c.:..o.n..-_._. /.l':I:I�Ci$.:i_%i,__...� �
'_'__ � '___ ___'"__'__ --_____
��;�_ \�— )S -- ` _.. {,,;��;:i,;:, ..:���;::�(,-�; -f, -' �i - . �
I>i.I
F �: � �. ,. .
. i:" [):o : ._ � � � ,. . . - t
�
'_"_ _
�,
"'___-_'______ i., .: . . ' _ '_"__"______ '' Cq i: �;fillJ ;, r�. _":
"'�:- ' iL"J �:i���� �.. � .., �:. I . .
� � I �.- I , . _ "
^'' y '_ . _. ' � ) l;t.11�llll �_, � v '
'__-._ ______'_ ""___"_'_'___- . . ._. � �'
��
_ _' __ ' "___'_ � '
i I �iV
. .. . . ... . �` V
` �. .
I • •�• • • • • • • • r � • • � �
•
f
• . • . • . • • •
�
�
�'i°.
e
�
���
.
OB��n�
���
��� • • ���■� • • • � • � • • �� • • ��� �
— - . . =-+a�� s.
lI� - �
• • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . � .
,. ,.
���!�� • ��������
"""' ` ���
` ':� �1 3 . ��_��1�1 �' '%
, , -�
�
� � �i� ��� �..� �����'
�,�
�-- _---� C
O OIO
0
�u�� ��e���ee e����� .. .. --�
... ... ... ......... �...::..easaa���.
�� : .
� _
- `F':y' —_-__ — _ --_ 9
1 �_�__
�,�>����:;F,�,, �_ Sce � c �t1 N ---
� LEG=.:�
�'U;�POS�_��- -- °•s�� zoning d�slricE t��und
� - .. C / _.
.- �- i�
,�
F,__ ° �+i [) I t -- rlT_///// s �,� "� ErG,�—i;. ���
_
_ , - - .
.
t � T � -�
... ,
---- --- -- - '
-- -� ------------ � � •_ _ ,.._n :
p � , n ,
i_ i :., _ O I i'f -------., t; F. . --.� �---- `� ' _ '
Ufi° f?'tTl�� ti n
f COiiln�._:��'�
� �
S � �� �i �� �'.';O f1:11�1.. _ �,
—� �; J �
I Q t.c. I:7:iU5i'i:' I
�i�.-_.. __, �', yQ mui:i�;� t�����1:� V v2c2^, I
�
�'��
✓'l
`'^w �• ' I
� �vv�SN/ ` - :.
' A� �•:
���..
t.:' y �P.'. � .'
�,�� r
w, ,.. �; ,
� .__
��, C
� �__��
_.:..,. a/��'
���
. . ... �..�.,.
,�:
h�
: � �r'�ar-.c
_1
�
r>s�E , ��8��
uM �MREv
��
i� - _ � . �t---
� � �►�. �at � .
. • • -
; �RE�� :��;
a..; :
;. "j�
�__..;
�
� 1-- �
` �'"'�:a ' . - f. - � ^'• " .
.� ��• " '' - ' :• . " - - i
c ''. °�' - s . . • ' '
��"fi� -r' .
..� __�' �;;: .- ' �". •,
-:�� •. . .. .:
;�-:i t - ° �,� �:�-=
f' !1 f ~ �+`, �' f 4 �J� ..,.�
�S �.)... • G ' � � •
K�
ry .♦ M� -
.�' m& �-''� y � � � : . .
� \ 4
� *. 1� ������ f � '�`'{��'_ �•
1 J
. '' � '� ! 1 . ' � /� N.' �\-
.^+ , � .� ry '^Y
w.;� �s _ ;_ ' . � �� . �� .
, ^ ' �
�-.��'
T ' y .R,.+ 7 r-.'^"' ��y`:_ � .ry � .
�'��] ,. `i. o- �F �� !- . '�r'� .
k
� . . . � . ' . i ' ' ' i �
� - _ _> _ •-�.r,�_...
Council File # qq � ��t
RESOLUTION
CITY OF
Presented By
Referred To
PAUL, MINNESOTA
Green Sheet # �(� t��{ � $'
�S
Committee: Date
2
3
4
5
6
7
WHEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-154 and pursuant to Saint Paul
Legislarive Code § 66.408 made application to the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission
(Commission) to appeal the decision of the Saint Paul Zoning Administrator to a11ow repairs to
storm damaged advertising signs located at 1820 Grand Avenue and at the southeast corner of
Ford Parkway and South Cleveland Avenue; and
8 WHEREAS, on August 6, 1998, the Commission's Zoning Committee conducted a
9 public hearing where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard and submitted
10 its recommendation to deny the appeal to the Commission; and
11
12 WHEREAS, in its Resolution No. 98-45, dated August 14, 1998, the Commission
13 decided to deny the appeal based upon the findings in Resolution 98-45 which is attached hereto
14 and incorporated herein by reference; and
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
WHEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-247 and pursuant to the provisions of
Saint Paul Legislafive Code § 64.206, filed an appeal from the determination made by the
Commission and requested a hearing before the Saint Paul City Council (Council) for the
purposes of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; and
WIIEREAS, on October 7, 1998 and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code §§
64.206 - 64.208 with noUce to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the
Council where al] interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and
WHEREAS, the Council having heard the statements made and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and
of the Planning Commission, does hereby;
RESOLVE, to affirm the decision of the Commission. The Council finds no error in any
fact, procedure or finding made by the Plax�ning Commission and that Zoning Code § 66301
applies to these non-conforming advertising signs ; and be it
1 a.g, -�� g,�
2 FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall maii a copy of this resolution to Brian
3 Bates, Esq. on behalf of the appellant, Marvin Liszt, Esq, on behaif of the sign company, the
4 Zoning Administrator and the Plauuing Commission.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Apps
Byc
By:
Form Appro ed by City Attoxney
s ����� ��/t7/y5
Approved by Mayor for Submission to Council
By:
Adopted by Council: Date ���Q�
Adoption Certified by Council Secretasy
°l.�i, - �O �t-L
....�.��
.
GREEN SHEET
No104�78
Peter Warner
iT 8E ON CIXRJCIL AGH�IIN BY (Q4Tq
rta���vl�
OR06t
TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES
i� , -�_��
=� •�e
❑ an�naeEr ❑ anctsx
❑ wuxcu�mn+r.�soa ❑ wwio��a
❑Yratlatuasrwrtl ❑
(CL1P ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE�
Memoralizing the decision of the City Council on October 7, 1998 denying the appeal of
Scenic Minnesota, Highland Area Community Council, and Rogers Chambers to a decision of
the Planning Commission regarding storm-damaged billboards at 1820 �rand Avenue and at
Highland Village Shopping Center.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CIB COMMfITEE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
IcY:. �e�
AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S
Has mie aeiswJfiim eexr Mwicea unaer a conhact for tnie �pamnemv
vES r�o
Fias thia perem/firm ever been a dly empbyee?
YES MO
poe6 this pe�aonlfi�m poscess a sidll rqt normallYPossessetl bY airy cunmt city employeeT
YES NO
Is this pereoNfirm a tarpetetl Mendoi?
YES NO
COSTIREVENUE BUDfiETED (qRLYE ON�
VES NO
SOURCE
ACTNIiY NUMBER
(EfPWN)
0.� - toq�
Interdepartmental Memorandum
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
DATE: October 28, 1999
TO: Nancy Anderson
FROM: Peter Warner
RE: Resolution memorializing decision of City Council from 10-7-98 in the matter of
Scenic Minnesota, et a1. appeal of Planning Commission Resolution 98-45.
It came to my attention that the appeal of Scenic Minnesota of a decision of the Planning
Commission dated August 14,1998 had notbeen reducedto aresolutionmemorializing the decision
of the City Council as required under Saint Paul City Charter § 6.03.01. Accordingly please fmd
attached, for placement at your earliest convenience on the CounciPs Consent Agenda, a signed
original resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council to deny Scenic Minnesota's
appeal.
��`"iaa .,"��a�c."�°?'�w�?1t�
C�T � � ��99
� l�_2�--a�q
`t`1-lo g�
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number 98-45
�te August 14, 1998
�VHEREAS, SCENIC MINNESOTA, file � 98-154, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of
Section 66300(j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the Zoning Administrator's decision
regarding advertising sians damaged in a storm on May 30, 1993; and located at 1820 Grand
Avenue, the Hi�hland Villa�e Shoppin� Center, which is on the south side of Ford Pazkway
between Kenneth Street and Cleveland Avenue, and at 1142, 1184, and 1209 W. Seventh Street
(legal descriptions on file); and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on Au�ust 6, 1448, held a
public heazing at which alt persons present ���ere given an opportunity to be heazd pursuant to
said application in accordance �vith the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Plannin; Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zonin�
Committee at the public heazin� as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the follo�ving
findings of fact:
A major wind storm hit the T�vin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damaee
to homes, trees, and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, city inspectors
checked the sites of dama�ed billboazds with Chris McCarver of Eller Media, Inc. On
June 10, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller Media that, as a result of the inspection, two
of the damaged billboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the middle billboazd structure at
Hi�hland Vi(la�e had not teceived structural d'ama�e; just the si�ns and poster panels,
w�hich provided the backing for the siQns, had blow�n down. Replacin� poster panels does
not, as a matter of standard City practice dating back many yeazs, require a building
peanit. Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to replace the poster panels on those
tW0 SIaIIS.
Ms. Lane's letter said that the other four billboazd locations--one at Highland Village
Shopping Center and three on W. Seventh Street--were found to have structural damage.
Therefore, she requested information abou[ the cost of repairs in relation to the
replacement cost of each sign. One of the tests in the Zoning Code for the repair of
nonconformin� siQns that have been damaaed is that the renovation costs aze less than 51
moved by Field
seconded by
in favor 10 (Field abstained)
against �
�j
percent of the replacement cost.
2. A(1 of the billboazds in question are owned by Eiler Media, Inc. (formerly Naegele and
then Universal), �vhich is a national billboard company. All of the biltboazds aze in B-2
(Community Business) zoning districts, where advertising signs aze permitted if they
meet certain size and spacing requirements unless an overlay special sign district imposes
stricter regulations. None of the billboards in question are conformina, they are all legal
nonconformina signs for one reason or another. The Grand Avenue and Highland Village
signs are in Special Sign DisTricts adopted in the 1980s w•here billboards aze prohibited.
The W. Seventh Street billboards aze in an interim Special Sign District approved by the
City Council earIier this yeaz, �vhere new construction and modification of biliboards aze
prohibited until new advertising sign regulations are adopted by the City Council.
Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16, 1998, appealed Ms.
Lane's decision to allo�v replacement of the poster panels at t�vo locations (1820 Grand
Avenue and the middle billboards on the Highland Vitlage Shopping Center), and her
request for cost estimates from Eller in relation to the 51 percent test as a basis for future
decisions about cvhether the other billboazds will be peanitted to be renovated. The
appeal contains five specific arguments.
4. The first specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising si�ns, the 51 percent
rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in the next section (66.302), which
is specifically about adverfising signs. The city staff from LIEP, PED, and tEie City
Attorney's Office have conferred and a�ree that nonconforming billboards aze regulated
by both sections and by applicable special sign districts; in the event of any appazent
inconsistency, whichever contains the most specific provisions controls. However, the
Zonin� Administrator's letter contained only a request for information, not a decision
about how the renovation cost information `vould be used. Therefore, since no decision
has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature.
5. Scenic Minnesota's second specific appeal is that if the 51 percent test �rere to apply, it
shoutd apply to the sign face as well as to the rest of the sign structure. Based on the
definitions for "sign" and "sign structure" in the code (66.121), this appeal has some
merit. But different terms are used in the para�raph on exemptions from getting building
permits (66.40�), which refers to "display surface" and "poster replacement". The Iatter
terms aze not defined in the code and, being subject to interpretation, are a responsibility
of the Zonin� Administrator. The Cit�• Council is expected to amendment advertising
sign re�ulations later this yeaz and tivill receive comments from the Plannin� Commission
before doing so. Code amendments ���ould be a better way to clazify how sign faces
shoutd be considered than tryin� to reach a decision through an appeals process.
