The URL can be used to link to this page

01-250CouncII File #(;�— 0`1 S C'� � Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 2 Whereas, Eller Media Company [Eller] submitted applications to the City's Office of 3 License, Inspections and Environmental Protection for building permits to repair seven storm 4 damaged advertising signs on three sepazate shuctures: the first site is located on the rooftop of 5 Bill's TV, 1184 West Seventh Street; the second site is on the rooftop of Checkers Auto Parts, 6 1209 West Seventh Street; and the third site is located at the east end of the rooftop of the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Highland Village Shopping Center, 2014-2018 Ford Parkway; and Whereas, by letter dated October 17, 2000 the city's Zoning Manager denied Eller's applications; and Whereas, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.408(a), Eller duly filed an appeal of the Zoning Manager s decisions to the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Connmission]; and VJhereas, the Coxnmission's Zoning Committee conducted a public hearing on January 4, 2001 where all interested persons were given an opporiunity to be heazd and, at the close of the heazing, moved to lay the matter over to January 18, 2001 in order to obtain additional information about the damage to the signs on the Checkers Autopart site, information on the Highland Village signs and information from Eller on its clean up activities; and Whereas, the Zoning Committee reconvened on January 18, 2001 to consider Eller's application with the aid of the information requested and thereafter moved to recommend that Eller's appeal be denied; and Whereas, the Zoning Committee's recommendation was presented to the Commission on January 26, 2001 and the Commission decided to deny Eller's appeal based on the foilowing findings and conclusions as set forth in its Resolution O1-08, adopted January 26, 2001: "1. A major windstorm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to homes and trees and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, City inspectors from LIEP checked the sites of damaged billboards owned by Eller together with Chris McCarver of Eller. Although the public hearing produced some controversy about how much emergency repair work Eller did without building permits vsunediately following the storm, there is little disagreement between Eller and the City about the extent of the damage to the signs. Eaght sign faces are involved in this appeal: six of the sign faces were completely blown away; one sign face has a small section remaining; one sign face is intact, but slightly bent. The roof-top bed frames or angle-iron upper O�-a.5o 2 � 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 shuctures for all eight sign faces received some damage, though only one was damaged so severely that the vertical structure was disassembled and removed. 2. The billboard structure on top of 1184 W. Seventh ("the Bill's TV boazd") was a V-shaped structure with rivo 300-square-foot sign faces before the storm. In the storm both faces blew off and the upper structure for the west-facing boazd was bent and subsequently removed. Now the bed framiug and the angle-iron upper structure for the east-facing boazd aze all that remain. Aithough the west- facing board has neither a sign face nor an upper structure, Eller applied to rebuild it as well as replacing the east-facing si� face (that is, the interlocking metal "poster panels" upon which outdoor advertising messages can be glued or tied.) 3. The billboard structure on top of 1209 W. Seventh ("the Checker Auto Parts board") is a V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foot sign faces that face toward the east and one 300-squaze-foot sign face that faces toward the west. This west-facing structure still has iYs poster panels, but the angle-iron frame is somewhat bent. The sign face is illuminated at night even though there is no advertising message. One of the east-facing signs has a remnant-about one-fourth of iYs poster panels; the other has no poster panels. The angle-iron upper shuctures remain. 4. The two W. Seventh locations are nearly across the street from one another. They are zoned B-2 and are on a mixed use arterial street with businesses and housing on both sides of W. Seventh. Most of the housing on W. Seventh consists of small apartment buildings. The abutting properties on the neighborhood streets are predominantly single family, with a scattering of duplexes. 5. The billboard structure on top of 2014-2018 Ford Parkway ("the Highland Village boazd") is V-shaped with one 300-square-foot sign face that faces toward the east and two 300-foot sign faces that face towazd the west. No poster panels remain. The angle-iron upper structures remain. In addition to the billboard structure that is the topic of this zoning case, which is toward the east end of the block, there are two other biliboazd structures on top of the Highland Village Shopping Center. On the west end is a 672-square-foot billboard and in the center is a wide-angle V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foot boazds. 6. The Ford Pazkway billboard stnxcture is on the rooftop of the block-long Highland Village strip commercial building, which is also zoned B-2 and houses several restaurants and retail businesses. The Highland Village Shopping Center is part of a large neighborhood shopping district. The surrounding land uses are predominantly commercial with a church and parochial school on the next block to the south and a public playground on the block to the east. 45 46 7. At the time of the building permit application, all of the billboards in question 47 were legal nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Bill's TV board 48 was too high (over 37.5 feet). The Checker Auto Parts boards were too big (more 49 Page 2 of 5 i d�_asa 2 than 400 sq. ft. on the east-facing side). Both were in a temporary special sign 3 district for the West Seventh neighborhood where a moratorium prohibited new 4 billboazds or modification of existing ones until it expired on January 8, 2001. 5 The Highland Village boards were also too big (more than 400 square feet on the 6 west-facing side) and too close to the other billboards atop the shopping center 7 (less that 660 feet); moreover, they were located in the Highland Village Special 8 Sign district, where billboazds have been a prohibited use since 1985. In 9 November 2000 the City adopted a new ozdinance prohibiting new billboazds 10 anywhere in the city, which made all e�cisting billboards throughout the city into 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 nonconfomiing uses. 8. On June 22, 2000, two years after the storm, the City received building pernut applications from Eller Media Co. to repair the damaged billboards. The City's Zoning Manager asked for and received Eller's cost esrimates for repairing the signs. On August 18, the Zoning Manager wrote to Eller to extend the timeline for action on the applicarion an addirional 60 days and to ask them to meet with the City's struchual engineer to verify costs and to make sure the proposed work would be acceptable. As a result of the meeting, Eller submitted additional documentation. 9. Eller's cost information was prepared in detail and showed that, although the sign faces were blown away, the cost of repairs would be sigrvficantly less than the cost of building new billboards of the same type. For the different signs their repair cost estimates ran from 14 percent to 22 percent of the cost to construct a new identical billboard. These costs included material, labor, and equipment needed for construction. 10. During the two yeaz period in question, the City was actively developing a new policy and a new ordinance to regulate billboards. Through the wark of a Legislative Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and a ballot referendum, the City Council was moving toward a consensus that the city's 600- plus billboazd faces were too many and that reasonable measures should be taken to begin to reduce the number over a period of yeazs. By mid-November of 2000 the Council adopted an ordinance to prohibit any new billboards in the city. 11. On October 17, 2000, the Zoning Manager sent a letter to Eller Media Co. denying the building permits. Section 66.301(2) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code says: "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any extent of more than fifly-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." The terms "sign" and "sign structure" are separately defined in the code and have sepazate meanings; the conjunction "or" is explained in the code to mean that the items may apply singly or in combination. The Zoning Manager concluded that for billboards the sign face is the same as the sign itself. She reasoned that this language creates a two-hurdle test, that if either the sign or the sign structure is damaged beyond 51 percent, then any repairs must conform to all of chapter 66 and, in particular, to section 66.302. The information Eller supplied about the Page 3 of 2 sign faces (that is, the signs) indicated that seven of the eight faces were 100 a\-aS O 3 percent destroyed. 4 5 12. The City staff's interpretation of this two-hurdle test draws from a 1999 6 ruling by the Rauisey County District Court in a previous case about some other 7 billboards damaged in the same storm. The judge wrote in his opinion: 9 "The distinction made by the [zoning] provision is between changing the 10 advertising content to be placed on the panels of a biilboazd and changing or 11 replacing the panels themseives. The first is pemutted without a pernut. The 12 second constitutes a renovation of the billboard and requires a permit." 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 "Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent with the ordinance's underlying policy. That policy umnistakenly contemplates the removal of nonconforming biilboards in special sign districts [Grand Avenue and Highland Village] over time. A billboazd without face panels ceases to function as a billboard. It lacks a billboazd's essential functionality. It is nothing more than a collection of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a billboard ceases to function as a billboard, the policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permit before the billboard's functionality can be restored." 13. On November 15, 2000, the City received the subject appeal by Eller Media Co. arguing that the only relevant question for issuing a permit should be whether each billboard, taken as a whole with both its sign face and sign structure, was damaged beyond 51 percent of its replacement cost. This is the test for nonconforming signs found in Section 66.301(2) of the Zoning Code. Eller azgued that the City Council, subsequent to the district court ruling cited above, determined that Sectaon 66.301(2) was the applicable provision. Eller claimed, fiu•thermore, that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Section 66301(2) as setting up rivo hurdles was a violation of commonly recognized rights held by nonconforming land uses_ 14. After consultation with the Assistant City Attorney at the Zoning Committee's meetings, the Planning Commission agreed with Eller's claim that the 51 percent damage test is the relevant and primary section, but then disagreed with Eller's claim that the terms "si� or sign shucture" must be read as a single unit referring to a billboard face and iYs supporting shucture together. The Zoning Administrator's interpretation was reasonable: if either the billboard face ar the billboazd structure is damaged greater the 51 percent, the pernut application must meet additional requirements of the code, and specifically, Section 66302. Eller chose not to address not these other provisions. Moreover, the Zoning Adniinistrator's interpretation of the code was consonant with City policy on billboards and with the discussion in the district court ruling." Page 4 of 5 1 Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64300(k), Eller O�-2-5� 2 duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Coxnmission and requesting a hearing 3 before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; 4 and 6 Whereas, Acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislauve Code §§ 64.206 - 64208a public 7 hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on Wednesday, Mazch 7, 2001 where all 8 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 Conunittee and of the Commission, does hereby Resolve, to affum the decision of the Commission in this matter having found no error in the Commission's facts, findings or procedures and to adopt the findings and conclusions of Commission as contained in Commission resolution O1-08, dated 7anuary 26, 2001; and be it Further Resolved, that the Eller's appeal is hereby denied; and, be it Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Eller, the zoning manager and the Commission. Requested by Department of: sy: Form Approved by City Attorney 8,.: -�.