6. Scenic Minnesota s third and fourth specific appeals azgue that the installation or
replacement of sien faces should rzquire a sign {building) permit. On replacement of the
sign face (poster panels), LIEP treated Eller Media the same as they have treated all
billboard companies. For many years the Zoning Administrator has interpreted 66.40� to
��
`� °l - to �l\
allow poster panei replacement without a sign permit. Poster panels come in kits of
interlockin� strips of galvanized sheet metal, �vhich aze assembled on site and typically
cost less than 20 percent of the construction cost of a billboard. For the set of billboazds
at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboazds on Highland V illage Shopping
Center, LIEP inspectors determined that no structural damage had occurred. Ms. Lane's
letter of June 10, 1998, is clearly consistent with established practice; any other decision
would have been discriminatory.
7. The fifth specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that the W. Seventh biliboazds cannot be
replaced or renovated at this time because of the interim Special Sign District for the �V.
Seventh neighborhood. In February 1998, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance
that created an Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to make
recommendations to the Council. During the study period, the ordinance provides that
district councils may apply for a special sign district by wTiting a letter. In early July, the
City Councii held a public heazin� and approved interim special sign districts in every
citizen participation district that applied. The �Vest Seventh Federation appiied on April
6, 1998, and the district became effective on May 6.
As with the 51 percent test, the Zoning Administrator has not rendered a decision about
whether or not the W. Seventh billboards can be renovated, and an appeai is premature.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
allow the replacement of the sign faces �vithout sign permits for the billboards at 1820 Grand
Avenue and for the middle set of billboards at Highland Villa�e Shoppin� Center is hereby
denied;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission renders no decision on this
appeal as regards the eastem set of billboards at Highland Village Shopping Center or the
billboazds on W. Seventh Street; since LIEP has only asked for information from Eller Media on
these storm-damaged billboards and has not yet made decisions on whether they can be
renovated, appeals about them are premature.
�i
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Pamela Wheelock, Di�ector
CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coteman, Mayar
September 16, 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
CiTy Council Research O�ce
310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
25 H'est Fourth Street
Saint Paut, MN i57D2
�.\��+t Ktsd�•'�+or�
pQ �
C.�
��� i
��
Telephome: 612d 66-6� 65
Facsim77e- 612-228-3314
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
October 7, 1998 for the following zoning case:
Applicants:
File Nuxnber:
Scenic Minnesota, Highland Area Community Council, and Rogers Chambers
98-247
Purpose: Appeal of Planning Commission decision regarding storm-damaged biliboards:
Planning Commission upheld action of LIEP to allow replacement of sign face
panels where the sign support structure was undamaged on billboards in the
Grand Avenue and Highland Special Sign Districts
Locations: 1820 Crrand Avenue (southwest corner of Grand and Fairview) and at Highland
V illage Shopping Center (southwest comer of Ford Pkwy. and Cleveland)
My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda of the City Council on
September 23, 1998 and that you will publish notice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger.
Please call me at 266-6575 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Wr' '
LarrySo rholm ___ _
Principal Planner - Zoning
cc: Councilmember Benanav
Councilmember Harris
Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
, �.�.
� NOTICE OF POBLIC HEARING .� .
-c�. '
The Saint Paul City Covncil a'i11 cunduct a public hearing on Wednesday, October 7.
1998 at 5:30 p.m: in the City Council Chambers, Thicd Floor City Hall-Coart House. to
consider the appeai of Scenic Minnesota, Higkiland Area Community Conncil. and
Rogers Chambers to a decision of the Planning Cocnmissiun regarding storm-damaged
bil(boards at IS20 Grand Avenue (southwest corner of Grand and Fairview Avenues)
and�at Highland�ViHage Shopping Center (souihwest corner of Ford Pazkway and
Cleveland Avenuel. . � _ ,
Dafeda.Septemherl7, 1998
NANCYANDERSON " . .
Assistant City Cbtutcff SecreCary � � -
(9eptetttber 19. 1998) _.. �
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
�
CTTY OF SAINT PAUL
Norm Coleman, Mayor
September 30, 1998
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
PameZa WheeZocl� Director � 9_� b � 1
25 West Fourth Sveet Telephone: 612-266-6565
Saint Paul, IvN 55102 Facsimile: 612-228-3314
RE: Zoning File # 98-247: SCENIC MINNESOTA, HIGHLAND AREA COMMUNITY
COLJNCIL, and ROGERS CHAMBERS (co-appellants)
City Council Hearing: October 7, 1998 at 530 p.m., City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision that allowed the replacement of sign face panels
� on two storm-damaged billboards located in special sign districts where the construction, replacement, or
renovation of billboards is prohibited. The Planning Commission denied an appeal filed by Scenic
Minnesota and the Highland Area Community Council of an administrative decision made by LIEP. The
Zoning Administrator in LIEP determined that sign face panels that had blown off could be replaced on
billboazds where the sign structures that support the sign faces were undamaged.
LOCATIONS: The billboards in question are at 1820 Grand Avenue (southwest comer of Fairview on
top of the Subway Sandwich shop) and at 2012 Ford Parkway (the middle billboard on top of the
Highland Village Shopping Center.) Both billboard structures are V-shaped with rivo billboard faces.
�
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Deny appeal by Scenic Minnesota and the Highland area
community council, 10-0 (with 1 abstention)
ZONING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATTON: Deny appeal, 3-1 (with 1 abstention)
STAFF RECQMMENDATION: Deny appeai but revise code to require building permits for sign face
panel replacement in the future
SUPPORT FOR APPEAL BY SCENIC MN: Co-appellants, plus one letter of support.
OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY SCENIC MN: Two representatives of the billboard industry and the
owner of the Highland Village Shopping Center.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
SCENIC MINNESOTA, the HIGHLAND AREA COMMIJNITY COLINCIL, and ROGERS
CHAMBERS have appealed the decision of the Saint Paul Plannina Commission to deny a previous
�l
` Ms. Nancy Anderson
CiTy Council Secretary
September 30, 1998
Page 2
appeal led by Scenic Minnesota of the Zoning Administrator's decision that sign face panels b(own down
by storms could be replaced on those billboards where the sign structure was not damaged, even on
billboards located in special sign districts where the construction, replacement, or renovation of
billboards is prohibited.
The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public heazing on the matter on August 6,
1998. Representatives of Scenic Minnesota and the Highland Area Community Council spoke in support
of the appeal. Two representatives of Eller Media Company and the owner of the Highland Village
Shopping Center spoke in opposition, that is, in support of the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of
the code. At the close of the public hearing the committee voted 3 to 1 with 1 abstention to recommend
denial of the appeal. The Planning Commission considered the case on August 14, 1998; they supported
the Zoning Committee's recommendation and denied the appeal by a vote of 10 to 0 with 1 abstention.
The appeal to the Planning Commission initially involved six billboards, but the Planning Commission
found that in four cases the Zoning Administrator had not yet rendered a decision on whether the
billboards could be repaired, but had only requested information from Eller Media Company about the
extend of dama�e and estimated repair costs. Thus, the Planning Commission made decisions about
only rivo billboards; they upheld the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Zoning Code and
denied the appeal. The present appeal to the City Council is about the two billboards, one on Grand
Avenue and the other at Highland Village Shopping Center, on which the Zoning Adminish�ator
authorized the installation of new sign face panels. These two billboards were put saon put back into
service within weeks after the storms. In several other cases around the city, storm-damaged billboards
remain out of service while information gathering and decisions aze made.
This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on October 7, 1998. Please call ma (266-6575)
if you have questions and please notify me if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of
the sites presented at the public hearing.
Sincerely,
L�holm
PrincipalPlanner- Zoning
Attachments
cc: City Council members
Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
Gayle Summers, HACC
Rogers Chambers
\�PED\SY52�SHAAED�SODERHOL�ZONRVU198?47CC2.L1R
Peter Warner, Asst. City Attomey
Wendy Lane, LIEP
Chris McCarver, Eller Media Co.
Mike Cronin, outdoor advertising consultant
�
�
�
'
�
q q _ togl
ATTACffiVIENTS
•
A.
B.
C.
D.
Appeal form and letter of explanation
�.���
Planning Commission Resolution and Planning Commission minutes for 8/14/98 �
Zoning Committee minutes for 8/6/98 �,�� 1`� `
���'
Staff Report of 7/25f98 with many attachments sent to the Zoning Committee
��
E. Location and zoning maps
P. �Z -�
�� �J
• UPED\SYS2\SHAREDVSODERHOL�ZONIlVG\98247CC2.LIR �
�lq - lo`l\
�
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Departme�:t af Planning and Econamic Development
Zoning Section
1100 City Hal! Annec
25 YT'est FourUr Stree�
Saint Paul, MN 55102
266-6589
�or�€ng �ae use
Fiie rto �� �`7' � -
Fs� � �`?�
�££1�3t1Y9 -#?2�i£liig �_ � - -
__..��'' �"�
. 't�_��- r _ -
APPELLANT Name SCtn�c. ��C`�''li7in�.nrn,eet,q<<t..
Address f�« �"`5 I�b � �r/��''+-�( �`'`�- �ni f � �S1°i
City St._ Zip Daytime phone �°� ° �� 6 �
�».+�'�+�5 11j�iY- 5 5i. ('a*-c ��°� � (Pr?v- 3`i�
�
PROPERTY
LOCATtON
Zoning File Name
Address/Location
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby mad�e for an appeaf to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �'City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to
appea4 a ecisio made by the �n�� ���n^�55��
on ����'-/ � , 19_ File number: 7 ^ 5
(date of decision) �
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding rnade by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pianning Commission.
��inint�C.C'�- �ll�_ h���-�eS iN i '�z-►Jov.}Tia�S 8� �SL
�.� v�—�A�nn�Le�Q �rc�3�,�.ns .
< ,
�i�s SeL���n. j��s�e-��o•�S ��n.�pvar c� �r��r�,An.,�s k,��at
13 fl/�c rt�T fl ��Li�i�i�' v5�_
,
�1�.LGv,��s.�s in f�rEttyt�� � Or� �/}� N�. I���lL+nrTC.�
�
��
Attach additiona/ sheet rf necessary)
,!7 .
Appiicant's signature
s c�« /77 n
,7�� �: / . e . _ r
u� � �by
��
g�City agent ! .1�'�n'�� �/
�
O//icers: Ezecutice Otrettor
6rian 6afes
John Mannillo 1985 Grand Avenue
Jeanne Weigum Saint Paul, MIY 55105�
Michael Paymar SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA 612 690-9671
ftuby tlunt
September 1, 1998
Mr. Larry Soderholm
Planning and Economic Development
City Hall Annex, 25 West 4th Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 .
Re: Damaged Billboards Appeal.
Mr. Soderholm:
I ask that this writing and attached letter be made part of
the appeal lodged on August 24, 1998 by Scenic Minnesota, Highland
Area Community Council, and J. Rogers Chambers.
ScoRe
I understand the action being appealed is Zimited to that
portion oP LIEP Zoning Manager Wendy Lane's June 10, 1998, letter
in which she allowed the renovation and replacement of the two- �
paneled, middle, rooftop billboard on the building on the south-
east corner of Cleveland and Ford Parkway and the two-paneled,
�
rooftop billboard at 1820 Grand Avenue.
Background
An appeal of Zoning Manager Lane`s letter of June 10, 1998,
was filed at a cost of $150.00 on June 16, 1998. The appeal was
heard by the Zoning Committee of the Planninq Coaunission on August
6, 1998. That committee voted four to one, with Chair Field
abstaining�, to deny the appeal. Denial of the appeal was
formalized by the Planning Commission on Auqust 24, 2998.
Commissioner Field moved denial and, except for his abstention, the
� Litton Field derives income from a billboard on downtown �
Saint Paul property in which he has an interest.
�
aq-�o��
� motion passed unanimously.
On August 24, 1998, appellants filed this appeal in this
matter, again at a cost of $150.00. Appellants hereby appeal the
Planning Commission's denial of appellants' earlier appeal.
Appellants' Position
The crux of the issue before trie City Council on appeal is the
proper interpretation o£ the City Zoning Code. The industry has
argued the controlling Zoning Code provision is §66.301, which
pertains generally to "signs." Appellants argue the controlling
provision is §66.302, which pertains more specifically to
"advertising signs."
When interpreting the Zoning Code its lanquage is to be
construed according to the rules of construction contained in
� §60.102. The first rule of construction in that section requires
"the particular shall control the general." Further, the use of
the word "shall is mandatory." We conclude it is mandatory that
the particular control the general.
We further conclude §66.302, which pertains particularly to
advertising signs, must control §66.301, which pertains more
generally to advertising, as well as business, signs.
It is uncontested the subject billboards are nonconforming;
were damaged in a windstorm; were replaced and/or renovated; and
are located in special sign districts in which billboards are not
a permitted use.
Section 66.302 allows the replacement and/or renovation of any
�
2
�
7
nonconforming advertising siqn only if the advertising sign is �
located in a zoning district in which advertising signs are a
permitted use.
We conclude that nonconforming advertising signs in the Grand
Avenue Special District Sign Plan area and the xighland Village
Special District Sign Plan area cannot be replaced or renovated.
We further conclude replacing and/or renovating, or allowing the
replacement and/or renovation of, the subject billboards violates
the Saint Paul Zoning Code.
The subject billboards are illegal and must be removed in
their entirety immediately. Any other action would sanction a
violation of the Zoning Code.
PED's Position
In its Zoning Committee Staf£ Report, PED, after consultation .
with the City Attorney's office, made the following determinations:
1) The subject advertisinq signs are nonconforming;
2) Section 66.302 controls; �
3) Advertising signs are not a permitted use on Grand Avenue
and in Highland Village;
4) Renovation is "to restore to an earlier condition, to
improve by repairing." (PED did not discuss the term
"replace.")
PED concluded, and recommended, the subject billboards could
not be renovated, that is, returned to their earlier condition; the
51% damage test contained in §66.301 is not the,appropriate test
for damaged billboards; anything beyond minor repairs must meet the
standards of §66.302; and the City should require a sign permit for
the replacement o£ poster panels. See PED Zoning Committee Report.
3
C J
"5
49 �►d q1
�
LIEP's Departmental Practice
It has been suggested that LIEP acted appropriately when LIEP
did not require the issuance of a permit for, and thus allowed, the
renovation of the subject billboards. The argument goes that since
LIEP had a longstanding practice of not requiring the issuance of
permits for sign face replacement LIEP was right not to have done
so here. There are several £laws in this reasoning.
First, we challenge whether this "long-standing practice" is
a fact or merely a convenient explanation for allowing the subject
billboards to be renovated or replaced in violation of the Zoning
Code. We have seen no written internal policy on this point. We
are unaware of any instances where sign companies have applied for
permits for the replacement of sign faces and have been told in
� writing a permit was unnecessary. On the contrary, we are aware of
at least one recent instance where a permit application was
submitted, and a permit issued, for the replacement of a sign face
�
(2/26/98 issuance of a permit to Universal Outdoor to replace a
rooftop sign face on University near Prior).
Even if a"long-standing practice" can be estalalished, we
disagree the subject billboards can be renovated and/or replaced.
The logic that departmental practice should override provisions of
the Zoning Code leads to several distinct, and equally untenable,
results. The Zoning Administrator is required by the Zoning Code
to enforce trie provisions of the Zoning Code. See §66.401. This
provision becomes a nullity if the Zoning Administrator does not,
in fact, enforce all provisions of the Zoning Code. If the Zoning
�
4
✓
�
Code is not enforced in this instance it follows the Zoning Code �
can never be enforced. In all similar future circumstances sign
companies will, no doubt, argue that the City must treat them as
Universal sign company is now treated. Logically, this leads to
the effective rewriting of the Zoning Code by City staff. City
staff has no such authority.
Regardless, LIEP did not make reference to any "long-standing�'
internal policy when it wrote Universal Outdoor allowing
replacement of the subject billboards. LIEP referred to a specific
provision of the Zoning Code. In her June 10, 1998, letter, Ms.
Lane stated: "The replacement of poster panels is permitted without
a permit pursuant to Section 66.405(1) of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code." Section 66.405(1) reads:
The changing of the display surface on a painted or printed �
sign only. However this exception shall apply only to poster
replacement and/or on-site changes involving sign painting
elsewhere than directly on a building.
Ms. Lane used a Zoning Code provision, allowing the
replacement of an advertising poster, to allow the replacement of
� advertising poster panels. This is not a casual mistake. To
confuse posters and poster panels is to confuse paint and the
painting surface, a sign and a sign face, a bulletin and a bulletin
board, or chalk and a blackboard. Ms. Lane went to extraordinary
lengths to accommodate Universal outdoor.
A Word On Property Riahts
The Zoning Code specifically disallows vestinq oP property
rights with any billboard company or any billboard property owner.
Neither the billboard company, nor the property owner, has any �
5
lri
`C9 -�05\
� right to the continuation of any billboard use under the Zoning
Code. See § 66.411.
On the other hand, area residents do have vested property
rights. The residential property owners have a right to quiet
enjoyment of their properties. The replacement of the subject
billboards has interfered with area residential property rights.
See Chambers letter attached.
Relief
Appellants ask the City Council to declare the two subject
billboards nuisances per se pursuant to Zoning Code §66.413 and
order their immediate removal. Further, appellants ask the City
Council to order the return of $300.00 in filing fees to
appellants.'
�
L �r-- - �-���.�
Brian Bates
for: Scenic Minnesota
Highland Area Community Council
J. Rogers Chambers
� Appellants are aware that the issue of reimbursement of
filing fees has recently been before the Council. The Council
riqhtly declined to allow special rules for neighborhood or non-
profit groups. However, appellants now suggest the return of the
filing fees (no attorney fees) in any case where the appellant
prevails or substantially prevails on appeal.
In this case, appellants' filing fees were necessitated by
LIEP's error in judgment and the Planninq Commission's failure to
correct the error. Appellants suggest it is unfair that private
moneys be expended to en£orce the Zoning Code where public
� employees and officials have failed to do so.
6
�
�
August 5, 1998
St. Paul Zoning Committee
25 West 4"' Street
1100 City Hall Annex
St. Paui, Minnesota 55102
ATTN: Mr. larry Soderholm
Va Fax#651/228-3314
,
Dear Mr. Soderholm:
This letter is in support o# Scenic Minnesota's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
decision regarding the rebuilding of biAboards at the southwest corrier of Grand and
Fairview (1820 Grand Ave.} after they were damaged in the recent wind storms.
From the back of our home at 1834 Summit Avenue we can see the billboards and
consider them unsightly_ They are a very unpleasant aspect of fhe view from the
house, and they block a piece of sky we have a right to see.
As property owners in the neighborhoai, we were led to believe that if ever these
biilboards were destroyed by natural causes, they would not be replaced. After the
damage to them in May, we thought that we would not see the biliboards any longer.
We were very surprised, and much disappointed, to see them rebuilt.
We urge the Zoning Committee to grant Scenic Minnesota's appeal and reverse the
Administrator's decision aliowing the rebuilding of the biliboards. This form of
advertising is a bfight on the urban landscape and our neighbor wiil oniy be improved
by their removal.
We hope that you wi;l agree with our viewpoint, grant the appeai, and adhere to the
zoning code resfrictions as they current{y stand, disaliowing the billboards. We do not
need this type of adve �" in our neighborhood.
i
Sincerel � ��7
/n ��
J-Rogers Chambers
Shawn �. Chambers
1834 Summit Avenue
, , 'h`
��+1ri
�
i
�
�
`�q - �o ��
� city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number 98-_
date Au 14 1998
WHEREAS, SCENIC MIi� file � 98-154, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of
Section 66300(j) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the Zoning Administrator's decision
re�azding advertising si�ns damaged in a storm on May 30, 1998; and loca[ed at 1820 Grand
Avenue, the Highland Village Shopping Center, which is on the south side of Ford Pazkway
between Kenneth Street and Cleveland Avenue, and at 1142, 1184, and 1209 �V. Seventh Street
(legal descriptions on file); and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on August 6, 1998, held a
public heazin� at which all persons present w�ere given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to
said application in accordance with the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul
Legislative Code; and
WHEREAS, Saint Paul Pianning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning
Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following
� findings of fact:
1. A major �vind storm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of dama�e
to homes, trees, and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, city inspectors
checked the sites of damaged billboazds with Chris McCarver of Eller Media, Inc. On
June 10, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller Media that, as a result of the inspection, two
of the damaged billboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the middle billboazd structure at
Highland Village had not received structural damage; just the signs and poster panels,
which provided the backing for the signs, had blown down. Replacing poster panels does
not, as a matter of standard City practice dating back many years, require a building
permit. Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to replace the poster panels on those
two signs.
Ms. Lane's letter said that the other four billboazd locations--one at Highland Village
Shopping Center and three on W. Seventh Street--were found to have structural damage.
Therefore, she requested information about the cost of repairs in relation to the
replacement cost of each sign. One of the tests in the Zoning Code for the repair of
nonconformin� signs that have been dama�ed is that the renovation costs aze less than 51
moved by Field
� seconded by
in favor 10 (Field abstained)
against
�i
percent of the replacement cost.
2. All of the billboazds in question are owned by Eller Media, Inc. (formerly Naegele and
then Universal), which is a national biilboazd company. All of the biilboazds aze in B-2
(Community Business) zoning districts, where advertising signs aze permitted if they
meet certain size and spacing requirements unless an overlay speciat sign district imposes
stricter regulations. None of the billboazds in question are conformin�; they aze all legal
nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Grand Avenue and Highland Village
signs are in Special Sign Districts adopted in the 1980s where billboards are prohibited.
The W. Seventh Street bi116oards aze in an interim Special Sign District approved by the
City Council earlier this yeaz, where new construction and modification of billboards aze
prohibited until new advertising sign regulations aze adopted by the City Council.
Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16, 1998, appealed Ms.
Lane's decision to allow replacement of the poster panels at two locations (1820 Grand
Avenue and the middle billboazds on the Highland Village Shoppin� Center), and her
request for cost estimates from Eller in relation to the 51 percent test as a basis for future
decisions about whether the other billboazds will be permitted to be renovated. The
appeal contains five specific arguments.
�
4. The first specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising signs, the 51 percent
rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in the next section (66302), which �
is specifically about advertising signs. The city staff from LIEP, PED, and the City
Attomey's Office have conferred and agree that nonconforming billboards aze regulated
by both sections and by applicable special sign districts; in the event of any appazent
inconsistency, whichever contains the most specific provisipns controls. However, the
Zoning Administrator's letter contained only a request for information, not a decision
about how the renovation cost information would be used. Therefore, since no decision
has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature.
5. Scenic Minnesota's second specific appeal is that if the 51 percent test were to apply, it
should apply to the sign face as well as to the rest of the sign structure. Based on the
definitions for "si�n" and "sign structure" in the code (66.121), this appeal has some
merit. But different terms aze used in the paragraph on exemptions from getting building
permits (66.405), which refers to "display surface" and "poster replacemenP'. The latter
terms are not defined in the code and, being subject to interpretation, aze a responsibility
of the Zoning Administrator. The City Council is expected to amendment advertising
sign reQulaTions later this year and will receive comments from the Planniug Commission
before doing so. Code amendments would be a better way to clarify how sign faces
should be considered than trying to reach a decision through an appeals process.
6. Scenic Minnesota's third and fourth specific appeals azgue that the installation or
reptacement of sign faces should requirQ a sign (building) permit. On replacement of the
sign face (poster panels), LIEP treated Eller Media the same as tYiey have treated all �
billboard companies. For many years the Zoning AdminisYrator has interpreted 66.405 to
IG
�9 - Loq �
�
allow poster panel replacement without a sign permit. Poster panels come in kits of
interlocking strips of galvanized sheet metal, w�hich are assembled on site and typically
cost less than 20 percent of the construction cost of a billboazd. For the set of billboazds
at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboards on Highland Village Shopping
Center, LIEP inspectors determined that no structural damage had occurred. Ms. Lane's
letter of June 10, 1998, is cleazly consistent with established practice; any other decision
would have been discriminatory.