�.� �✓G�w�,..�- 3-� y-o t Apprwed by Mayor £or Submission to Council By: By: by Mayor: Date ` \ ` oNy� S 4 . ` Adopted by Council: Date �\� 3pfy � Adoption Cextified by Council Secretary BY� �� - . T��r-�-� �s � � � � �� 6L� � �� ,� � I � D�ARTM6V�lOFPICFJCOUNCIL � � � � DnrEU��MrEO, '�. ' � , , , , , T D, ,�, .��Y�.e��i � _ � � ,z��a �4 zow� G�2EE1�'�HEE �T 'Ndr 1 � O� $ � .. �. �. � 0 ' COMACTP62SON,8�PHONE r mrmr�-a�e R.�k�u�-w'. �� i,�'an,�4�p�+i �,., �� W eA�s'�� rFl ,dq� wi rs:i_i�JiJOiii�a.�smo� '�; �ii , , , , � „ i.�„ 4 , ��Conncilmewlier, Cble�m2n� 2'66�=8620ti � " oaM,�rowccraR� �� 'crcccucz, ,' ' ' " �� MUSlBEON�COUNCILAGENDA�BVN?tA . � ; .r ,� ��, � ,. , , � i � ' � ' � �March�`14,��200i�(Suspeneion} � � � �� .' r �' , �� ' �rnv.,,oaEV i ,�,ucruaa� � � , , , , � � , � , , , , � ' , � � ROUIING , ' � ' � � � ' ' � ' , , , , ��' '�NeIICILLSErtVICFSOYt ��N/Y1C1111.�W�LGf6 N 1C • ' � � r�`mltl4rtASMiMrt1 � �� ' � � � , , � � TOTAf � # OF S1GIrYATURE PAGES' �� '' � � (GLJP ArL LOCA�ONS FQF� SIGNATUREy�, � � , �oa a�uFSrm � MemoxiaTiz3ng City,Council,action taken,on March 7, Z001, denying the','appeal o� $ller. Media C'ompan� fxom 'a ,decision of tfie Planning Co�ission �pholding,'the Zon3ng Administratox` ' � decisiou�to��'de�y tfie 6uilding p'ermits,fo��,repair �o� s,torm damaged�a3vertis"ixcg'�signe.�,,' �� „ � „ " � � � 1� J' , � RECAMMENDATIONApProve',CA or ,ejectfR) „ . , [usoxa�sertvteECOx[awe,�sKUSi�wgw,tten�wiYUw�neQU¢aqxs: , � '� � ��.��kiasL,�P�tmarec'rqdaed�maeracanqactr°rm�ga�rnren�� ''� � u �� . '� PLANNINGCAMMISSION �. � ' � � `!�S `��,' t�o `' '� , � �.� ` , O i - ' 'Cl8COk4A1fTTEE� ' ' � � � � ��F1estMCpn�idfirme�ertieenaaly� �. , ' ��'�GMLS � ECAM ' ER'�IC M�53lON , � ' ' vES ".,, No � '� : '; ' � �' . � �� " � � 3:�DOestlnapei,sdJRmP�asfdlnotndmal�YO��M'�YarteMa2YemWuYee?,� � ' YES, ," NO , ' . , , , � � � . � ' , , . �. 4 �Islltispered4frma , . � . ' � � r' k , � , � � �� , � � 'YES , � NO ` +,' � � � ' � i � � � . � � � � F�IamaYYe&�al5xefsoies�arahesheetaal �attachto9re�n�slicet � � � , i BLEMISSUE.OPP012TUNittI�^��.�f.When.Whe�e:'WhY1 " , �� ' ' �� ;, � � „� � .. � NITUQING PRO . , , _ , ' ' � � � ' � ' , � � , � , ' , � �� . � .. „� � „ � , ^ �, , � �, „�,, �, ,, ,,, .,,�,�,� - , , , ' -�', � � , � � , . , � , , , � � � , , � i �ri„ „ � ' , i ' ' , ' ' ' ' ' i � � � , � � , . , , � , ' , ' ,. ' , ' �� ADVHNTAGES IFAPPROI�� , ' , � �' , , - � , ., � � i , „ . , „ '�""" , �."'�.y"`i'� S ""— �. ..�'::b�.'�:'�,,,,,.,.•°'�' ' , , �....w�...�. � , � � � . ""�-, ". �• �,�;, � ; � , � , �, ,� W... � ,u � , � „, . _a. ,,:, .', , ' � � � ' :, .r;., ,.�°'�� "'�. . .Sx'�""'�'i�x",y" ��-.�...! . �`'„�- , . . ., , ... . � �� ' � , , , <�r �,,�� i I,..��, i �.' , , i �, , �,' � � , ' v :,.�� , � : . � �,; , ,,.. �„ , ., _ ,�t .�.. � � � � I ..J � � �� ,�� . ,� ,..i � �, . , � , � � � � , � , ' DtSA�VAfItAGE I�APPROVED � r � ' i � � � � � , , ' _ � , ,. � � . , . ' � �. ' � , i � , , , , � � , � � � � � . �� ' � � � � i �, � � . , „ , � .'� , ' ,�,,' ' ,. � s � OIS4�YANTNGE9,IFNO7APPRpVEO , � � , � � „ . , , � ' , . , , � � � „ � , . � �, � B�'tlN�ry{LI�I�IT� 1�7",''6d"�I,ix i W�: '{d '' �w u, ' r ,�, ' . , ,� q Y rM ,_'W ..q'tls�YP . ,. . . . �,' � , � , I � I,kl N�`�t'pdC'Y�,IN'M�2'NYMI� V^'�'s+�ntirnd i�u�I�m�maHan�,'urmmne�rl� w�ciini�w«.�w� rr �u i,u. a��,a,� . �� , �, , , .. ..vmnwwNp p,'rl�eiuNNiM'iWYeIY�MI�'I(�IAM'�iINP19E151PY�Nl�p1�9$�I�I��'�'Im��^�fp��fN'�ilvb°�or � � ALAMO[INrOFTRANSACTIONS � , . '� �COSTRtEVFNGE81106ETID(�dRf�ONE) ' ' � " '' " .Nd, , � � , , � , . I ! r � ' , '. „ '�" ,' �� , , � � � , f �„ d . WNDItl650URC� , . � � � ,ACTNITYNIiI�'�R � r� � � . FlNNJCWLWFORMnTON(oWWN) � � . � �' :��„ ti I Il�ly �y �fy„I,'�, I t ItI I [17�d,' IGlttk^ m� 'yT1{ I',4 I�p'1` I'b711 , Y'a::�b I-�I I4,nT 1'. � Y i� �� '', � � �� ' ' '0 .S.'�J�I�Wta.�rVd"M.�"dv�RYl'�Y}�Ir�+�'�i�Gfl4'C7MM1�IqtlI�f�Mlltl�l'JItl81i'el@,�Io-ILiLTY.61'E54�%�'.IDroCIY��1,IalGId9�I�l,dIl�ulk�IC�w"�"Y.fiIL)�'14%Y�F .Id„ihV'+k,�,� ' , ' � , . , � , , , � , � , � � ; � � , ... � � , � , , . , , , � � . � , � ' ' , � � , � � � �' � ' ' � � � � . I . ,, � � ', � � i. � � . . �, . .�, ... . � �,,, , � i ... �, i . ��{�'i� � .: i i ._ I,.. a � �.� . _. � �-asL� Interdepartmental Memorandum CITY OF SAINT PAUL DATE: Mazch 14, 2001 TO: Council Member Coleman FROM: Peter Warner, CAO RE: Resolution memorializing decision of the City Council to deny the appeal by Eller Outdoor Advertising, Inc. from a decision of the Planning Commission upholdiag the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny Eller's building permit request to repair storm damaged advertising signs. City Council Public Hearing Date: March 7, 2001 Attached is the resolution memorialiZing the Councii's decision in the Eller Media appeal matter. At its March 7, 2001 session, the Councii moved to deny Eller's appeal as it could fmd no error in the Plamiiug Commission's review of the matter. The Council also moved to adopt as its own the Planning Commission's resolution and the findings and conclusions contained therein. Please introduce this resolution under suspension today if at all possible. Thanks. PW W 1��► 3-1`c-a � DEPARTMENT OF PLANI�'ING & ECOI�*OMIC DEVEL(IPMENT Brtan Sweemey, Director �l—aso � C:TTY OF SAII�IT PAUL Norm Co1eman, Mayor Febrnary 26, 2001 ' Ms. Nancy Anderson Ciry Council Reseazch Office 310 Ciry Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: 23 WestFourth Sb'eet Sa�ni Pau1, MN 55102 Telephone: 612-266-6565 Facsimile: 612-228-3314 T would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, Mazchx2001, on the follocving zoning case: 7 Appellant: Eller Media Company Zoning File: 01-180-504 Purpose: Appeal of Plamiiiig Commission decision regazding storm-damaged billboards. (Planning Commission upheld action of LIEP to deny building permits for repair of seven bIllboazd faces on West Seventh Street and in the Highland Special Sign Aistrict where the sign face panels were blown down. Plamiiug Comnussion approved repair of one billboazd where the sign £ace was bent but not blown down.) Locations: 1184 W. Seventh Street (two sign faces); 1209 W. Seventla Street (three faces, one permitted to be repaired); 2014-2018 Ford Parkway (three faces). My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council on Mazch 7, 2001. Please call me at 266-6575 if you have any questions. Sincerely, I�w 1 ` Larry So rholm Planning Adiiiinishator cc: Councilmember Coleman Councilmember ITarris Maivin Liszt, Atty. for Eller Media Co. Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota K:\Shaced�PedVSODERHOUZONINGWl-180-504-EJ1erMediz.HI2G.wpd DEPART�IE�+T OF PLA.V�°I�G & ECO\OJIIC DEVELOP\I8�7 BrianSweeney, Director CITY OF SAII�TT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor r.�rr February 28, 2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson � Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paui, MN 55102 RE: Zoning File # 01-180-504: City Council Hearing: 25 WutFourtH Street Saint Pau{ MN55102 C7\'c� Telephonc 651-1666655 Facsimile: 651-12&337 S ELLER MEDIA COMPANY March 7, 2001 at 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeal of a Pianning Commission decision that upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny building permits for the repair of three roof-top billboard structures with seven sign faces. The Planning Commission pernutted repair of an eighth bi(iboard face, which was only bent in the wind, not blown to the ground. LOCATIONS: The billboards in question are at: 1184 W. Seventh Street (2 sign faces on top of Bill's TV) 1209 W. Seventh Street (3 faces, including the one that can be repaired, on top of Checker Auto Parts) and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway (3 faces near the east end of the Highland Villa�e Shopping Center.) ZOI�iING ADMII3ISTRATOR' S ACTION: Deny building permits for repair/renovation of the storm-damaged billboards PLANNING CONIMISSION ACTION: Deny appeal by Eller Media Company on a unanimous voice vote with 1 abstention ZONIIVG CONIMITTEE RECO1bIIVIENDATION: Deny appeal, 4-0 (with 2 abstentions by new members appointed to the committee after the public hearing was held) PED STAF�' RECONID�NDATION Deny appeal, uphold Zoning Administrator in LIEP SUPPORT FOR APPEAL BY ELLER MEAIA CO.: No one spoke except Eller representatives OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY ELLER MEDIA CO.: Two people spoke, representing Highland Area Community Council and Scenic MN. Two people sent letters representing the West Seventh Federation and Exeter Realty Co. • or-as� Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Secretary Febnzary 28, 2001 Page 2 Deaz Ms. Anderson: ELLER MEDIA COMPANY has appealed a decision by the Saint Paul Planning Commission that upheld a previous decision by the Zoning Administrator to deny building permits requested by Eller to repair seven billboards. The seven sign faces aze located on three different rooSops located on W. Seventh Street and at Hightand ViIlage. The seven billboard faces btew to the ground during the storm on May 30, 1998--the storm that wiped out lots of trees in the Hightand and W. Seventh neighborhoods. The sign structures supporting the biliboards were also damaged. (Eller's appeai to the Plam�ing Commission involved eight billboard faces; the Planning Commission granted approval for the repair of one sign, on which the sign face panels were bent but were not blown down.) � The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter on January 4, 2001. Marvin Liszt, attomey for Eller Media Co., presented azguments supporting the appeal. Representatives of the Highland Area Community Council and Scenic Minnesota spoke in support of the Zoning Administrator's action. Letters supporting the Zoning Administrator's � action were received from the W. Seventh Federation and Exeter Reaity Co., which manages the newer commercial properties at the southwest coruer of Ford Pazkway and Cleveland Avenue. On January 18, 2001, the Zoning Committee voted 4-0 to deny the appeal. (Two new committee members, who were not present for the public hearing two weeks eazlier, abstained.) On January 26, 2001, the Ptanning Commission accepted the Zoning Committee's recommendation and denied Eller's appeal on a unanimous voice vote with one abstention. The Zoning Administrator's decision is based on the Zoning Code language that if a nonconforming sign or sign structure is clamaged more i ��in �_� °-^.^.� rPrcent, it cannot be repaired or replaced without meeting a11 of the code requirements. The Zoning Administrator concluded that, as applied to a billboard, the sign is the sign face and the sign structure is the footings and framing. The sign faces were totally destroyed. Therefore, the billboard faces cannot be replaced without meeting alI of the conditions of the code. The Planning Administrator indicated that Elier could either appeal the interpretation to the Planning Commission or subrrut material to show how they could meet all of the condirions ofthe code (before last Navember, when billboards were prohibited citywide). Eller Media Company contends that separating the sign and sign structure is a novel and illegal "componentization" of a nonconfornung use. They maintain that a billboard sign is one structural and economic unit. They submitted detailed repair costs demonstrating that none of the damaged signs--taken as a whole unit--was damaged anywhere close to fifty-one percent its replacement • cost. o� -d-Sa � Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Secretary Februazy 28, 2001 Page 3 The Planning Commission's resolution lays out the essentiai facts in the case and gives the Commission's reasons for deciding that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the code is reasonable. The Commission found that the "two-hurdle test" for damage to the sign or sign structure is a straight-fonvard reading of the code and is consistent with the opinion written by the Ramsey County Court in a previous case about billboards damaged in the same storm. Nonconforming billboards are different from nonconforming business signs in that billboards typically last much longer. When the business in a building changes, new signs are put up--even if the sign structure can be reused--and the new signs must meet current regulations. But if there's a billboard on the roof, the message can change every month, while the structure and the sign face endure for decades and decades. As with business signs, it is reasonable to treat the sign and the sign strzictzrre separately. These aze components that have distinct definitions in the code and practical applications for many types of signs. The City has not carried "componentization" to some irrational degree that discriminates against billboards. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on Mazch 7, 2001. Please call me (266- � 6575) if you have questions and please notify me if any member of the Caty Council wishes to have slides of the sites presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, Larry derholm Planning Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor Chris McCarver, Eller Media Co. Marvin Liszt, Atty. for Eller Media Co. Peter Wamer, Asst. City Attorney Wendy Lane, LIEP Tom Riddering, LIEP Betty Moran, W. Seventh Federation Gayle Summers, HACC • Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota e -�� s��xT . . � ��VL '�j Department oJPlanning and Economic Develnpment � �r� Zoxing Section II DO Cit}• Hall Annex 15 l�"esi Fourth Slreet � Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION • Name Eller r:edia Coaozn� � AddresS_3225 S?r_rQ Street NE City_ Ninneavolis StIL�i Zip 55413 Daytime � � l�V Zoning File Name o0-150-648 AddresslLoCation 1184 k� 7th : 1209 W. 7ch: 2014-2018 Ford Perkwzv TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: Q Board of Zoning Appeais C�J C+ty Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 64 . 20 Eparagraph (a) of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Planr.in� commissior. on January 26 ,;�ooi File number; oi-o8 (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusaf mada by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. See Attached. �? � l.. 33�� .� � -! � Attach additiona! sheet if ApplicanYs � Date ',� /7 City agent � �, �r 6� 0 ar-�!� �5 SAVL q. BERN�CK� MARVIN A. L�SZT SGOTT A LIFSON DAVID K. NIGMTINGALE� PAUL J. OUAST JESSICA l. ROE BERNICK AND LIFSON A PNOFESS�ONAL ASSOQATION ATTORNEVS AT LAW SUITE �200, THE COIONNADE 5500 W/�YZATA 00ULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS� MINNESOTA 554I6-�Z7 TELEPHONE (>63) 646-�200 FACS�MILE (7631 546-1003 OFGOUNSEL NEAL J. SNAPIRO LEG/�L ASSISTANTS KATHRYN G.MASTERMAN NANCY v WNAVLEN TRESA K. SAUER • �P150 AOMIYlEO IN WISCONSIN 'I�150 CERTIFIED PYBC/C ACCOUNTANT �REqL PROGERTT 4W SPECIALIST C[Mn(D O� TMC M�nnOCTA SiAI[ ��R FS50<nrax February 14, 2001 Latry Soderholm Deparcment of Planning and Economic Devetopment Zonin� Section 1 I00 City Hal[ Annex 25 West Fourth Street St, Paul, MN 55102 I2�: Appeal by �Iler Media Company Zoning File No: 00-150-648 Our Filc No: 5447-1 Bear Larry: REC �N��) ..��• FCB 1 � L �� ZON�� Enclosed for filing ptease find Elier Ntedia Company`s Application for Appeal Yo the Gitv Council From the Planning Commission Resolution in Fite.Nb;QO-I�0-648 and feling fee in the amount of $300. � B�RNICK AND LIFSO jP.A. ..��/�� 1 M:�r��in A. Liszt MAL/at� Enclosure cc: Eller Media Company Peter �Varner • • � al - �a � � ELLER MEDIA COMPANY'S APPEAL TO THE CITY COL3NCIL FRO�S W�� • 7 c.d 6 THE PLANNING COVLVIISSION RESOLUTION IN FILE NO. 00-150-648 U� � � W w � Q � 1. Background This appeal does not involve policy decisions about signs. The outcome shouid not be determined by a predisposition towazd signs. Rather, this appeal concerns the right guaranteed by la�v for a lawful business to maintain and repair legal nonconfomiing uses. That is thz essence of this matter and the appeal must be resolved b}� the legal principies governing nonconforming uses and not the extraneous and, frankly, illegai issues raised b}' the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's resolution denying Eller's appeal from zoning the � administrator's decision to deny Eller's applications to repair three (3) storm damaged si�ns is erroneous since it is based upon (i) the flilure to lpply the blsic leoai princip(es govemin� legal nonconforming uses; (ii) a misinterpretation of Chapter 66 of the Zoning Code; and (iii)1 misunderstandin� of previous City Council and court action in an identical situation. The matter before this Commission is identical to the 1998 proceeding at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle sien at Highland Vi11aQe. In those situations, as well as the ones invol�•ed in this appeal, roof top signs sustained minor replacement cost damaRe as a tesult of poster panels being blown down by a windstorm. In the 1998 proceeding the City Council ultimately determined that §66301, not §66.303, governed the owner's right to repair (See pages 14-15 of the Staff Report). In the 1993 proceedin�, the rzcord `vas ciear that the roof sians �vere not destroyed by more than fifty-onz percent (51 %) of their replacement cost and Eller ��as • permitted to repair the signs by replacing the poster panels. The same is true in the matter now � ot �S� pendin� aad the Planning Commission �vas obli�ated to follow the previous determination made by the City Councit. Simpiy stated, the only issue is whether the signs have been damaged to an extent of more than fifiy-one percent (51 %) of their replacement cost. Since the answer to that question is "No", the Councii must determine that the zonin� administrator had no discretion and �c�as in error in not granting permits to Eller to repair the three sisns involved in this proceeding. 2. Undisputed Facts Each of the outdoor advertising structures (si�ns) involved in this mattzr are leaal, nonconfomiin� uses. There is no dispute that each of these sians sustained minor replacement � cost damape during the May, 1993 �t�indstorm. There is also no dispute that each of the signs � could be repaired for a cost which would be for fess than Tifty-one percent (SI%) oftheir reptacement cost. In fact, the actual percentages of cost to repair versus replacement cost are twenty-two percent (22%) for 1184 �V 7`'`, fourtzen percent (14%) for 1209 R' 7`'', and fifteen percent (15%) for Ford Road and Kenneth. Thz specific minor damaoe to each sign is set forth on paaes 25, 34, 47, and 62 of the Staff Report. In addition, W.T. nfcCaiia, the indeper��ent engineer, retained by Eller, has indicated that there is no discemable deterioration of the signs since the storm damage in iv1ay, 1993. (See paees 29, 42, and 56 of the Staff Report). The Staff Report acknowledges that the City's structurat engineer, Frank Berg. reviewed Mr. McCalla's reports and thouQht they �r�ere satisfactory. 2 • � Gl-� In the same 1998 �vind stortn involved in this proceeding, h� Eiler poster faces at 1820 • C'srand Avenue and Highland Villages were also blo�vn do�rn. By resolution dated 23ovember 10, 1999 this City Council affirmed the determination of the Planning Commission that the sign faces could be replaced. In that proceedin� the Planning Commission rejected the two liurdle test now adopted to deny the permits involved here. 3. Basic Principles Go�•erning Legal Nonconforming uses prohibit the action taken by the Plannina Commission. Eller's si�ns in this proceedin� are legat nonconforniing uses and are, therefore, afford�d significant rights under app(icable la��. In fact, §66.301 of the St. Paul Zoning Code states in • relevant part that "It is fitrther the intznt of this chapter to permit legal nonconforming si�ns existing on the date of this chapter, or amendments thereto, to continue as legal nonconforming signs provided such signs are saFe, maintained so as to not be unsi�htly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the follo�ving provisions..." In addition to'this clear directive in the Zoning Code,-longstandino niles of la�v pro�•ide: `'Existing, non-confomiin� uses must either be petmitted to remain or eliminated b}' use of eminent domain." Countv of Freeborn v. Claussen, 203 N. W.2d 323, 32i (Minn. 1972). The right to continue non-conformins uses necessarily embraces presen•ation of those uses, inc(uding improvements in efficiency and reasonable renovalions to • � v� asb prevent cleter•ioration. Claussen at 326; Marris v. Citv of Cedarbur�, 498 N. W.2d 842, 852 (Wis. 1993}. E�•en if a repair caused an interruption in use, it �vould not cause a loss of the right to reinstate the non-conforming use, since intemzption due to necessary rzpairs is `beyond the owner's control." Countv of Isanti v. Peterson, 469 N.W �d 467, 470 (R4inn. 1991), citing Citv ofMinot v. Fisher, 212 N.�V.2d $37, $40 (N.D. 1973). It appears that the zoning adatinistrator acknocvled�es that the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code are not a model of clarity. Ms, Lane indicated in her denial letter that "As we have previously discussed the Zonin�_* Code does not gi�•e us clear directions in how to process this type of application and we have had difficult reachinR a decision (StaffReport page 89). To tite estent that the ZoninQ Code is unclear or does not proti�ide clear direction to the � zoning administrator, the la�v in Minnesota is cfear. Zonin� ordinances must be construed . stricdy a�ainst the local zonina authority and in favor of die propert}• owner. �erAmerica Grou�. Inc. ti• Citv of Littie Canada, 539 N.W.2d 26�, 266 (Minn ct. App. 199�) citing Frank's Nurserv Sales v Citv of Rosevilie, 39.i N.�ti'.2d 604, 603 (Minn. 1980). Accordingly, an}• ambiguit}• in the Zoning Codz in this proceedine nnist be resolved in favor of Eltar. Simply stated, once it is detemiined that the cost to repair the damaged signs is less than Fifty-one Percent (51 %) of its replacement cost there is no further issue to decide in this case. Since there is no dispute that the cost is less than fifty-onz percent (51%}, the Councit has no discretion. Zonin� Code 566.301(2) mandates the grantin� of the pzrmits. 0 . � D}-3so 4. The Planning Commission's Atfempt To Circumti•ent The law Of • Nonconforming Uses By Concluding That The Zoning Code Prohibits Repair If Either The Sign Face Or Sian Structure Are Damaged In Excess Of Fifty- one Percent (51%) Of Their Replacement Cost Is Legally �ti'ithout Merit. For probabiy the first time in the histor} of nonconformin� uses, the zoning administrator has taken the unsupportable approach that if a component part of a nonconfomiing use is dama�ed in an amount greater than fifty-one percent (51 °10) of its repiacement cost (even though the entire ttse is damaged less than fift}•-one percent (51%)) the use cannot be repaired. This interpretation has no basis in law or fact and cannot be a basis for denying Eller's right to repair. This cunclusion by the Plannin� Conunission is an attempt to circumvent the la�v in this area and should be rejected outright. The Planning Commission's adoption of a rico-hurdle test ��iolates the basic principles � �overning nonconforming uses. As set forth above, the ri_,ht to contimte a nonconformin� use necesslrily embraces preservation of tlte use including improvement in efficiency and reasonabte renovations to prevent deterioration. The absurdity of the Staff Report recommendation in this reaard is illustrlted by a scenario where a legal nonconfomtinQ�gas station has a roof entiret)• destroyed by a�vindstorm. lt would clearly be illegal to require the gas station to cease its existence simply because the roof �cas damaged by an amount in e�cess of fifr}'-one percent (51 %) of its replacement cost. It is improper to break a nonconfom�ing use down to component parts and apply a fifty-one percenf (51%) test fo each sepazate component. The absurdity of treating signs and sign structures as separate componznts for a t�vo- hurdle test is also itlustrated by a review of the terminolosy used in Chapter 66 of the Zoning • � o� asb Code. The following examples clearl�• illeutrate ho�v the terms sign