7. The fifth specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that the W. Seventh billboards cannot be
replaced or renovated at this time because of the interim Special Sign District for the W.
Seventh neighborhood. In February 1998, the City Councii adopted an interim ordinance
that created an Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to make
recommendations to the Council. During the study period, the ordinance provides that
district councils may apply for a special sign district by writing a letter. In early July, the
� City Council held a public hearing and approved interim special sign districts in every
citizen participation district that applied. The West Seventh Federation applied on April
6, 1998, and the district became effective on May 6.
As with the 51 percent test, the Zoning Administrator has nbt rendered a decision about
whether or not the W. Seventh billboards can be renovated, and an appeal is premature.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the
authority of the City's Legislative Code, the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to
allow the replacement of the sign faces without sign permits for the billboazds at 1820 Grand
Avenue and for the middle set of billboazds at Highland Village Shopping Center is hereby
denied;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission renders no decision on this
appeal as regards the eastem set of billboards at Highland Village Shopping Center or the
billboazds on W. Seventh Street; since LIEP has only asked for information from Eller Media on
these storm-damaged billboards and has not yet made decisions on whether they can be
renovated, appeals about them are premature.
.
N
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall Conference Center ���� ,{�
15 Kellogg Boulevard West d �(�� '' � .
w��h �� �
A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, August 14, 1998, at
8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners
Absent:
Mmes. Engh, Morton, Nordin, Treichel, and Wencl and Messrs. Field, Johnson,
Kramer, Mazdell, Mazgulies, and Nowlin.
Mmes. *Duarte, *Faricy and *Geisser and Messrs. *Chavez, Gervais, *Gordon,
Kong, McDonell, Sharpe, and Vaught.
*Excused
Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Acting Planning Administrator, Jean Birkholz, Domma Drummond,
Martha Faust, and Allan Torstenson, Department of Planning and Economic
Development staff.
I. Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton announced that all the applications for Liveable Communities Demonstration are
in and Saint Paul has rivo: 1) Lowertown: Urban Livability and Technology; and 2} Main street
on Payne: Renewed Urban Village
II. Planning Administrator's Announcements
Mr. Soderholm announced that Ken Ford is on vacation.
Mr. Soderholm also announced that the Mayor's Office is taking applications for Planning
Commission members. The contact person is Deborah Wiley in the City Clerk's Office at 266-
8695.
There has been a request for a small area plan for the Irvine Avenue area from the CapitalRiver
Council (downtown). It will be put on PED's work program for 1999 unless there is a
development crisis which necessitates immediate action.
There has also been a request from the Summit Avenue Residential Preservation Association
(SARPA) for updating the Summit Avenue plan done in 1986.
He announced a seminar coming up on housing. It is scheduled for Friday, September 18,
1998. "Building Inclusive Communities" is being presented by the Minnesota Fair Housing
Centers. Mr. Soderholm circulated Yhe brochure.
Mr. Soderholm referred to the current issue of Land Patterns, a publication of the 1000 Friends
.
i
�
��
`�� - t�q\
� 20 square feet to allow for a 50 square foot sign (30 squaze feet is code); variance of 11 feet to
allow for a 7'6" high sign 10 feet from property line (21 foot setback is required) along Arcade
Street (Allan Torstenson, 266-6579).
MOTION Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested sign variance to a11ow for
a 50 sq.ft sign in an area mhere 30 sq.ft was permitted; a setback variance to allow for 7' 6"
high sign 10 feet from t1:e property line at 669 Arcade Street which carried unanimously on a
voice vote. —
#98-154 Scenic Minnesota - Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding vazious
advertising signs damaged in recent storms located at 1142 West Seventh Street, 1184 West
Seventh Street, 1209 West Seventh Street, the southeast comer of Ford Pazkway and South
Cleveland, the southwest corner of Ford Parkway and Kenneth Street, and 1820 Grand Avenue
(Larry Soderholm, 266-6575).
Commissioner Field explained that the staff repor[ determined that there were only two signs
for which the appeat could be made because the Zoning Administrator had not made decisions
on the other signs. Mr. Soderholm agreed with Commissioner Field's explanation. He went on
to say that the Zoning Administrator, Wendy Lane, wrote to Eller Media, Inc. indicating that on
rivo of the damaged billboards there was no structural damage to the structure holding up the
board, and therefore, the sign panels could be replaced and the signs put back into service.
With regard to four other locations, she asked for more information about the extent of the
structural damage. Then Scenic Minnesota appealed Ms. Lane's letter. The City Attorney
� advised the Zoning Committee that they should act only on the two cases where a final decision
had been made, not on the matters where Ms. Lane had simpty asked the company for more
information. The rivo locations of the appeal are 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of
billboards on the roof of the Aighland Village Shopping Center.
Discussion to clarify followed.
MOTION Commissioner Field moved denial of this appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
decision regarding advertising signs that were damaged in recent storms located at 1820
Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboards at the Highland Village Shopping Center
which carried on a voice vote (Field abstaining).
�---
#98-163 Twin Citv Townhomes. Inc. - Special condition use permit to allow a cluster
development of 30 townhouse units south oFthe West Cottage Avenue cul-de-sac beriveen
Wheelock Parkway and Westem Avenue (Donna Drummond, 266-6556).
MOTION: Commissioner Field moved approval of the requested special condition use
permit, with conditions, to allow a cluster development of 30 townhouse units sauth of the
West Cottage Avenue cu[-de-sac between A'heelock Parkway and Western Avenue.
Commissioner Johnson asked Commissioner Field about the nature of the opposing testimony.
Commissioner Field responded that he thought it was the mass of the structuces related to the
size of the site. He also thought folks preferred to maintain the natural setting and green space
� for their enjoymennt.
,�
i�
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
Thursday, August 6, 1998 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Keliogg Boulevard
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
OTNERS
PRESENT:
Faricy, Field, Kramer, Morton, and Wencl
Chavez, Gordon, Vaught
Peter Warner, Assistant City Attorney, Geri Boyd, Donna Drummond, Martha Faust,
Larry Soderholm, Allan Torstenson, and Jim Zdon of PED
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
SCENIC MN - Zoning File 98-154 - Appeal of Zoning Administrator's decision regarding various
advertising signs damaged in recent storms.
Larry Soderholm, PED, said that he received telephone cails from the West Seventh/Fort Road
Federation and the Highland Area Community Council requesting to join this appeal as co-
appellants. Mr. Soderholm also received a fax from Scenic MN stating that any district councils that
would like to join in the appeai may do so.
Mr. Soderhoim expfained that six bi(Iboard locafions are discussed in fhis case. Two of the
billboards did not have structural damage, except that the sign face panels blew away. Four of the
billboards had structural damage to the framing that hoids the sign face up. The city has not in the
past required sign permits for the replacement of sign face panels. Wendy Lane of LIEP sent a
letter to the billboard company, Eller Media, Inc., teiling them they could replace the sign panels on
the two billboards, but that they wouid need to submit more information about the extent of the
damage and get sign permits in order to repair the four biilboards with structural damage. Ms.
Lane's letter said that the decision about the two billboards was subject to appeal. Scenic MN
submitted an appeal regarding the two billboards and also regarding how the code is interpreted for
structurally damaged biilboards. The staff report as mailed responds to aU of Scenic MN's specific
questions. However, the staff from LIEP, PED, and the City Attorney's Office have discussed the
case since the staff report was written, and agree that the only actual decision made by the Zoning
Administrator was regarding the replacement of the sign face panels without requiring sign permits.
Mr. Soderholm then gave a slide presentation and reviewed the staff report. He stated staff is
recommending the appeal be denied.
in response to Commissioner Kramer's questions, Mr. Soderholm explained why the various signs
are legal nonconforming signs--special sign districts, size of sign, height of sig�, etc.
Upon questions of Commissioner Wencl, Mr. Soderholm confirmed that only the two signs where
the sign panels were replaced without permits should be decided at today's hearing. Mr. Warner
stated that no decision has been reach yet by the Zoning Administrator on the structurally damaged
billboards so there is no decision to appeal from. When LIEP receives the additional information
needed from the sign companies, the Zoning Administrator will make a determination. Ms. Lane
��(
�
�
�
aq_�a�l
Zoning committee Minutes
Meeting of August 6, 1998
� Scenic MN (98-154)
Page Two
stated they need the information before making any determination. At that time, either side may
file an appeal. However, in the meantime the sign company should not be doing any work on those
signs, other than the freestanding sign on West Seventh where metal overhanging the public
sidewalk caused a public hazard and should be removed.
At the question of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Soderholm stated that acts of nature are covered in the
zoning code and are not exceptions to the written code. If any type of nonconforming sign is more
than 51 percent destroyed, it cannot be replaced in its nonconforming position. Additional
restrictions apply to the renovation or replacement of advertising signs as opposed to on-premise
business signs.
Responding to Commissioner Kramer, Ms. Lane explained that new signs cannot be built on tops
of buildings except that existing rooftop signs can be replaced on the same lot if other condit'tons
are met and they can be built on another lot using billboard credits, again if other conditions are met.
Ms. Lane repeated that, regarding the signs on West Seventh, a decision hasn't been made yet.
Brian Bates, Executive Director of Scenic MN, stated that this appeal is about whether all of the
provisions in the code about nonconforming biliboard replacement are being followed; it is not just
about city permits. He also challenged the claim that LIEP never requires a permit for sign face
replacement. He understands that a sign face was recently done on University Avenue which
required a permit. Mr. Bates corrected Mr. Soderholm's staff report on which of the three biliboards
. at Highland Viliage are being appealed. It is the eastern two boards at Highland, not the western
board. The middle board is the one on which new sign faces have already been installed. He
suggested that the sign on Grand and Fairview be measured, that it appears to be too high. The
middle set of biilboards in Highland appear to spread wider than the 35 degree angle allowed. Mr.
Bates stated that these two billboards, which are the subject of today's hearing, were renovated and
they should not have been because they are in special sign distric�s that prohibit billboards. And
if Eller Media was allowed by the city to repair storm damage, they should have been required at the
same time to bring the boards into conformance with the code standards for height and angle.
Gail Summers the community organizerforthe Highland Area Community Council spoke regarding
the signs covered by the Highland Village Special Sign District. Her office is in the Highiand Village
Shopping Center so she sees what is being done there. She stated that the sign with structural
damage had been worked on at least three times since the storm, and at least twice with welding
equipment. She suspects that tf�e sign structure is being repaired without the required city permit.
The position of the Highland Business Associaiion and the Highfand Area Community Council is that
they want the Highiand Sign Plan adhered to. The damaged signs shouid come down.
Marvin Liszt, attorney for Eller Media lnc., appeared. Mr. Liszt objected that the Zoning Committee
is hearing an appeal by a statewide nonprofit organization. He stated that Section 66.408 of the
code indicates that persons affected by the decision of the Zoning Administrator may appeal.
Scenic MN certainly has a right to appear at this hearing, but they don't have standing to appeal.
Persons actually affected by the decision would be the lessor, lessee, the mortgagee, and so forth.
Regarding the two signs in question, the cost to repair these is negligible. It is far less than 51
percent of the replacement cost, with the cost to repair being approximately two thousand dollars
� versus twelve thousand to replace each of the signs. Regarding Section 66.301 of the Zoning
Code, Mr. Liszt emphasized that the two signs involved are legal nonconforming signs. Legal signs
have a right to remain.
i�
Zoning Committee Minutes
Meeting of August 6, 1998
Scenic MN (98-154)
Page Three
Howard Stacher, owner of the Highland Village Shopping Center appeared in opposition to Scenic
MN's appeal. He stated that he has a long-term relationship with Eller Media and he believes that
they have a right to repair the sign. If they are not allowed to do so, it will mean taking a valuable
property right away from him.