anc3 sign structure are used interchangeably in the Code: Chapter 66 itself is eatitled "Zoning Code - Signs". Cleazly the term Si�ns is not referring to just the panel or si�n face since Chapter 66 is concerned �vith all aspects of the outdoor advertising unit. The term "sign" is, of course, all inclusive and not a term referrinR to oniy a component part. �66:202(a) provides that "Signs in all zonin� distric� shall conform to the structural design standards of the state bui[ding codz". According to the Plannin� Commission interpretation, si�n structures «'ould not need to conform to tlie State Building Code since that term is not specified in this section. Obviousl}•, this � �voutd be an nbsurd resutt and is further iltwtrative of ho�v the term "sig�i' , throughout the Code refers to the entire unit. Article III. 66.300 is entitled "Nonconfomiing Signs ` not "Nonconformin� Signs and Sign Stnictures". The term sign in this heading is used to denote the entire unit. §65.201 provides in retevant part Yhat "No person shall place, erect or maintain a sign, nor shall a iessee or owner permit property under his control to be used for such a sign, which does not conform to the followinQ requirements and �tithout first obtainin� die requisite permit for such sign." {emphasis supplied) Under the Planning Commission s interpreiation, a sian company could erect a sign structure � � e� l � �s� �vithout a pertnit sign there is no such prohibitation a�ainst sion struchxres in � §66.201. This would cleazly lead to an absurd result. Obviously, the term sign in that section refers to the whole unit. T6e above examples aze not meant to be e�austi��e but rather are sho«n to illustrate that the St. Paul Zoning Code does not intend for the temi "sisn" to refer to only the sign panel or face. Again, if there is any ambiguit}� on this issue it must be construed against the Cit}�. Suoer America Group v. Citv of Little Canada. Sunra. It is also clear that the zonin� administrator has never in the past used a two-hurdle test regarding sion permits and has never disected a si�n to look at its component parts. For example. the Biltboard pernlit applications on paaes 16-19 of the Staff Report do not require separate permits for a sign and a sign structure. The Cit}� has al�cays considered a billboard, a si�n 1nd a � sion structure to be the same thin�. These words are used interchan�eably in flie Zonina Code . and in the permit form. To now say they have different meanings in light of storm dama�e defies common sense, tl�e law governin� nonconforming uses, and the City's historical treatment of � storm damaged signs. It is also clear that the Staff Report has i�nored the fact that the signs involved in this proceeding are roof top signs and that the definition in y�66.120 defines roof si�ns as "A sign erected upon or above a roof or parapet of a building or structure." Clearty, this definition does not break a roof si�n into component parts but rather inc]udes �vithin the definition the entire structure includin� the support beams, the paneis, etc... Again, the signs in the 1998 proceeding and the ones involved in this proceedin� are roof top signs and the code cannot be read to • � ot--as� se�reaate each component part of the sign. This fact �vas clearIy understood bq the Cit}• Council in its previous decision to permit repairs to roof top signs ��$ere the panels were blown down. � �. The Planning Commission and staff ha�•e totally misinterpreted the pre��ious storm damage proceedina, the Court decision and the Cit}• Council's final action in that matter. Part of the confusion in the matter notr• pending arises from ihe zonin� administrator and Plannino Commission's confiision concemina the previous storm dama�e proceeding. In the thac proceedina ttivo of Eller's signs were not structurally damaged but panels were blown do�vn. The zonin,ldminisllator determined that the panels could be replaced since Zonin, Code y�6G.405(1) did not require a permit for such replacement. That decision to pemiit repair �vas sustained by � die Planning Commission and City CounciL Unfortunateh�, the Cit}� Council did not make a written Resolution after voting to pemtit repairs to the siQns and ti�•hen the matter reached the District Court there was no record upon �vhich the Court could measure the reasonableness of the Cit}� CounciPs decision. Contrary to the inference in the current StaffReport and Plamling Commission resolution herein, the District Court did not rzverse the City Council's decision. The District Court determined oniy that y66.40� did not obviate the necessit}� for a sign compan}' to obtain a permit for repairs. The District Court niled onl�• that a permit was required prior to repairing storm damaged signs. The Court decision rendzred its decision on October 8, 1999. Subsequent to the Court's decision, the City Council on No��ember 19.1999 did adopt a 4vritten Reso[ution pursuant to tfie direction ofthe District Court. That Resolution affirnted the • � o�-�s� decision of the Planning Commission aliowin� the repairs to the signs and determined that � �66.301 was the applicable section of the Zonin� Code in storm damaged sign situations. In that proceeding, the Planning Commission rejected the two hurdie test argument and so did the Council by �miing the Planning Commissions resolution In short, the final outcome of the prior proceedin� tivas that roof top si;ns, which were damaged by panels blo�ving off, were allotived to be replaced pursuant to §66301. There �vas no rivo-hurdle test created by the City Council. The only real issue was �vhether signs were dama�ed to an extent greater than fifry-one percent (51°l0) of their replacement cost. The 11w in Minnesota regardin� actions of municipalities in these matters is be�•ond dispute. A municipality's action must be reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. The decision must be legally sufficient and with factual basis. Chase v. Citv_ of Minneaaolis. 401 � N.�V. 2d 408 (Minn. App 1987); Northoointe Plaza v Cite• of Rochester, 457 NW 2d 393 (Minn App 1994); Horbal v. Cit�• of Horn Lake, 393 N.�V. 2d 5(Minn App 1986). Eller cannot imagine a more arbitrary or capricious action than creatinQ different standards and results for permit applications for identical sians dama�ed in the same stonu. The Planning Commission action in creating n rivo-hurdle test for the siens involved herein is arbitrary and capricious and «�ithout factual basis. It sitould not be sustained. Conclusion The la�v of nonconforming vses manda[es the grantin� of the permits to Eller. The Planning Commission should not be allotived to circum��ent long standing law by creati�t� a new • L`] �1 ot a.sb ------------ tc�ro-hurdte test c�$ich contradicts pcevious action aird r�ies of�a�:�a�io-so-t�i�arbitrary and capricious. This appeal shoutd be granfed. BERi�1ICK AND LIFSO\r, P.A. � � � Mazc�in A. Liszt, I.D.#63 S43 Suite 1200, The Colonnade 5500 �Vayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Iv�i t 55416-1270 i[i7 � � • \� ��I i'�`v��'� � o�-a-s� • city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number o�-oa date 1-26-oi Eller Media Co. Appeal on Storm-damaged Billboards WHEREAS, Eller Media Co., file #00-150-648, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of Section 66.408(a) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the Zoning Administrator's decision denying building permits for the repair of three rooftop advertising sign structures damaged in a storm on May 30, 1998, and located at 1184 W. Seventh Street, 1209 W. Seventh Street, and 2Q14-2018 Ford Parkway; WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on January 4, 2001, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; • WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the foilowing findings of fact: A major windstorm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to homes and trees and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, City inspectors from LIBP checked the sites of damaged billboards owned by Eller together with Chris McCarver of Eller. Although the public hearing produced some controversy about how much emergency repair work Ellez did without building permits immediately foliowing the storm, there is little disagreement between Eller and the City about the extent of the damage to the signs. Eight sign faces are involved in this appeal: six of the sign faces were completely blown away; one sign face has a small section remaining; one sign face is intact, but slightly bent. The roof-top bed frames or angle-iron upper structures for all eight sign faces received some damage, though only one was damaged so severely that the vertical structure was disassembied and removed. moved by Field seconded by in favor Unanimous (1 abstention - Mardell) • against �� ol �..�'� Zoning File # 00-150-648 January 26, 2Q01 Page 2 2, The billboard structure on top of 1184 W. Seventh ("the Bi1Ps T'V board") was a V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foof sign faces before the storm. In the storm both faces blew off and the upper structute for the west-facing boazd was bent and subsequently removed. Now the bed framing and the angle-iron upper structure for the east-facing board are all that remain. Although the west-facing board has neither a sign face nor an upper structure, Eller applied to rebuild it as well as replacing the east-facing sign face (that is, the interlocking metal "poster panels" upon which outdoor advertising messages can be glued or tied.) 3. The billboard shvcture on top of 1209 W. Seventh ("the Checker Auto Parts boazd") is a V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foot sign faces that face toward the east and one 300-square-foot sign face that faces toward the west. This west-facing struchzre still has it's poster panels, but the angle-iron frame is somewhat bent. The sign face is illnminated at night even though there is no advertising message. One of the east-facing signs has a remnant-about one-fourth of it's poster panels; the other has no poster panels. The angle- iron upper structures remain. � 4. The two W. Seventh locations are neazly across ttie street from one another. They are • wned B-2 and aze on a mixed use arterial street with businesses and housing on both sides of W. Seventh. Most of the honsing on W. Seventh consists of sma11 apazlment buildings. The abutting properties on the neigkborhood streets are predominantly single fanuly, with a scattezing of duplexes. 5. The billboard structure on top of 2014-2018 Ford Parkway ("the Highland Viliage board") is V-shaped with one 300-square-foot sign face that faces towazd the east and two 300- foot sign faces that face toward the west. No poster panels remain. The angle-iron upper structures rernain. In' addition io me vill ;a�:u sL^!a+aue that is the topic of this zoning case, which is towazd the east end of the block, there aze two other billboard stractures on top of the Highland Village Shopping Center. On the west end is a 672-square-foot billboazd and in the center is a wide-angle V-shaped sh with two 300-square-foot boards. 6, The Ford Pazkv✓ay billboazd structure is on the rooftop of the biock-long Highland Village strip commercial building, which is also zoned B-2 and houses several restaurants and retail businesses. The Highland Village Shopping Center is part of a lazge neighborhood shopping district. 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. . C�`/ �l-b � Zoning File # 0�-150-648 3anuary 26, 2001 Page 3 At the time of the building permit application, all of the billboards in quesrion were legal nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Bi1Ps TV board was too high (over 37.5 feet). The Checker Auto Parts boazds were too big (more than 400 sq. ft. on the east-facing side). Both were in a temporary special sign district for the West Seventh neighborhood where a moratorium prohibited new billboazds or modification of existing ones until it expired on January 8, 2001. The Highland Viliage boards were also too big (more than 400 square feet on the west-facing side) and too close to the other biilboards atop the shopping center (less that 660 feet); moreover, they were located in the Highland Village Special Sign district, where billboards have been a prohibited use since 1985. In November 2000 the City adopted a new ordinance prohibiting new billboards anywhere in the city, which made all existing billboards throughout the city into nonconforming uses. 8. On June 22, 2000, two yeazs after the storm, the City received building permit applications from Eller Media Co. to repair the damaged billboards. The City's Zoning Manager asked for and received Eller's cost estunates for repairing the signs. On August • 18, the Zoning Manager wrote to Eller to extend the timeline for action on the application an additional 60 days and to ask them to meet with the City's structural engineer to verify costs and to make sure the proposed work would be acceptable. As a result of the meeting, Eller submitted additional documentation. 9. Eller's cost information was prepared in detail and showed that, although the sign faces were blown away, the cost of repairs would be significantly less than the cost of building new billboards of the same type. For the different signs their repair cost estimates ran from 14 percent to 22 percent of the cost to construct a new identical billboazd. These costs included material, labor, and equipment needed for construction. 10. During the two yeaz period in question, the City was actively developing a new policy and a new ordinance to regulate billboards. Through the work of a Legislative Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and a ballot referendum, the City Council was moving towazd a consensus that the city's 600-plus billboud faces were too many and that reasonable measures should be taken to begin to reduce the number over a period of yeazs. By mid-November of 2000 the Council adopted an ordinance to prohibit any new billboazds in the city. , • f� \• � • Zoning File # 00-150-648 January 26, 2001 Page 4 l i. On October 17, 2000, the Zoning Manager sent a letter to Eller Media Co. denying the building permits. Section 66301(2) of the Saint Panl Zoning Code says: "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any e�ant of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shatl nat be reconstructed except in conformiTy �� • �� ,� . �� with the provisions of this chapter. The terms sLgn and sign structure are separate y defined in the code and have separate meanings; fhe conjunction "or" is explained in the code to mean that the items may apply singly or in combination. The Zoning Manager concluded that for billboazds the sign face is the same as fhe sign itseif. She reasoned that this language creates a two-hurdle test, that if either the sign or the sign s[ructure is damaged beyond 51 percent, then any repairs must conform to alI of chapter 66 and, in particular, to section 66302. The information Eller supplied about the sign faces (that is, the signs) indicated that seven of the eight faces were 100 percent destroyed. 12. The City staff's interpretation of this two-hurdle test draws from a 1999 ruling by ttie Ramsey County District Court in a previous case about some other billboards damaged in the same storm. The judge wrote in his opinion: • "The distinction made by the [zoning] provision is between changing the advertising content to be placed on the panels of a billboazd and changing or • replacing the panels themseives. The first is permitted without a pemut. The second constitutes a renovation of the billboazrl and requires a pernrit." "Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent with the ordinance's underlying policy. That policy unmistakenly contempiates the removal of nonconforn�ing billboards in special sign districts [Grand Avenue and Highland Village] over time. A billboazd without face panels ceases to function as a bitlboard. It tacks a hzilboard's essential functionality. It is nothing more than a collection of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a billboazfl ceases to uucti�"- �� a billboazd, the policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permit before the billboazd's functionality can be restored." 13. On November 15, 2000, the City received the subject appeal by Eller Media Co. azguing that the only relevant question for issuing a pernvt should be whether each billboazd, taken as a whoie with both its sign face and sign structure, was damaged beyond 51 percent of its replacement cost. Ttus is the test for nonconfonning signs found in Section 66301(2) of the Zoning Code. Eller argued that the City Council, subsequent to the district court ruling cited above, determined that Section b6301(2) was the apPlicable provision. Eller claimed, furtllermore, that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Section 66301(2) as setting up two hurdles was a violation of commonly recognized � rights held by nonconforming land uses. `7CJ • Zoning File # 00-I50-648 7anuaxy 26, 2001 Page 5 o�-�Sa 14. After consuitation with the Assistant City Attomey at the Zoning Committee's meetings, the Plauning Commission agreed with Eller's claim that the 51 percent daznage test is the relevant and primary section, but then disagreed with Eller's claim that the terms "sign or sign structure" must be read as a single unit referring to a billboazd face and it's supporting structure together. T7ie Zoning Administrator's interpretation was reasonable: if either the billboard face or the billboard structure is damaged greater the 51 percent, the permit application must meet additional requirements of the code, and specifically, Section 66302. Eller chose not to address not these other provisions. Moreover, the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the code was consonant with City policy on billboards and with the discussion in the district court ruling. NOW, THEREFORE, BE Ifi I2ESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legisiative Code, the appeal by Eller Media Co. of the Zoning Administrator's denial of building permits to repair billboazds at 1184 W. Seventh Street, 1209 W. Seventh Street, and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway is hereby denied. The Zoning Administrator has conectly interpreted Section 66. 301(2) as creating a two-hurdle test for signs and sign • structures. If either is more that 51 percent damaged, the repairs or modifications or renovation must meet all the other regulations in the sign chapter of the code. Except for the west-facing billboard face on top of Checker Auto Parts (1209 W. Seventh Street), the sign panels are gone and the Zoning Administrator properly denied the building permit applications. • K:VShared�Ped�SODERHOL�ZONING\00-I50-648-peres wpd l� bl �5� Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center iS.Kellogg Boulevard West Minutes of January 26, 2001 A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, January 26 , 2001, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Faricy, Zimmer Lonetti, McCall, and Morton Present: and Messrs. Alto�, Anfang, Field, Fotsdi, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Marde[I. Commissioners Mmes. *Engh, *Donnelly-Cohen; and Messrs. *Corbey, �Dandrea, �Gervais, *Kong, *Margulies, and Shakir. Absent: *Excused Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Altan Torstenson, Lucy Thompson, and Mary Bruton, Department of P(anning and Economic Development staff; att@ Wendy Lane, LIEP. I. ApprovalofMinutes Minutes of January 12, 2001 not ready for approval. II. �. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton reported tliat tlie Planning Commission will have a retreat on March 30, 2001, the fifth Friday of the month. Commissioner Anfang will be the Chair of the Committee. The subjects that will be addressed during the retreat will be 1) do�vntown housing; and 2) transit station area planning. Chair Morton stated that there will be a tour of the Minneapolis Riverfront nousing so� ::� i"- February. She stated that Mr. Soderl�olm and Lucy Thompson will be making anangements for the touc • Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Soderholm repoRed that DeLite Outdoor Advertising has filed a lawsuit against the City c(aiming that the moratorium that we had on billboards was illega(. Mr. Soderholm stated that the City Council discussed the Rusfi Line Commuter Rail Conidor and said tUat Councilmember Benanav wanted to be assured that someone in the City is coordinating all of the rail transit initiatives from the inter-ciry rail to Chicago to the hvo or three commuter lines to LR'I'to busway to the normal bns system. � • • � � � � -as� • � Chair Morton stated that she and Commissioners Mardell and Margulies attended the meetings on commuter rail from Hastings to the Union Depot. The Rush Line would go to Rush City and could also come into Union Depot. Mr. Soderholm talked about the Trillium Site. The City Council and the Port Authoriry are tryin� to raise enough funds to buy the site for the Trout Brook Greemvay. Zoning Committee NEW B[3SINESS #�0-153-430 MetzEer Buildine Materials Comnanv - Rezone from RT-1 to I-1 to use for outside storage of inetal framina for drywalL 763 & 765 Bradley, behveen Bush & Minnehaha. (Patricia James, 651/266-6639). Commissioner Field stated that no district council comment was received. No one spoke in support, no one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recommended approval on a vote of 6-0. MOTION: Ca»:missioner Field n:oved tlze Zonina Committee's recomnreiadation to approve the reZOning. Tlee motion carried unaxin:otrsty on a voice vote. • #00-153-513 Semple Enterprises - Special Condition Use Permit to operate a recycling processing center. 91 Ridder Circle, Northeast of Ridder Circle at Fillmore. (Virginia Burke, 651l266-6661}. Commissioner Fiefd stated tttat t(ie app(icant requested a Iay over to February I, 2001. • #00-153-757 - St. Paul Fliaht Center - River Corridor Special Condition Use Permit with modification of River Corridor Standards to demolish 7-8 metal hangers and construct conere"te and masonry replacement hangers. 270 Airport Road; NE of Bancroft and Lafayette. (Martha Faust, 651/266-6572) Commissioner Field stated that the applicant requested a lay over to February i, 2001. OLD BU5INESS #00-150-648 Eller Media Company Apneal - AIVow bil{boards blown down 2 years ago to be put back up, reversing City stafPs denial of permits. S 184 W. 7'" St., 12�9 W. 7'� St., and 2014- 2018 Ford Pkrvy. (Larry Soderholm, 651(266-6575) Commissioner Fie(d stated that the district councils recommended denial of permits. No one spoke in support, two parties spoke in opposition. Tite public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recommended approval on a vote of4-0 with 2 abstentions. �l o�-as� MOTION: Con:missioner Field n:oved the 2'or:ixg Cotnntittee recomn:endation to deny Eller's appea[ and upltold t/ae Zonirig Admi�:istrator, except that one of tlte eigkt sign fnces in quesfion � wns tlamngetl less tltan 51 percent and n:ay be repaired. The »intion carried wifh one abstention (Marrlel!). Commissioner Field announced the a�enda for the Zoning Committee meetin� on February i, 2001. OLD BUSINESS #00-153-513 Semnle Enterprises - Speciat Condition Use Permit to operate a recycling processing center. 91 Ridder Circle, T�tE of Ridder Circle at Fillmore, (Virginia Burke, 651/266-6661) #00-153-757 St. Panl Flioht Center - River Corridor Specia! Condition Use Permit with modifcatioii of dcy flood proofiag requirement to demolish 7-8 metal hanaers and construct concrete and masonry replacement hangers. 270 Airport Road, west side of Holman Field. (Martha Faust, 651/266-6572) NE�V BUSINESS #O1-120-869 Metronolitln Air�orts Commission - River Corridor Special Condition Use Permit with a modificltion of dry flood proofin� requirement to construct 9 hangars. 