Thomas J. Klees, Director of Operations, Eller Media lnc., 3225 Spring Street NE appeared, stating
that he had inspected the signs involved. He said sign panels can last for different periods of time
depending on the climate. In Minnesota, where there is no sait in the air, the galvanized panels last
a long time, up to twenty years. Replacement of panels is more frequent near the coasts.
Mr. Bates came forward for rebuttal and stated that, according to the code, there are no vested
property rights in any billboard in the city. There are, however, vested property rights in surrou�ding
residential properties. He stated that the residential properties are impacted by these biliboards.
The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Morton moved denial of the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to allow
sign face replacements at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle billboard on the roof of the Highland
Village Shopping Center. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Faricy. Commissioner
Kramer spoke in opposition.
There was no further discussion, and the vote was called on the motion to deny the appeal.
Adopted: Yeas - 3 Nays - 1(Commissioner Kramer)
Commissioner Fieid stated that he abstained from voting on this item because he represents a
partnership that owns commercial property elsewhere and has a lease with Eller Media.
Drafted by:
Geri Boyd
Recording Secretary
Submitted by:
Team
Approved
/
Litton Field
Chair ,
�
�
�
(V
�q - ta� `
�
2.
FILE # 98-154
APPLICANT: SCENIC MINNESOTA DATE OF HEARING: 8/6/98
ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
CLASSIFICATION: Administrative Appeal
LOCATION: Various locations of storm-damaged billboazds (1142, 1184, and 1209 W.
Seventh St., Highland Village Shopping Center at the southeast corner of Ford Parkway
and Cleveland Ave., and 1820 Grand Ave.)
4.
5.
6.
7.
� 8.
�
PLANNING DISTRICTS: 9, 14, and 15
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at PED
PRESENT ZONING: All signs are in B-2 districts
ZONING CODE REFERENCES: 66.408, 66.301, 66302(a)(1), 66.404, and 66.405(i)
STAFF INVESTIGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 7/25/98 BY: Larry Soderholm
9. DATE RECEIVED: 06/16/98 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 8/15/98
NOTE ADDED 9/30/98 FOR CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
At the Zoning Committee meeting on 8/6/98, the staff recommendations in this staff report
were revised orally. After consultation with the City Attorney's Office, PED staff
concluded that only two of the six billboard locations in question were ripe for action. In
the other four cases, the Zoning Administrator had requested information from the
billboard company but had not made appealable decisions on whether any of the billboards
could be repaired or reconstructed.
In the two "live" cases PED staff recommended denial of the appeal because replacement of
sign face panels without building permits was consistent with LIEP's past practice and past
interpretation of an ambiguous paragraph in the code. The ambiguity should be addressed
through zoning text amendments in the current advertising sign study initiated by the City
Council.
Ij
A. PURPOSE: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision regarding advertising signs �
damaged in recent storms.
B. EXISTING LAND USE: All the billboazds in question are in neighborhood commercial
azeas. At five locations the billboazds are on rooftops. One of the W. Seventh St.
billboards is freestanding.
C. SURROUNDING LAND USE: All of the billboazds in question are in neighborhood
commercial areas. At 1820 Grand Ave., which is at the southwest corner of Fairview on
top of the Subway sandwich shop, the surrounding uses are commercial with single-
family residential across the alley to the south. At Highland Shopping Center, the
surrounding land uses are predominantly commercial with a church and pazochial school
on the next block to the south and a public playground on the block to the east. On W.
Seventh Street, the billboards in question are all within a standard city block (660') of one
another along a mixed use strip where there aze duplexes, apartments, a church,
commercial-residential mixed use buildings and businesses. Just off W. Seventh St. the
neighborhood is made up of single-family and duplex structures.
D. ZONING CODE CITATION:
E. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: All of the billboazds in question are owned by Eller Qutdoor �
Advertising (formerly Naegele and then Universal), which is a national billboard
company and the one that has the most signs in Minnesota. A major wind storm hit the
Twin Cities on the Saturday night of May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to
homes and trees and power lines, and also to some billboazds. The day following the
storms, Eller sent emergency crews out to clean up debris and stabilize any billboazd
structures that might represent a hazazd. Apart from securing signs, the crews did no
repair work on them.
On June 5, city inspectors checked the sites of damaged billboazds with Chris McCarver
of Eller. On June 10, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller that, as a result of the
inspection, two of the damaged biilboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the southeast comer of
Ford Parkway and S. Cleveland Ave. had not received structural damage. The sign and
poster panels that provide the backing for the sign had blown down. Replacing poster
panels does not, as a matter of standazd City practice, require a building permit.
Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to repiace the poster panels on those two
signs.
Ms. Lane's letter said the other four locations were found to have structural damage.
Therefore, she requested information about the cost of repairs in relation to the
replacement cost of each sib . In the Zoning Code, the standard test for the repair of
nonconforming signs that aze damaged is that the sign can be repaired if the damaged is �
2
t v.
�`� -��� �
� less than 51 percent of its replacement cost.
Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16 appealed Ms. Lane's
decision to allow replacement of the poster panels at two locations, and her use of the 51
percent test as the basis for future decisions about whether the other billboazds will be
permitted to be renovated. The appeal contains five specific azguments. This staff report
addresses each of the specifics.
F. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: PED staff has not received district
council recommendations at the time the staff report was written.
G. FINDINGS:
1. All of the billboards in question aze nonconforming for one reason or another. At 1820
Grand, the sign is in the Grand Ave. special sign district, which was approved by the City
Council in 1983 and prohibits any new billboazds. The billboazds in Highland Village are
in the Highland Village special sign district, was approved by the City Council in 1985
and prohibits any new billboazds as well as setting a goal of removing all existing
billboazds by 1995. The billboards on W. Seventh St. aze in an interim special sign
district, created earlier in 1998 at the request of the W. Seventh Federation, while the City
Council reviews and revises advertising sign regulations; the interim district also
� prohibits additional advertising signs and "the replacement of any damaged advertising
signs."
All of the billboazds in question are too closely spaced along the street except 1209 W.
Seventh. The billboazd at 1184 W. Seventh appears to be too high. The billboard at 1209
W. Seventh, which has three faces, is too big.
2. The first specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising signs, the 51 percent
rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in the next section (66302), which
is specifically about advertising signs.
A. At the beginning of the Zoning Code, there is a section on "Construction of
Language" (60.102). The first rule is that "the particular shall control the
general." Thus, to the extent there aze discrepancies between 66301, which is
about all types of signs, and 66302, which is exclusively about advertising signs,
the City should follow the regulations in 66302.
B. Section 66.302(1) says that a nonconforming billboazds may be "renovated" if it
is in a zoning district where billboards are permitted. Cleazly billboazds aze not
permitted on Grand Avenue or in Highland Village. For at least an interim
period, they are not allowed on W. Seventh St. either.
s
��
C. A dictionary definition of renovate is "to restore to an earlier condition, to
improve by repairing..." (American Heritage Dictionary). A higher level of sign
repair would be reconstruction, which is not permitted if damage exceeds 51
percent of the replacement cost. It is reasonable to suppose there is a lower levei
of sign repair than renovation--say, minor repairs or routine mainYenance—but
these terms aze not found explicitly in the Zoning Code on signs.
PED Staff Recommendation: The billboazds in question should not be renovated. The
51 percent test is not the proper test for damaged billboazds. Anything beyond "minor
repairs" should meet the standards in 66302.
3.
Scenic Minnesota's second specific appeal is that if the 51 percent test were to apply, it
should apply to the sign face as well as to the rest of the sign structure.
A. Billboazds aze made several standazd components and it is helpful to identify them
in relationship to "sign face." At the bottom is the "footing" or the rooftop sign
"pad." Next is the "upper structure" that carries and supports the sign. Bolted to
the upper structure is the "sign face," also referred to as the "poster panel", which
is the flat backing on which paper messages can be glued or vinyl messages can
be tied. Surrounding the sign face, many billboazds have a"frame", which is like
a large picture frame. The poster panel is made of light-gauge sheet metal.
Although the poster panel and the frame aze the obvious parts of the billboazd to
the viewer, they are not neazly as expensive as the footing and the upper structure.
C. The Zoning Code has definitions only for "sign" and "sign shucture" (66.121), as
follows: ,
Sign. "The use of words, numerals, figures, devices, designs, or trademazks the
purpose of which is to show or advertise a person, firm, profession, business,
product or message."
Sign structure. "Any structure which supports or is capable of supporting any
sign as defined in this chapter. A sign shucture may be a single pole; it may not
be an integral part of a building"
Choosing beriveen these defirutions, the sign face of a billboazd would be part of
the sign structure and the paper or vinyl message would be the actual sign.
�
PED Staff Recommendation: The sign face should be considered as part of the sign
structure.
Scenic Minnesota's third and fourth specific appeals azgue that the installation or
replacement of sign faces should require a sign permit.
0
�
� J
�
�
a� -�o�\
� A. On replacement of the sign face (poster panels) LIEP treated Eller Outdoor the
same as they have treated all billboazd companies. LIEP interprets 66.405 to
allow poster panel replacement without a sign permit. This is practical because
the replacement of poster panels after a certain number of years is routine upkeep.
B. But 66.405 grants exemption from permits to "the changing of the display surface
on a painted or printed sign only. However, this exemption shall apply only to
poster replacement and/or on-site changes involving sign painting elsewhere than
directly on a building." The reference is to posters, which probably means the
paper or vinyl with the printed or painted message, not the poster panel, which is
part of the sign structure.
PED Staff Recommendation: The City should require a sign permit for the replacement
of poster panels. While the replacement of poster panels may be routine for conforming
signs, it should not be routine for nonconforming ones.
6. Scenic Minnesota's fifth specific appeal is that the W. Seventh billboazds cannot be
replaced or renovated during the interim special sign district.
A. In February 1998, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that created an
Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to make recommendations to
� the Council. During the study period, the ordinance provides that district councils
may apply for a special sign district by writing a letter. Tn eazly July, the City
Council held a public heazing an approved interim special sign districts in every
citizen participation district that appiied. The West Seventh Federation applied on
Apri16, 1998, and the district became effective on May 6.
B. The Federation's letter applies to prohibit "modification of existing signs or the
replacement of any damaged signs." This may leave a question as to what level of
repair may be permitted.
The freestanding billboard at 1142 W. Seventh has twisted and failing upright
posts which are weakly anchored in substandard footings. The poster panel is
gone.
The billboard on top of Bill's "I'V had two faces; since the storm part of the sign
structure was removed so that it is now single-sided, and the single face has no
poster panels.
The triple-faced billboard at 1209 W. Seventh, which is on top of Big Wheel
Rossi, is missing most of its poster panels.
� PED Staff Recommendation: There is an interim speciat sign district in effect in the W.
5
v�
Seventh azea, but the application to prohibit the replacement of damaaed signs requires �
interpretation. The freestanding billboard at 1142 W. Seventh seems to require
replacement, which shouId be prohibited. The City's structural engineer says that Eller's
repair cost estimates aze too low. The missing sign structure for the second (west-facing)
billboard at 1184 W. Seventh should not be replaced. The others aze missing poster
panels.
Attachments:
Appeal and attached letters
Wendy Lane letter to Chris McCarver, 6/10/98
Information submitted by Eller Media Company
Letter of 7/1/98 to Eiler from City Structural Engineer Frank Berg
Letter received 4/6/98 from the W. Seventh Federation requesting special sign district
\�PID�SY52\SFiARID\SODERHOL�ZONLYG\98I54.WPD 6
�
�
�,v
�q_���
s
i
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Departmerrt oJPlarrtei�:g and Eco�von:ie Develapment
Zonii:g Sectio�:
II00 Cin' Hal1 Anner
25 {1 est FourtJr Street
Saint Paul, hi�' S5102
166-6589
APPELLANT
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Nam2 Sc'cn.�. ��)�on�
Address � � �� �F hn � f'1�`t
City �( .(�1�-.L St.ljln Zip SS/vSDaytime phone �y�
Zoning File Na
Address/Locati
zan�ng rn�i�e use on€y
Fi(e no. — �
Fse �' F � �� (3't�- �
Te�tativ= heari� date: _
c V� �
TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeai to�e:
�
- 6oard of Zoning Appeals � City Council (L����� �� c�1m�55: �
; t
und>r tne provisions of Chapter�4, Section �C J , Paragraph � of the Zoning Code, to
appeal a de isio? ma by thz �� Z�7+n L- /-�d�riv�� 5,-�z,3'��f2-
on �� ��' I/ J , 19 File number:
(Cate of decisio
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit. d=cision or refusal made by an administrative o`icial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
� C' f: f-�7'Tl}��� �r
�
A[tach additional sheet if necessary)
Applicant's signatu
;�
� � ��7� City ac
c:�<zi3S
C " . OU
��1��9:1
OJjiCers:
John Mannifto
Jeanne Weigum
Michael Paymar
Ruby Hunt
June 26, 1998
Chair Gladas Morton
Saint Paul Planning Commission
City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
RE: Storm-Damaged Billboards.