644 Bayfield Street, NE side of Hoiman Field. (Martha Faust, 651/266-6572) Du�leC-Trinlex Conversion Guidelines - review and recommendation. (Yang Zhang, S 651/266-6659) V. Comprehensive Planning Committee Mr. Soderholm reported that the State of Minnesota is looking for a co-location site for the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Corrections. The State of Minnesota is a[so lookin� for larger sites, for the Department of Human Services, the Department of Heafth, and maybe for the Agricu(ture Departntent's laboratories. He said the Comprehensive Plan for Saint Paul proposes that new state ofT�ces sttot�id'neip tc:.oar.ec*_#!ie Cagitot,areaand the, downtown. Commissioner Gordon stated tliat the Comprehensive Planning Committee looked at atl of the citywide Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan except the River Corridor Chapter, which has not yet been approved by the City Counc9L They went over a[I ofthe amendments to the other chaptecs and they will be coming to the Plannin� Commission at the next meeting. VI. Neiehborhoods and Current Plannind Committee Lo�vertown: The Urban Vil[age Concept and ihe Urban Village Market. Informational presentation by �Veiming Lu, Executive Director, Lowertowa Redevelopment Corporation. Commissioner Faricy infroduced Weimin� Lu as a gttest speaker. • 3 �1 ��l�`�`rW � � � MiNUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE 'Thursday, January 4, 2000 - 3:30 p.m. City Councif Cfiambers, 3" Fioor City kfall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boufevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: OTHERS PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, Mardell and Morton Engh and Gervais Peter Warner Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, and Larry Soderholm of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. E{ler Media Company - 00-150-648 - Ailow biliboards biown down two years ago to be put back up, reversing city staff's denial of permits. 1184 W. 7`" St., 1209 W. 7"' St., and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway. Larry Soderholm showed slides a�d presented the staff report. Mr. Soderholm stated Eller Media Company submitted a letter asking the case be laid over until January 4, 2001 and waved the 60- day deadline for action by the Planning Commission. District 9 and 15 opposed the issuance of building permits to repair the billboard damage and the Zoning Staff recommends denial of the permits and deniai of Eller's appeai. He also stated the city has a policy to reduce the number of billboards through attrition by removing those damaged by wind, wear and tear, loss of leases, and through redevelopment. At the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Soderholm stated the interim special sign district went into effect formally July 8, i998, and the signs were damaged May 30, 1998. There was a moratorium pending the City Council's pubiic fiearing in effect between May 30, and July 8,1998, that prevented LIEP from issuing permits for billboards. In any case, the present appfication was submitted in the summer of 2000. Marvin Liszt, Attorney for Eifer Media Company, appeared and passed out a memorandum, and stated that Ms. Lane and Mr. Soderholm misinterpreted the code and previous actions by the district court. He stated they didn't follow basic legal principais governing nonconforming uses. He also explained the rooftop signs sustained minor damage compared to their replacement cost as a result of poster panels being blown down by the windstorm. Section 66.301 of the Zoning Code states in relevant part that, "It is further the intent of this chapter to permit legal nonconforming signs existing on the date of this chapter, or amendments thereto, to continue as legal nonconfiorming signs provided such signs are safe, maintained so as to not be unsightly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following provisions" ln addition to this clear directive in the Zoning Code, longstanding ruies of iaw provide: • Ex+sting, non-conforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be e{iminated by use of eminent domain. • The right to continue non-conforming uses necessarily embraces preservation of those • uses, inciuding improvements in efficiency and reasonabie renovations to prevent deterioration. • Even if a repair caused an interruption in use, it would not cause a loss of the right to reinstate the non-conforming use, since interruption due to necessary repairs is "beyond �� -as� the owner's control. Z� oi asb Zoning Committee Minutes January 4, 2001 File # 00-150-648 Page 2 W hen a zoning code is unclear or does not provide clear direction to the zoning administrator, the taw in Minnesota is clear. Zoning ordinances musi be consirued strictly against the Iocal zoning authority and in favor of the property owner. Mr. Liszt further submitted that the issues now before this Commission have alt been resotved by the City Council. When a sign is damaged by a panel being biown off and the cost to repair the sign is less than fifty-one percent (51 %) of the replacement cost of the sign, a permit must be issued to make such repair. In the instant situation the record is clear that the cost of these repairs is far less than fifty-one percent (51 %) of the repiacement cost of the sign. Accordingly the zoning administrator had no discretion to deny the permits and this appeal must be granted. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Liszt stated the words "sign" and "sign structure" in Chapter 66 are used interchangeably and when you apply for a permit you are applying to buiid a billboard. Billboards should not be "componentized." He further stated it wou(d be iilegai to start componentizing nonconforming uses and say that if any part is damaged over ftfty-one percent (51 %), that whole nonconforming use must be removed. There also was a discussion concerning tfie outcome of the October 1999 District Court decision on storm-damaged biilboards located at Grand Avenue and Fairview and at Nighiand Village Shopping Center. � Mr. Liszt stated the City Council ailowed the prev+ous storm-damaged signs to be repaired • subsequent to Judge Monahan's order based upon Section 66.301 without any discussion concerning sign faces and sign structures. Ms. Gayle Summer, Highland District Council Community Organizer, appeared and submitted a 1989 log of repair work that she observed being done (without permits) on the damaged Highiand Vi!lage bi!lboard. It happens to be right outside her office window. Therefore, the sign damage cannot be known because of the numerous times they worked on the biliboard before the City Inspector could document the damage. She also stated the Highland District Special Sign District, which is part of the Zoning Code adopted in 1985, said that in 10 years all the biliboards should be down; in fact, oniy two signs have oeen �er ��e� �^ ? 5�ears. She also stated that the storm- damaged signs presented an opportunity to remove two more signs from the neighborhooci. Mr. Brian Bates, representative of Scenic Minnesota, appeared and said that the City staff's two hurdle" interpretation about "sign" and "sign structure" is incomplete because it uses oniy 66.301. More hurdles are set up in 66.302. Section 66.301 deals with a(f types of signs in the City. Section 66.302 contains more specific rules that appiy only to advertising sign and it cannot just be read out of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission have to give it some meaning. The meaning the district court gave it is replacing a biffboard sign face is a"renovation, which is the key to 66.302. You cannot renovate a sign unless the location of the sign meets all of the requirements under Section 66.302. The signs have been no�contorming signs since fhe mid 1980's. He also pointed out that the judge stated, "it is the poiicy of the City to have the signs removed over time ° Mr. Bates said it is past the time that these signs shovld have been removed. The sign strucfures have not been repaired for two yeas and are creating a blight on the � neighborhood and need to be removed. At fhe question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Bates stated the signs are nonconforming because they are rooftop signs and one of the biliboard structures is located in Highland Viltage Special � O 1-b S� Zoning Committee Minutes January 4, 200'I • File #: 00-150-648 Page 3 Sign District. Mr. Soderholm stated the general rule for rooftop signs is "no advertising sign sha11 be permitted to be constructed on a roof top or to overhang a roof [sec.66.2i 4(h)}. Mr. Liszt came forward in rebuttal and stated E{1er Media Company did some clean up work after ihe storm to alleviate a hazardous situation, but no repairs were made to the sign. Upon question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Chris McCarver, Etler Media Company, apQeared and stated they would check their records for documentation, such as time cards or work orders for the ctean up work on the biiiboards after the storm and present them for the record. The public hearing was closed. After further discussion Gommissioner Gordon moved to lay the case over until January 18, 2001, in order to obtain information on the Checker Auto Parts Sign, documentation from Eller on the sign clean up, and claritication from the City Attorney on §66.302. Commissioner Faricy seconded it. u Adopted Yeas - 5 Drafted by: � �,d-� �7Zct,r.�ne� Carol Martineau Recording Secretary Nays - 0 Submitted by: Larry � Zoning Chair / • Abstained - 1 (Commissioner Mardeil) 0 c�� asa EXETER REALTY COMPANY December 1, 2000 ♦ � BROKERHGE CONSULTING MANAGEMEM . Mr. Larry Soderholm Saint Paul DepartmenT of Planning & Economic Development City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Pavl, NIlV 55102 Re: File # 00-150-648 Applicant: Eller Media Dear Mr. Soderholm: 7080 MONTREAL AVENUE $AWT PAUL, MN 55116-2371 PNONE: (657) 690-2007 F(0(: {651) 690-2003 C o 5 �pQ� R�� Our company is the property manager for the Highlanc3 Crossing shopping center located at the southtivest corner of Cleveland Avenue and Ford Pazkway in Saint Paul. One of our affiliates is also the owner of this property whose tenants include Bames & Noble, Old Country Buffet, and other tenants. On bel�alf of this properry, we aze wrering in oppositeon to Eller Media's request for authority to reinstall certain billboards in the area that were blown down rico years ago. Our posiUon is that the roof-top billboards aY Cleveland and Ford Pazkway are a visual bleght that detract from the value of our shopping center and other properties in ihe area. We Yhink a11 roof-top billboazds in the immediate area should be phased out over time. We would therefore urge the City of Saint Paul to stand by its decision to deny permits to reinstali Yhese billboards. Very truly yo,urs, � � ��es��A�to es�� `��"'� � � President a�R�..^- �rsr :c. � E�ETEf� • i MRR-26�1900 16�40 • Janvaxy 3, 2001 , 'Zoning Commiftee Members s 1100 Cify Hall Amnex r `25 West Fourth.�5�reet � St. Pzni, Minnesota 55102 P.02 (31-�f� West �th/Fort Road Federation 974 West 7th Sueet Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55102 (612) 298-5599 � � � i gaz s, � ��/ °�a� t�za `Ilie West Scvench Fedetation is opposed to tlie appeal of Eller Media Company to repair 3he billbQatds ati1184 and 1209 West Seventh Street. These signs were damaged in the storm of May 199$, and are more than 51°lo destroyed. We support the staff's iecommendations, Re d • - , i , � � Cooperating Fund Brive Membar � �rmativeAction/Equal Opportunity Employer TOTRL P.02 SAUL A. BERNICK� MARV�N A. LISZT� SCOTT A. LIFSON DAV1D K. NIGHTINOAI.E pAUL J. QUAST JESSICA L. ROE January 16, 2001 BERNICK AND LIFSON A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIAT�ON ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200� THE COLONNAOE 5500 WAYZATA BOULEVqRD MINNEAPOLIB, MINNESOTA 554i6-1270 TELEPHONE �%63) 546-�200 FACSIMILE V631 646-1003 RECEIVED �� JAN 17 20Q9 �,�NOMICDEYEIAp.h1�L � NEAL J. SHAPIRO LEGAL ASSISTANYS KATHRYN G.MASTERMAN NANCY L WHAYLEN TRESA K. SAUER ipl$O AOMITTEO IN WISCONSIN 'PL50 <ERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNT/�NT �RFAL FROPERTY UW SPECIALIST ccmnm e. mc w�.xcsm• sr�.e e.c.ssocurron ��.��.��if �� Litton Field, Jr. c/o Department of Planning & Economic Development Ci�� of St. Faal 25 W Fourfh Street St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: EAer Media Company Appeal (00-150-648) Dear Mr. Field: �.; i 3 .:af��. ' :.� � i t� � � g _ � • ,� � This is in response to your request at the public hearing on January 4, 2000 where you asked Eller to review its records for the purpose of determining what costs may have been incurred by Eller in cleaning and securing the sign at Ford Road and Kenneth immediately after the storm damage on May 30, 1998. In reviewing its records, Eller has determined that it had several crews workin� on damaged signs throughout the City beginning on Sunday, May 31, 1998 and continuing that week. The crews have time cards indicating beginning and ending times for each day but not itemized for specific locations. In discussing This matter �vith Eller's Director of Operations, it has been determined that on Sunday, May 31, 1998, a crew of three men spent approximately four hours or a totat oi �2 r:.a�. �aw:s sec�-uing and cleaning up the sign and debris at Ford Rd. and Kenneth. This basically involved cleaning the debris resulting from the storm anc[ maicing �urz t::e ssg-"- was safe and not presenting a safety risk. That crew visited other damaged sign Iocations that day but Eller has confirmed based upon its experience and conversations with the crew that this is the amount of time spent at the Ford Rd and Kenneth location. On Tuesday, June 2, 1998, Eller received a call from the owner of the Highland Shopping Center indicating that LeAmi Chin's Restaurant had sustained extensive �vater Iea[cage the previous evening and suspected it may had originated from the roof area. Eller sent a crew to that site on Tuesday and discovered that a piece of angle iron had broken loose from the sign and was embedded in the roof. This was apparently overlooked by the cre�� on Sunday, May 31 �`. This angle iron being embedded in the roof was the cause of the water problem. The crew removed the angle iron and patched the roo£ During the process of removing the angle iron from the roof, the crew also noticed that a weld had failed on one end of a o-channel on the sign. The failed � � � Y�\-JSc • weld was reestablished. Once again, the June 2"d crew did not itemize the number of hours at each location on separate time cazds but Eller has been able to determine that this crew spent approximately one-half day or 12 man hours at this site. The time spent to remove the angle iron and reestablish the weld was nominal. �'he above hours, except for the roof repair, aze indicated in the cost estimates previously submitted to LIEP. The majority of the time spent on 7une 2" was for repair of the roof. Eller did not incur any matetial costs in all the above except for very nominal materials costs which aze always carried by a crew. I am hopeful that this is respansive to your request to clarify any confusion that residents of the uea may have. It is important to note that on Friday, June 5, t998, Elier had another crew on the Highland shopping center roof but that crew was involved with the sign at Ford Pazkway in Cleveland and not the one involved in this proceeding. 5incerely, BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A. �� ;��.---- �°-� Marvin A. Liszt MAL/atg • cc: Eller Media Company • �� oi-as� MINUTES OF'fiiE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:30 p.m. City Couttcil Chambers, 3 Floor C+ty HaII and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: OTHERS PRESENT: Anfang, Alton, Fisid, Gordon, Kramer, and Morton Faricy and MardeU Peter Warner Carol Martineau, Ailan Torstenson, and Larry Soderholm of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. Eller Media Company Appeai - 00-150-648 - Allow biiiboards blown down 2 years ago to be put back up, reversing City staff's denial of permits. 1184 W. 7'" St.,1209 W. 7'" St. and 2014-2018 Ford Pkwy. larrySoderholm statedtherewasaletterreceivedfromElferMediaCompanyconcerningthework that was done on the Highfand Village biftboard after the storm. Peter Warner stated Section 66.30i of the Zoning Code applies because the signs are nonconforming and as a general rule property owners that have a nonconforming structure are allowed to make minor repairs. But in this case the nonconforming signs themselves, if not the supporting struciures, had major damage caused by a storm, and the zoning administrator in LIEP rejected ihe permit under Section 66.301 oi the Zoning Code. It is up to the Commissioners Yo determine if the zoning administrator's interpretation was correct or erroneous. Commissioner Field commented that this case calis for a determination of the meaning of code. The committee needs to look at the facts about the damaged biliboards and decide if the zoning administrator interpreted the code reasonabiy. Upon comments by Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Soderho�m explained that, of the eight sign faces in question, one face remains and one-fourth of anotherface remains, Seven faces were damaged 51 percent or more. He thanked Eller Media for checking backthrough their records but said their letter does nof h'etp much in arriving ai 4ne exie� �s�ve� �ess cf ihe damage to the sign structures. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm stated the West Seventh Street moratorium on billboards has now expired. Commissioner Gordon stated the code is phrased in terms of sign or sign sirucfure and tfiose terms are separately defined in the Code at Section 66.121. No one disputes that seven of the eight faces were damaged 51 percent or more. Commissioner Gordon moved approvat of the staff recommendation number one but not staff recommendations two or three. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. Adopted Yeas - 4 Drafted by: � r ��'A,1-D-C /`��Lt/1/[�y2C�j Carol Martineau Recording Secretary Nays - 0 Submittec! by: Larry Atrstained - 2 (Anfang & Alton) I Approved Litton Field Chair • � • • ► � ► • ZONING COMIVIIT�EE STAFF REPORT FILE # 00-150-648 1. APPLICANT: ELLER MEDIA COMPANY DATE OF HEARING: 12/7/00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. � 9. u CLASSIFTCATION: Administrative Appeal LOCATION: Three locations of storm-damaged billboards (1184 and 1209 W. Seventh St., 2014-2018 Ford Parkway at the Highland Village Shopping Center) PLANNING DISTRICTS: 9 and 15 LEGAL DESCRIPTTONS: On file at PED PRESENT ZONIlVG: All signs aze in B-2 districts ZONING CODE REFERENCES: 66.408, 66301, 66.302, 66.121 STAFF INVESTTGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 11/30/00 BY: Lazry Soderholm DATE RECEIVED: I 1/15/00 AEADLINE FOR ACTION: 1/14/Ol A. PURPOSE: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny building pemuts to replace sign face panels on nonconfornung billboazds that sustained structural damage during a windstorm in May 1998. B. EXISTIlVG LAND USE: The W. Seventh billboard structures are on commercial rooftops along a mixed use commercial strip (commercial-residential). 1184 W. Seventh is a TV repair business; 1209 is an auto parts store. The Ford Parkway billboard structure is on the rooftop of the block-long Highland Viliage strip commerciat building, which houses several restaurants and retail businesses. C. SURROZ3NDING LAND USE: The two W. Seventh locations aze neazly across the street from one another. In this mixed use area, there are businesses and housing on both sides of W. Seventh. Most di the housing on W. Seventh consists of small apartment buildings. The abutting properties on the neighborhood streets aze predominantiy single family, with a scattering of duplexes. On Ford Parkway, the Highland Village Shopping Center is part of a large neighborhood shopping district. The sunounding land uses aze o t -aso �� oras� predominanfly commercial with a church and parochial school on the ne� block to the south and a public playgraund on the block to the east. • D. ZONING COAE CTTA'I'IONS: 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 Yhe ea�tent 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 regularions in 66.302. 2. Section 66301(2) says: "Should a sign or sign stiucture be destroyed by any means to any extent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ckapter." 3. Section 66.302(1) gives conditions for the renovation of advertising signs. It is unnecessary to quote the whole section here because Eller claims they do not apply and made no attempt to meet them. 4. The Zoning Code has definitions only for "sigu' and "sign structure" (66.121), as follows: Sign. "The use of words, numerals, figures, devices, designs, or trademarks the • purpose of which is to show or advertise a person, fitm, 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 structure may be a single pole; it may not be an integral part of a building." 5. �ection 55.4�° Y:c::��s f�r appeals of decisions by the zoning administrator to the Planning Commission. It does not give sfandards or critena that the t Ianning Commission must consider. E. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: All of the billboards in question are owned by Eller Media Company (formerly Naegele and then Universal), which is a nationai billboard company and the one that has the most signs in Minnesota. A major windstorm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to homes and uees and power lines, and aIso to some billboards. On 7une 5, Ciry inspectors from LIEP checked the sites of damaged billboards owned by Eller together with Cluis McCarver of Eller. The LIEP inspectors divided damaged billboazds according to whether they 2 � � o l -asa • sustained damage to: (1) the sign structure, or (2) just the poster panels, which are synonymous with sign faces. The present zoning case is about billboards that had structural damage to both the sign structure and the poster panels.• (1) S o�+zs with structural damage. On 7une 22, 2000, LLEP received Eller's application for building petmits to repair the three billboazds that are the subject of this appeal plus one additional freestanding billboard at 1142 W. Seventh Street. LIEP requested more information to document the eactent of the damage and extended the 60-day time limit for City action to 120 days. In the meantime the freestanding biliboard at 1142 W. Seventh Sueet was removed. On October 17, 2000, Wendy Lane of LIEP sent a letter denying building permits for the repair of the three remaining billboard structures. On November 15 Eller submitted their appeai of LIEP's denial, initiating the present zoning case. (2) Signs with poster panel damage only (background informationJ. There was another, related zoning case in 1948, which was filed by Scenic Minnesota, about the billboards that lost their poster panels in the windstorm but otherwise had no structural damage. That case went to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council, and finally was appeated to district court. On June 10, 1998, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller that, according to the 7une Sth inspection, two of the damaged billboards, at 1820 Grand Ave. and at the southeast corner of Ford Pazkway and S. Cleveland Ave. had not received structural damage; therefore the poster panels (sign faces) that had blown off could be replaced without building permits. (As a matter of standard City � practice, building pernvts were not required for the replacement of poster panels.) Eller proceeded immediately to replace the poster panels on those two signs. When Scenic Minnesota appealed, claiming that LIEP should haue required building pemuts, the Planning Commission upheid the LIEP anterpretation and so did the City Council. But the City's decision was reversed by the Ramsey County District Court. The court said a plain reading of the code provided that repainting of sign faces and reposting of advertising copy were pemutted without a building permit, but that replacemenC of sign face panels would require a buiiding permit. F. DISTRICT COUNCII. RECOMMENDATIONS: The West Seventh Federation is opposed to putting billboards back on top of 1184 and 1209 W. Seventh Street. They are generally opposed to billboards in their district and were one af the first district councils to request protection from advertising signs under the current moratorium on advertising signs. Their request, which was made almost two months before the 1998 storm, included a prohibition against the replacement of damaged advertising signs. The Highland Area Community Council is opposed to putting billboards back on top of the Highland Village Shopping Center. The district councfl has opposed billboards consistently since at least 1985 when the F3ighland Village Special Sign District was written. It prohibited new billboards and set a goal of removing all eacisting advertising signs by 1995. • �` o� as� G. FINDINGS: 1. Existing physical conditions of the billboards. The bitlboards in quesfion were ail � structurally damaged by the windstorm on May 30, 1998, and have been out of service for 29 months. A The billboard structure on top of 1184 W. Seventh ("the Bill's TV board") was a V-shaped structure with two 30Q-square-foot sign faces before the storm. In the storm both faces blew off and the upper structure for the west-facing board was bent and taken down. Now the bed franung and the angle-iron upper struceure for the east-facing boazd are all that remain. Although the west-facing board has neither a sign face nor an upper structure, Eller applied to repair 600 squaze feet of signs. B. The biltboard structure on top of 1209 W. Seventh ("the Checker Auto Parts board") is a V-shaped shucture with two 300-squaze-foot sign faces that face towazd the east and one 300-squaze-foot sign face that faces toward the west. The west-facing structure still has it's poster paneis, but the angle-iron frame is somewhat bent. The sign face is illuminated at night even though there is no advertising message. One of the east-facing signs has a remnant of iY s poster panels; the other has no poster panels. The angle-iron upper structure remains. C. The billboard structure on top of 2014-2018 Ford Parkway ("the Highland Village board") is V-shaped with one 300-square-foot sign face that faces toward tke east and two 300-foot sign Faces that face towud the west. No poster panels remain. � The angle-iron upper structures remain. In addition to the billboazd structure that is the topic of this zoning case, which is towazd the east end of the block, there are two other billboard structures on top of the H'ighland Village Shopping Center. On the west end is a 672-square-Foot billboard and in the center is a wide-angle V- shaped structure with two 300-squaze-foot boards. These three bi�lboard faces are in use. However, the center one was a subject ofthe 1998 zoning case and court ruling. In that case, Eller representatives testified that they did no work on the boazds between the storm on May 30 and the City inspecrion tour on June 5, 1998 except ta c:��= u ��.