Dear Commissioner:
Esecultue Ofrector
6rian 8ates
1985 Grand Aveni
Saint Paui, Mf( 55t0
6l2 690-967I
Pursuant to Zoning Code §66.408, Scenic Minnesota hereby
appeals the decisions contained in the June l0, 1998 letter from
Saint Paul Department of License, Inspection, and Environmental
Protection Zoning bianager Ms. Wendy Lane to Mr. Chris McCarver of
Universal outdoor, Inc. (attached).
Specifically: (1) we appeal the decision that Zoning Code §
66.301(2) applies to. the damaged billboards. We rely on §66.302
for this position,
(2) We appeal the decision that if g66.301(2) were to apply,
that it only applies to the sign structure and not the sign face.
We rely on §66.301(2)("such sign or sign structure").
(3) We appeal the decision that the sign £aces may be replaced
without a permit. We rely on §66.404 {"A�pplications for sign
and/or sign structure permits ...").
(4) We appeal the decision that replacing the sign face
without a permit is allowed by §66.405(1). We rely on §§66.404 and
66.405(1).
(5) We appeal the decision that the West Seventh billboards
nay be replaced or renovated at this time. We rely on Ordinance
97-1568 dated 2/11/98, as amended and the West Seventh/Fort Road
Federation application £or a special sign district.
By reference, I include my memorandums of June 2 and June 3,
1998 to Jane Prince and Wendy Lane, ny letters of June 4 and June
11, 1998 to Ms. Wendy Lane, and my letter o£ June 12, 1998 to Dir.
Robert Kessler. This appeal is accompanied by a check for the
appropriate fee as determined by the Planninq Commission.
Regard� �_
,
' �,_� i5-�
Brian Bates
cc: Chris McCarver, Robert Kessler, Wendy Lane, Be'tty Moran, Gayle
Summers, Kathie Tarnowski, Jane Prince, Dan Smith, Gerry McInerney.
�71
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
�
�
7�
�tq - �og�
�
CITY OF SAItiT PAUL
Sonn Coltm.Jr.. 31a}'or
June 10, 1998
Chris blcCarver
tiniversal Outdoor, Inc.
322� Sprin� S[. N.E.
hlinneapolis, MN 5�413
Re: Storm Damaeed Siens
Dear b1r. McCarver:
OFFICE OF LICE�SE, t\SPECTIO�S A`D
E>:VIR6\�SE`TAL PROT[CTI6�
Rnbrrt f."rsslrr. D��rctar
LOtiRY" PROFESSIO.�:aL
BL7LDL�"G
Sir.'tr 300
3i0St PetzrStrzrt
SaiutPau{dLmtasotc 5=l0?-fiA%
Tzlzphor.t 6:1-?h5-9,s.
Fc:simi(e' 611-?h6-9'��i
61?-'6h-7!�'
� John Hard�ti�ick and Dave Ken}�on from this office accompanied you las� Friday in the
inspection of the CTniversal advertisins sians that �cere clamaged from th� storm last
wzzk. They determined that the sians at 1142 �V. 7th St., 1184 W. 7th S[., 1209 W.
7�h St. and at the southwest corner of Ford Pkwy. and Kenneth St. sustained structural
damaQz. Thz repair of these siens will require a pzrmit. Before a permit can be issued,
please submit s[ructural plans for each si�n structure. In addition, you ��'ill need to
shoce• ho�c the repair is in compliance with Section 66.301(2) of the Saint Paul
LeQisla[i�'z Code, �chich reeulates nonconformina si�ns as foliows:
Shoutd such siQn or sisn structurz bz destro}ed by an}� means to an� eztent
of more than fifr}�-one (� I) percent of its replacement cost, it shatl not be
reconstructed excepi in conforn �cith th� provisicas of this cha�:�r.
�
Piease submit detaii�d information about the repair cost and the replacement cost of each
sien structure.
The roof mounted signs a[ 1520 Grand Ave. and at the southeast corner of Ford Pkwy.
and S. Cles•eland A�'e. were missinQ the poster panels but did not sustain an}• visible
s�ruccural damaoe. The replacemen� of poster panels is pzrmitted �ei�hou[ a permit,
pursuan� tu Section 66.40�(1) of the Sain[ Pau1 Leoislative Code. Ho�+e�'er, sian
structure_ �vithout a displa}� surface area arz considered "unsightly'� a�d must be
reposted or the sian struc[ure removed within 1� days accordin� to Section 66.201(3).
Please take ac[ion to repost them ��'ithin the time specified.
An} pzrson affected by the decision in the preceeding para�raph may appeal this decision
/
2�
Chris McCarver
June 10, 1998
Pa�e 2
to the plannin� commission w�ithin thir[y calendar days of toda}�'s date, accordin� to
Section 66.403(a). There is a filin� fee for such appzal; $22� for sinole fami!}' or duples
appellants, 5300 for mult-family appeltants and �350 for commercial, industrial or
institutional appellants.
Please contact me if } ou have any questions regardin� this matter.
Sincerz(}�,
����� �i-�—�_
�Vend}� L e
Zonino Mana�er
266-9031
�
c: Bett}' Moran, �l'est Se�•enth/Fort Road Federation, Districct 9
Gay 1e Summers, Hiahland Area Communitc• Council, District 1� �
Kathie Tamo«'ski, Macalester Groveland Communi[y Council, District 14
�Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
Dan Smith, Councilmember Harris' Office
Larry Soderholm, PED
Robert Kessler, Director
John Hardwick, ZoninQ Specia[ist
.
��
OjJlcers:
� John Mannillo
Jeanne Weigum
Michaet Paymar
Ruby Hun[
June 4, 1998
Ms. Wendy Lane
Zoning Manager
LIEP
Suite 310
350 St. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Damaged Billboards.
Dear Wendy:
�q-���`
EFeCt<UVe D1rec[or
8rian Ba[es
1985 Grand Avenu�
Saint Paul, Mi( 55I OS
612 690-967!
Thanks for the heads-up about the anticipated permit requests.
As I have said, any non-conforming billboard located in a district
in which billboards are not a permitted use, cannot be renovated.
Zoning Code g 66.302(a)(1).
All the damaged billboards are non-conforming and located in
� districts in which billboards are not a permitted use. Billboards
are not a permitted use in Highland and on Gzand due to the long-
standing provisions in those special sign districts which state
explicitly that billboards are not permitted in the district.� The
West 7th boards cannot be repaired at this time because of the
provision in the request for a temporary� sign district which
disallows repairs to boards in that community council district.
I ask that I and the respective community councils be made
aware of any developments, industry arguments, or department
decisions in this natter. I ask that we be allowed an opportunity
to respond to industry arguments. Please also advise what appeal
procedures we may use if LIEP decides to issue the permits.
Regards,
� C ��:.r--
Brian Bates
ps. What's up with the Business Review Council Letterhead?
cc: Jane Prince
� ' This language is in the text of the special district sign
plans which is incorporated by reference into the zoning code.
�_^
r :�.
s , :
_.; { <
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
�✓�
O(Ticcrs:
John Mannillo
Jeanne Weigum
Michael Paymar
Ruby tiunt
�
SCEIYIC MIlY1YESOTA
June 11, 1998
Ms. Wendy Lane
LIEP
Suite 310
350 St. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minneso�a 55102-1510
RE: Damaged Signs
Dear Wendy:
EseCUttoc Dlrector
Brian Ba;es
1985 a�and Ave�
Saint Paul, M^f 55
612 690-96�
This is in response to your letter of June 10, 1998 to Mr.
McCarver of Universal outdoor, Inc.
As I have stated in past memorandums and letters on this
subject, specifically the memorandum dated June 3, 1998 and the
letter dated June 4, 1998, the first consideration for the
reolacement or renovation of any damaged billboard is whether the
billboard is a permitted use in the zoning district in which it is
located. See Zoning Code § 66.302(a)(1). This provision
specifically includes restrictions in "a special sign district�
approved by the city council." Section 66.216(b) allows special
sign districts to have more restrictive provision5 tha� Chapter
66.
Both Grand Avenue and Highland have�special sign districts
approved by the City Council which specifically include the
statement that billh,oards are not permitted. The West Seventh/Fort
Road Federation has recently applied for a special sign district
pursuant to Ordinance 97-1568 dated 2/11/98, as amended. The
Federation's application specifically states that damaged
billboards shall not be repaired.
The billboards in Highland and on Grand cannot be "replaced or
renovated" because they are not a permitted use. Your letter of
June 10, 1998 not only allows the replacement and renovation of one
of the billboards in Highland and the billboard on Grand but seems
to encouraqe the replacement within 15 days. You allow and
encourage activity which seems to conflict with the zoning code.
Ordinance 97-1568 dated 2/11/98, as amehded, includes the
provision that any permits issued for the modification of any
existing billboard, a£ter a Community Council applies for a special
sign district and an objection thereto has been received by the
Director of LIEP shall be conditional. No permittee shall engage
in any construction, installation or work after an objection i�
lodged. Any construction, installation or work shall no
thereafter commence if the prohibitions contained in the special
c
��
qR - l�R\
� Ms. Lane
June 11, 1998
Page 2.
sign district application become e£fective as provided. one of the
provisions in the Federation's special sign district application is
that damaged billboards not be repaired.
Your letter of June l0, 1998 avoids both any discussion of
g66.302(a)(1) or the e££ect of the Federation's application for a
special sign district despite the fact I have raised these issues
in previous writings.
Be aware that Scenic Minnesota and/or the respective community
councils will appeal the decisions contained in your letter o£ June
10, 1998. Your office, and the City of Saint Paul, assumes
responsibility for any actions taken, and construction expenses
incurred, which result £rom a decision by your office which
violates the provisions of the zoning code. I suggest that your
office disaliow any repair, renovation, or work on any of the
damaged billboards �ntil this matter if finally resolved through
the appeal process.
Regards,
� � � `�
i
�
Brian Bates
cc: Chris McCarver, Universal outdoor, Inc+
Jane Prince
Dan Smith
Betty Moran
Gayle Summers
Kathie Tarnowski
Larry Soderholm
Robert Kessler
John Hardwick
�
��1
OJj7cers:
John Manniilo
Jeanne K'eiyum
Michael Paymar
ftuby tlim[
June 12, 1998
Mr. Robert Kessler
LIEP
Suite 310
350 St. Peter Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102-1510
RE: Damaged Billboards.
Dear Mr. Kessler: �
E.secaLtuc Dlrec[or
6rian Brtes
1985 Grand Aven
Saint Paul. Mil 55
6f2 690-9h�
I write to express concern over your department�s recent
decisions to allow the replacement of certain billboard "poster
panels" and to apply the 51% damage rule to other billboard
structures. These decisions coupled with pro-industry decisions ir.
the past seriously undermine the credibility of your department as
the, supposedly, impartial interpreter and enforcer of the zoning
code.
While the zoning code is somewhat convoluted, it is
decipherable_ Section 66.301 pertains to all nonconforming signs,
including nonconforming advertising signs. Whereas, section 66.302
is an exception to section 66.301 and pertains specifically to any
nonconforming advertising sign existinq as of the date of this
section (February 2, 1988] which is located in a zoning district
which does not permit advertising signs or which does not conforr�
to the size height and/or spacing requirements of this chapter."
Whenever a nonconforming advertising sign, existing in 1988,
is "replaced, relocated or renovated" for any reason that action
must comply with the provisions of §66.302. There is no
requirement in secti�on 66.302 that a certain degree of damage occur
before that section applies.
The billboards on Grand and in Highland are nonconforming both
because of spacing requirements and because they are in zoning
districts in which billboards are not a permitted use. (The
Highland and Grand special sign districts declaring billboards not
pernitted were enacted in 1985.) These billboards existed in 1988.
Therefore any replacement, relocation, or renovation of the
billboards on Grand cr in Highland nust comply with §66.302.
Whether the non-conforming billboards are to be "replaced,
relocated, or renovated" on the same or different zoning 2ot, th
first consideration oP §66.302 is that the zoning lot be within a
zoning district "in which advertising signs are a permitted use.
�
SCEIYIC MIIYIYESOTA
�
�tq - ��`� \
. Mr. Kessler
June 12, 1998
Page 2.
See §§66.302(a)(1) �and (b)(1). BilZboards located in zoning
districts in which billboards are not a permitted use cannot be
replaced or renovated. Such billboards can onZy be relocated in a
zoning district in which billboards are a permitted use. The Grand
and Highland billboards cannot be replaced or renovated.
But accept, £or the sake of argument, your staff's
interpretation that the 51� damage threshold in §66.301 must be
exceeded before g66.302 applies. Section 66.301(2) states:
Should such sign �r. sign structure be destroyed by any means
to any extent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its
replacement cost, it sha11 not be reconstructed except in
conformity with the provisions of thi5 chapter.
The 51% damage threshold applies to the "sign or sign structure."
The use of the disjunctive must mean that if 51% of the replacement
cost of the sign or 51% of the replacement cost of the sign
structure is exceeded the sign or the sign structure may not be
replaced except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter.
� Your staff has interpreted the 51� damage threshold to apply
only to the sign st�ucture and has allowed the replacement of the
sign faces at Grand and in Highland under an exemption designed to
allow "poster replacement and/or sign painting" without a permit.
§66.405(1). A sign face is not a poster.
�
These interpretations are illogical and, when coupled with
past failures to enforce�, give the appearance of a department
catering to the interests of the billboard industry rather than
protecting the public interest.
I would welcome any reaction.
Regards,
� �---�--_� / �
Brian Bates
� On April 28, 1997 you wrote a letter to Midwest Outdoor
Advertising statinc� Midwest had built a freeway billboard a�
Valdalia and I-94 21 feet hiqher than Midwest had specified ir
� their permit application and 21 feet higher than is allowed by the
Zoning Code. You told that company to get a height variance or
decrease the height. Midwest was denied the height variance lona
ago and yet the sign still stands.
�1
NOTES ON ST. PAUL STORM DAMAGE REPAIR COSTS
ELLER MEDiA COMPANY
1. Removal of hazards, securing structures and cleaning area immediately after the storm of May
30, on Sunday, May 31, 1998.
S
On Sunday ten Elier sign hangers worked ten hours each responding to the emergency conditions
caused by the damage to the storm the night before. Crews were immediately assigned to Highland
in St. Paut where 5 sign faces at 2 locations were damaged, and to sites in south Minneapolis
where faces and structures where left in hazardous condition by the storm. As work was completed
in Minneapolis the crews were rotated to assist the crew in Highland and to respond other damage
on W. 7th and at a site on Grand. By the end of Sunday ali crews were working in St. Paul.
The assignment to each crew was:
1. Respond to and eliminate any hazardous conditions created by the wind damage the
night before.
2. Stabilize and secure the structure, removing (often by cutting away) any damaged or
unsecured parts.
3. Clean up the area, removing any parts or other debris that had falien from the sign.
4. Move on to the ne>ct damaged location.
No repairs of the signs were attempted or completed. No signs in St. Paul were made usable or
returned to service as a result of the work done by the emergency crews on Sunday, May 31. All
the expense that day was labor. No rePlacement materials were in'stalled or permanent repairs
attempted or completed.
�
Eller crews spent approximately 70 hours in St. Paul that day securing, stabilizing and cleaning up
around our damaged signs. The crews were paid at an overtime rate of $44.40 per hour.
Our local crews were assisted in the cleanup at one St. Paul location, 1184 W. 7th Street, on
Wednesday June 3, by a three person contract Quantum crew from Chicago. The Quantum crew
spent 9 hours at this one location in St. Paui at a rate of $ 40.00 per hour.
The costs assigned to each location are provided on the Worksheet for that focation.
2. Cost of materials
Billboards constructed at the time and in the places affected in St. Paul typicaily had two
standardized elements and two custom elements. From front to back they are:
a. Trim. This the standardized "picture frame" around the sign face (see exhibit one). This
trim is now typicaily of fiberglass. The FORMETCO, INC. order acceptance provides the cost�
of our most recent purchase of trim kits (see exhibit two) the four pieces that make up the
frame and the assorted clips and fasteners.
��
�
�� � ��� \
Notes on St. Paul Storm Damage, Eller Media Company
� b. Sign face. This is also a standardized element (see exhibit one}. The faces are made of
interlocking paneis of light gauge steel that Eller assembles in its shop, brings compiete to
the site, and swings into place with a crane. Traditionally we have used vertical interiocking
panels, but now have switched to horizontal inter{ocking pane{s. The quotation for sign faces
from Tiffin Metai Products (exhibit three) provides the current cost of a sign face assembly.
c. Upper structure. This is the metal framing that supports the sign face. These are similar in
the materiais used (stock angle and channei iron and steel) but can be custom in design,
depending on when it was built, whether it is attached to the ground or is on a roof, and how it
rests on the roof or wali. Upper structures are a combination of verticai supports, often in the
shape of an "A" and horizontal stringers for stability.
The upper structure for the affected signs could have been fabricated in our shop or on site
from standard, typically salvaged, materiais. We have found no benefit in using identical
new material. The upper structure is assembled by standard bolts and weiding techniques.
Each of our crane trucks is equipped with gas and electric welding equipment and suppiies
and typically at least one member of each crew is a trained welder.
Because the upper structure is built of standard stock materials we as a practice keep a
stockpile of these materials (the long pieces) we have saivaged from signs we have retired.
We have salvaged materials on hand for all the proposed repairs described in the attached
June 19 letter (exhibits four and four a) firom our structural engineer. We will have no external
� cost for those materiais. If we had needed to purchase materiai we would purchase it from a
salvage yard. The salvage yards price the material by the pound rather than by the foot. To
avoid that calculation, we requested quotes for new material from South St.Paul Steel
Supply Co. Exhibit five provides their quotes for new materiai. These are the values used in
our estimates. Salvaged material is typically available for purchase for one third the cost of
new material.
The design and fabrication of the upper structure is the primary difference between the "new
identical structure" and the "new replacement structure" values on the worksheets. If we were
building a new sign, we would use a new unitized design and fabrication system for the
upper structure.
d. Foundation. This supports the upper structure. These are custom to each site. With the
exception of one member at one site, these elements sustained no damage during the storm
{see exhibits four and Tour a), and therefore no repairs are proposed to these elements.
3. Replacement Cost
Two costs for rebuilding the entire structure are provided. First, the cost of buiiding an
identical new structure, same materials, same design (identicai structure). The basis for
these costs is our testimony in condemnation hearings. Given the choice, we would not
choose to rebuild an identical structure. We would use different materials and a different
i design (replacement structure). The basis for this cost is the cost of a recently instailed
� structure in Minneapolis (exhibit six)
2 ,�
STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET
ELLER MEDIA COMPANY
LOCATION Ford Pkwy & Cieveland DISPLAY 2 Poster Faces
A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS
1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS (1}
ft angle iron @ per ft
ft "C" channel @ per ft
2. SIGN FACE AND TRIM (2)
2 sign faces @$499 per face
2 trim kits C��220 per face
B. LABOR
24 hours @ $22.00 per hour
COST OF REPAIRS
Estimated cost of new identical structure(4)
Estimated cost of new replacement structure(4)
Estimate of cost of securing, stabilizing and clean up
on May 31(3),i4 hrs af $44.00 per hour
(1) See note 2c
(2) See notes 2 a& b
(3) See note 1
(4) see note 3
Ail costs are direct costs
none
none
$998.00
$440.00
$528.00
$1966.00
$12,230
�29,500
$616.00
�
�
�
�
�t`t - t���
�
STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET
ELLER MEDIA COMPANY
LOCATION 1820 Grand DISPLAY 2 Poster Faces
A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS
1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS (1)
ft angle iron @ per ft
ft"C" channel C� per ft
2. SIGN FACE AND TRIM (2)
.
�
2 sign face(s) C$499 per face
2 trim kits @$220 per face
L�
24 hours C$22.00 per hour
COST OF REPAIRS
Estimated cost of new identicai structure(4)
Estimated cost of new replacement structure(4}
Estimate of cost of securing, stabilizing and clean up
on May 31(3) 2 hrs at $44.00 per hour
(1) See note 2c
(2) See notes 2 a& b
(3) See note 1
(4) See note 3
All costs are direct costs
none
none
$998.00
440.00
$528.00
$1966.00
$12, 230
$29,500
$88.00
��
Tiffin's 24 and 30-Sheet Poster
Panels, vertical or horizontal, are
made of the finest steel, meeting
the highest mill requirements.
Tiffin's special engineering and
design offers speedy assembly
and easy erection and instailations
on-site.
Tiffin Posiers can 6e
completely assembled on the
floorofyourshop,orthe
ground, on-site and quickly
and easily lifted into piace on
yaur structure.
-��� �
� -�- c�v�
A smooth, continuous surf2ce is formed
with Tiffin's Rib-Locking or interlacking
sections. Tiffin has always been the fore-
runner of newdesigns and innovations in
outdoor advertising to improve appearance
and life, 2nd make installation faster and
simpler.
RitrLock Sections fit instantly with Tiffin
Sprits. Tiffin sections, parts and hard-
ware are interchangeabie with your
. . .. . ... - .existinginuer�tories...
�
_�
PLAN VIEW
�24'-0� eign face
.. � � 8_O• � 8 • � 4_O•-
frame A� column pipe ��me "B'
� � ^I
0
�
� Raaf f
m Iadtler
0
cl
II
n
�
p
�._I
Column
n^
9 9
c
� n
b
0
Undieturbed yp0 ps(
aandY 9raM or beH
Drilied coMiete
/
/ I I 1
1 I
�I _ /
/
tail
�1' '.d�� �.
I. .. . J �
Aa' �i �
� � a-� �
'� .. p Y
�I,
1 I �
' � d � �
i
i
i i�
�. ' i �
r '' i'
i Qi
�. I.�
� i f.
?�1 � ° I�
__i
Found
dpmeter
(ses sehedule)
�vanaN
�`l • ��`� \
E
° e.
b
e
.� _ _�
�
m
�-
ha�
5 ts
roar walfc�voy
7' nng plote
I V I I v
i i
g` I I 5/i6
o I I
`a I i
� ' I ";
L 1
1/4V ' 1' ring plote
Column pipe
w x L
80 45'
w=t+5/16 3'max
L = 4't diamater —�
w = widM of weld
L = la�gth of weld
t = wall thiekness of
Lower column pipe SPLJCE DEfAI�
COLUMN PIPE & FOUNDATIOt
OVERALL HEIGHT COLUMN PIPE
0'-0' - 42'-6" 24"0 x .375'
42'-7" - 47'-6' 30'6 x .3i2"
47'-7' - 59'-6' 30"0 x .375'
59'-7' - 72'-6" 36"4 x .375'
��/� 72�-7' - 81'-6' 36"0 x .4�6"
= e walkway /
i . e '
i
}`' O m
' G
� O
iH
`
�
�
�
-`.�� •_ � �: " Y -
_ - _ :.�
' ' O
N D
:� N
�
f `•
. .. . :k�i _ i, _ " .
0
�
�
E
a
w
O
�
�
.£-,L L
.0-.8
`V'
��
��
,�
� ��
��
r�
��
��
��
! i
� a �
'�` a
v
; c a
a
� � �
� a
Q Q 3
'O � i a.
G Y p
_ . __ . _.� . . .,.-- �'---
�b-, l l-
�
W
5
Q..
U �
F �
Y
O� O
� �
�
�
RR -1��\
�: -:.
_ .
_- :-'(,
_ �
_, � �
�'� .
;� �
. am aE �
�;`�it, �':. � $
- � E £
- Q. Q . �
_ ' m
':� m �
' , I 6 �� . � � °�'
�' � .� �:- -' ;t . t� n .
' t�
y :r _ _
I i
�1.�.�' . . . .
r:d:i _' �� , , a' �
'_" ._. .. _C,� $
- L N
m �
�� N
_ ,x_ ' �
a
"i:'lc: �? - . ' v,; �S "
�
��e':: ' ' . .
�>✓
�,'?� �[.�= � :.,' �', ,.:-. ` .
"'.iir`F,'� �
s
�C
3p
O
p9
G p
�
r7i E
�
g
a d
.°. u
� ° w
.°.. Q
o
� 9 �
GCId� � M
M '
Y1
i
� � n
� � J
�
•�1 OIXBM
�
�
_ 3
$�' Olx9M
F
.8
eoo; u .0-,Zl
�' w s
�. 3 � a D
a `o a. �a �` a
�a s ^u aa
pe O XU \
NL 3 N �
�g. I ^ ��
,1� " ��
I � N 0
8
N
M
0
9
\
h
�
N
�I \
�
3
i;
c
,8 � �
�o
,9 � �
� o
oM�
Y� �
o'p3
3 -� 3
J
� Q
��
r
S p
9 N
�O
w
N P
c
_ _ _ — ,��
ty
�
MAY-21-19�8 13�20 FROM FORMETCO,INC.
P.o_ Pox 1989
2963 Pleasant Hill Ad_
Duluth, Ga 30095
Date: ti5/21/98
F O R M E T C O
OFFICE:
TO 16128697082 P.01
I N C.
EAX
GRDER ACCEPTANCE
Sold �o=
�LLE� L�fED�A
3225 SPRING ST NE
�fINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413
ATTN: Tom Klees
612-80"9-190G Fax:612-"oEi9-7082
JP
770-476-7000
fi00-367-638�
k300-239
'770-497-9014
� ryr � r � No L Ax
sn�L Lo: �
ELLER MEDIA
3225 SPRING �T IvE
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55913
ATTN: TOM KLEES
612-869-1900 Fax:67_2-869-7082
Sales Order Order Date Cust No. SLS P.O. Number Shi.p Via
86511 OS/21l98 ELL023 1 Sh�p Via
-----------------
---------------------------------------------�
Ord Qty Stem NLwzber / Description Unit Price U/M Ext. Price
-----------------------------------------------
5 ^ *90 FXMP7 **Parent Item �
_n Kit*' 5145.55 EkCH 5727-75
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIiI WH=TE ,
10 90-FXWV
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRI� WH::TE VERTICAL
20 90-FX:vH
FORMA 300 TRIM WHITE HORIZONTAL
50 *90-FX-TRIM **Parent Item in KitF*
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM BRACfCET
90 90-fx-trim-bkt
FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM BRACKET
360 10-32501
TRIM SCREwS - #14 ZP
81 1Q-95102
HOOK BOLTS/NUTS 2
5 10-21C90
F-109 FORMATIC SPRITS
5 F10-21092 **Parent Item in Kit**
r-1_09 Z HADiGEf2 PLATES & BOLTS/NUTS
S 10-210921
F-109 Z HANGER PLP.TES WZTHOUT B/N
$1.79 EACH
SC.26 EACF;
$:34.55 EAC�±
$3.10 EACH
�
$161.10
$Z1.0'c
S17Z.7J
$15_SC
����
L � / ^ j
�� �
s
��
Page: �
� / JU%. 6.1998 1�41PM TIFFIN METRL PRODUC�� _/ � r
�-,t�
/ i
�
�
�
�
� � ` . t�
METAL PRODUCTS
450 W ali Street, Tiffin, Ofiio 44883 /(419) 447-8414
Sa.� • 9�
May 12, 19�8 � � < �� �,�
�CX �J
Mr. Tom Klees
ELLER MEDIA COMPANY
3225 Spring Street, N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55413
Deaz Tom,
l0 T"�
,
�
Phone:#6i2-869-1900
Fax: r6i2-869-7082
v�a ,�
���� ����
It was a pleasure speaking with you! Per your request, we are pl�ased to provide� our
quotation for the following:
�,2' x 24' HORT70NTAL F'�.(`E�LESS TRIM� TO INC U1�G_
(8) Each 18" x 24'S-1/2" Horizontal Sections
(3) Each Sprits ,_ _ -------_-�`
(2'� Each 2" Hook Bolts �
� —_
(4) Each Hanger Plates �
TOTAL PER �f�.�„E �499.25
(4) Each #95-158 Comer �:tpport Brackets f9r Fiberglass Trim $2.€,�)/Ea.ch
(14) Each #1026 Brackets $1.�'E,!Each
*F.O.B., Tiffin, Ohio
*Ta�c not inciuded
Tom, if you have any questions, don't hesitate to oontact me arrgGt at 1-800-53 ?• 0983.
We are looking tozwazd to worldng with your glant again.
Sincerely,
TIFFIN METAL PRODUCTS
��
Peg Wenner
Sales Manager/Outdoor Products Division
CREATIVE DESIGN W I�AETAL FABRIC'�""IOP!
,1 _I
N0.176 P.3 ��
WATS 1-800-537-0983
FAX 1-41 q-447-8512
�� ���.
a��(��i
� �/ , �
3�. E;?
.� �� .
�
)
.�
.
F
e � � r � .�� � x6
� �
P - � � � � �
, # 19� z ....,.�. ., : �
��r
'- .I E 7 ` s
14
16
�7
2
�'
r1
b �
F
������
..
���
3 �. ���,`�,
G
aL. �I.... �!`� F�...-i>.I , 'I AIc .....aa\� � �1
- ro R s' i \ \
�� � �
a p 1.-° F � �. �
.s' , ;" " J
� p �' /i
e � / •
�� ae
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRIC'I'S
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Q
f
SL7NRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD
HA7.EL PARK HADEN-PROSPERITY HILLCREST
WEST SIDE
DAYTON'S BLUFF
PAYNE-PHAI.EN
NORTH END
THOVfAS-DALE
SUMMIT-UiVIVERSITY
WEST SEVENTH
COMO
HAMLINE-MIDWAY
ST. ANTHONY PARK
MERFZIAM PARK-LEXINGTON HAML.INE-SNELLING HAMLI�TE
MACALESTER GROVELf�ND
HIGHLAND
SUMi�fIT HILL
DOWN`fOWN
ZON{NG FILE Q�'�
�
3 0`O���O��'Q r �O�O't�'�'��4p� �M�r�:��
� f k k� G k�� � V
--- AVE.
� 1 k� e�f
j€� Cl�7
^ W —
—'
�F�6���oC! D
F . � : . e
�
o �a
1,2
av
O'Oi0�0
�
a
e Q
d
.•—
�'; �
.
•
•
, � �,
.i �
� • '
• '� ' �
��
• •
a • •
• • ± •` • • •
( s . e . • s ` • • • •
.� ,�� � • �
■;
�.'�� . � � '� �� �
�
i
� i '
����� C�`'���'a =� ,
��� . . �
; '__�
�11,�� �l��.
•
_' _ 1 �
�����: �I
.
.
♦
� Q �
� O �4p
16
15 O
� ` �.d�
/ P�B
V
a �s
^ ,4
°°°�I I°Q
�! i
1 P, t
� 1 I I
� �
'°HILLCREST
t �� t
•
'�BaNLAND
�\
��.
.�
'r ; C> �,� • .
'- F:
j"r..
���
� •,'r r t�
t - .,
z �: � r ,., r
t - --"�" � ,
w �'�' ?��
z ' r- ��:
z <.e �., c�.'
Y +, � �'-
�'� ' f'i
: �.
I:
' � � f"-. .
I� ._
..�. '�
_/�/� . . _.______ ____
. ..______ ____ _ ,_
�.��f��-�"���"��_ ' � �_ VV ���� -�..�1�. _ �_l_L��... �
[ _
(" :�O`�"_ �\ � c.:..o.n..-_._. /.l':I:I�Ci$.:i_%i,__...� �
'_'__ � '___ ___'"__'__ --_____
��;�_ \�— )S -- ` _.. {,,;��;:i,;:, ..:���;::�(,-�; -f, -' �i - . �
I>i.I
F �: � �. ,. .
. i:" [):o : ._ � � � ,. . . - t
�
'_"_ _
�,
"'___-_'______ i., .: . . ' _ '_"__"______ '' Cq i: �;fillJ ;, r�. _":
"'�:- ' iL"J �:i���� �.. � .., �:. I . .
� � I �.- I , . _ "
^'' y '_ . _. ' � ) l;t.11�llll �_, � v '
'__-._ ______'_ ""___"_'_'___- . . ._. � �'
��
_ _' __ ' "___'_ � '
i I �iV
. .. . . ... . �` V
` �. .
I • •�• • • • • • • • r � • • � �
•
f
• . • . • . • • •
�
�
�'i°.
e
�
���
.
OB��n�
���
��� • • ���■� • • • � • � • • �� • • ��� �
— - . . =-+a�� s.
lI� - �
• • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . � .
,. ,.
���!�� • ��������
"""' ` ���
` ':� �1 3 . ��_��1�1 �' '%
, , -�
�
� � �i� ��� �..� �����'
�,�
�-- _---� C
O OIO
0
�u�� ��e���ee e����� .. .. --�
... ... ... ......... �...::..easaa���.
�� : .
� _
- `F':y' —_-__ — _ --_ 9
1 �_�__
�,�>����:;F,�,, �_ Sce � c �t1 N ---
� LEG=.:�
�'U;�POS�_��- -- °•s�� zoning d�slricE t��und
� - .. C / _.
.- �- i�
,�
F,__ ° �+i [) I t -- rlT_///// s �,� "� ErG,�—i;. ���
_
_ , - - .
.
t � T � -�
... ,
---- --- -- - '
-- -� ------------ � � •_ _ ,.._n :
p � , n ,
i_ i :., _ O I i'f -------., t; F. . --.� �---- `� ' _ '
Ufi° f?'tTl�� ti n
f COiiln�._:��'�
� �
S � �� �i �� �'.';O f1:11�1.. _ �,
—� �; J �
I Q t.c. I:7:iU5i'i:' I
�i�.-_.. __, �', yQ mui:i�;� t�����1:� V v2c2^, I
�
�'��
✓'l
`'^w �• ' I
� �vv�SN/ ` - :.
' A� �•:
���..
t.:' y �P.'. � .'
�,�� r
w, ,.. �; ,
� .__
��, C
� �__��
_.:..,. a/��'
���
. . ... �..�.,.
,�:
h�
: � �r'�ar-.c
_1
�
r>s�E , ��8��
uM �MREv
��
i� - _ � . �t---
� � �►�. �at � .
. • • -
; �RE�� :��;
a..; :
;. "j�
�__..;
�
� 1-- �
` �'"'�:a ' . - f. - � ^'• " .
.� ��• " '' - ' :• . " - - i
c ''. °�' - s . . • ' '
��"fi� -r' .
..� __�' �;;: .- ' �". •,
-:�� •. . .. .:
;�-:i t - ° �,� �:�-=
f' !1 f ~ �+`, �' f 4 �J� ..,.�
�S �.)... • G ' � � •
K�
ry .♦ M� -
.�' m& �-''� y � � � : . .
� \ 4
� *. 1� ������ f � '�`'{��'_ �•
1 J
. '' � '� ! 1 . ' � /� N.' �\-
.^+ , � .� ry '^Y
w.;� �s _ ;_ ' . � �� . �� .
, ^ ' �
�-.��'
T ' y .R,.+ 7 r-.'^"' ��y`:_ � .ry � .
�'��] ,. `i. o- �F �� !- . '�r'� .
k
� . . . � . ' . i ' ' ' i �
� - _ _> _ •-�.r,�_...