^:s �� stabilize the structures to eliminate any hazard to the public. Neighborhood representatives, on the other hand, testified that Elier crews spent a quite a lot of time working on the boards between those two dates. A report on 6/19/48 by Blter's shuctural engineer stated that, "One steel channel section resting on the heavy steel fzame was bent and had been replaced." 2. Policy context for administrative decision-making. Over the past two years, City policy has grown increasingly cleaz that the City wants to reduce the number of billboards in the city and that administrafive staff should, to the extent that they have discretion in interpreting regulations, exercise that discretion to curtail billboard construetion activities. A. In February 1998 the City Council initiated a study of advertising signs and � 3v 0 � -3..5 c� • provided that district councils could request temporary special sign districts where new hillboazds and modification of existing ones would be prohibited. The West Seventh Federation requgsted such a district on April 6, 1998 and the City Council approved it on 7uly 8, 1998. The Highland Area Community Council requested a moratorium for another part of their neighborhood, but not for Highiand Village since billboards were already prohibited there by the 1985 special sign district. The district-by-district moratoriums cover about two-thirds of the ciry's neighborhoods and will expire on January 8, 2001. B. In 1998 a Legislative Advisory Committee on Advertising 5igns, appointed by the Ciry Council, recommended a method for reducing the number of billboards in the city because the e�sting 600-plus billboard faces were too many. Then in 1999 and 2000 the Planning Commission developed additional methods for reducing the number of billboards and prepared ordinance drafts for City Council action. In November of this yeaz the City Council passed an ordinance protubiting any new bil]boazds anywhere in the city. The Plamung Conunission and the City Council had estensive discussions that the number of billboards in the city would decline year by year through attrition as existing billboards come down due to wind damage, wear and tear, loss of leases, and redevelopment. C. As mentioned in the zoning history section above, the Ramsey County District Court ruled in October 1999 that the Zoning Administrator erred in permitting poster panel replacement without building permits. The judge wrote: � "The distinction made by the (zoning) provision is between changing the advertising content to be placed on the panels of a billboard and changing or replacing the panels themselves. The first is permitted without a permit. The second constitutes a renovation of the billboard and requires a pemut. There is no ambiguity in the ordinance requiring that it be read in favor of the property owner." (emphasis added) "Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent with the ordinance's underlying policy. That policy unmistakenly contemplates the removal of nonconforming billboards in speciai sign districts over time. A billboard without face panels ceases to function as a blllboard. It lacks a billboazd's essential functionality. It is nothing more than a collection of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a billboard ceases to function as a billboard, the policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permit before the billboard's functionality can be restored." Neither the City nor Eller appealed the district court decision. 3. Applicable zoning regzdations at the time of the application. The City staff believe that the provisions ofboth section 66301, which applies to all types ofnonconfornung signs and contains the 51 percent damage rule, and section 66302, which gives more detailed � L_J �� regulations for the renovation of nonconfornung billboazds aze applicable to Eller Media's building pernut application. Eller contends that 66.302 is not relevant for "minor repairs � of storm damaged signs"; it would apply only if damage exceeded 51 percent of the replacement cost, in which case they would need to renovate the billboards. A. All of the bitlboards in quesrion are legal nonconfomung signs for one reason or another. The Bi1Ps TV boazd is too high (over 37.5 feet}. The Checker Auto Parts boazds are too big (more than 400 sq. ft. on the east-facing side). Both are in the temporary special sign district for the West Seventh neighborhood and subject to the moratorium provisions, which aze discussed in point 3(D) below. The Highland Village boards are too big (more than 400 square feet on the west- facing side) and too close to the other boards atop the shopping center (less that 660 feet) and, of course, are located in the Highland Village Special Sign district, where billboar@s have been a grohibited use since 1985. B. The zoning rules for all types of tegal nonconfornung signs are found in section 66301. The code's intent for all types of nonconforming signs—inciuding identificarion signs, business signs, and advertising signs--is that they shouId not be enlazged or eactended but should be allowed to continue so long as they "...are safe, maintained so as not to be unsighfly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following provisions: ... (2) Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any ea�tent of more than fifty-one {51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in con£omuty with the provisions of this chapter." The 51 percent damage test discussed in points 4(B), 4(C), and 5(A) � betow. C. A special, more detail set of zoning niles for legal nonconfomring advertising signs is found in the neact section, 66302. It provides that nonconfornung billboazds may be replaced, relocated or renovated on the same zoning lot if such activity brings the sign into greater compliance with the regulations and meets a list of sevan standazds, which include: location in a B-2 or higher zoning district or in a special sign district where billboards are pernutted; conformance with size and height standards; exemption from spacing standards; and replacing or rebuiiding within 12 months. D. The W. Seventh St. boards are in the inferim special sign �strict approved' oy tiie Ciry Council on 7uly 8, 1998. The letter of 4/6/98 from the W. Seventh Federation requesting the district and approved by the Council said, "The special sign district would prohibit any additional signs, modification of existing signs, or the replacement of any damaged signs advertising signs (sic), except bus stop signs." However, City Council Resolution 98-733 approving the district councils' special sign district is not cleaz about "replacement of damaged advertising signs." The resolution reverts to the language in the original ordinance providing for interim special sign districts. The "resolved" clause in the resolution has four main points, inciuding: 6 �J � o�-asa . "3. The prohibitions of these special district sign plan moratoriums aze consistem. The council finds that the prohibitions apply only to prohibit the construction of new advertising signs or the modification of existing advertising signs. It is implicit that these prohibitions exclude bus shelter and bus bench advertising.." 4. Documentation submitted by Edler Media Company A. Eller hired W. T. McCalla, a structural engineer, to evaluated damage to the signs structures and determine what repairs would be needed for each sign. The City's stsuctural engineer in LIEP, Frank Berg, reviewed Mr. McCalla's reports and thought they were satisfactory. However, Mr. Berg has not himself examined any of the roof-top signs. (Mr. Berg did examine the ground sign at 1142 W. Seventh, the application that Eller withdrew. Mr. Berg detected greater structural deficiencies in that case than were listed in Mr. McCalla's first report, and ordered corrective action for public safety reasons. Mr. McCalla submitted a revised report for that sign with a more detailed list of repair measures.) B. Eller submitted very thorough and detailed cost estimates for the repairs needed for each sign. Their figures show the repair costs are minor compared to the cost . of constructing identical new signs. The comparisons aze as follows: LOCATION COST TO COST OF REPAIRS PBRCENT CONSTRUCT AN DAMAGE IDENTICAL SIGN Bill's TV board $13,167 $2,844 22% Checker Auto Parts $25,837 $3, 697 14% boards Highland Village $23,661 $3,620 15% boards ( W. Seventh, $8, 032 $1,453 18% for comparison} . The zoning administrator has no basis on which to either confirm or refute these cost estimates. Eller's estimates as shown in the table are for "direct/hard • reproduction costs" covering the materials, labor, and equipment needed to repair � o�-�.�� or construct the si�ns. If they go further and include soft costs for site procurement, overhead/contractor's allowance, and a profit margin, their cost � estimates to build new reproductions of the e�sting signs more than double. Then they subtract a depreciation estimate of 15 to 20 percent and reduce the total reptacement cost to approaimately double the direct/hard reproduction costs. Eller also submitted invoices for face panel lats for 300-squaze-foot signs and for the trim kits (that make the picture frame azound a billboard) to show what Yhese parts cost. In 1998 the face panel kits cost $500 apiece and the trim kits cost $220 apiece. These costs represent a small share of the cost of a billboard structure. C. Marvin Liszt, attorney for Eller, in his 6l16/00 cwer letter for the building permit appiication asserted that the City Council Resolution 99-1091 memorializing the Council's decision on the 1998 case on storm-damaged billboazds renders its determination that Eller's building permit applicarion is subject onZy to the provisions of section b6.301(2), which is the 51 gercent rule. This overstates the Council's meaning. It is also the Council decision that was reversed by the district court. Moreover, the resolution incorporates the findings of the Planning Commission's Resolution 98-45 of 8/14/98. The Planning Commission addressed this yuestion specifically in its point number 4 but said that it was not at that time necessary to decide the matter: "4. The first speci&c appeat by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising signs, the S I percent rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in � section (66302), which is specificaily about advertising signs. The city staff from LIEP, PED, and the City Attorney's Office have conferred and agree that nonconforming billboards are regulated by both sections and by applicable special sign districts; in the event of any apparent inconsistency, whichever contains the most specific provisions controls. Iiowever, the Zoning Administrator's letter contained only a request for information, not a decision about how the renovation cost information wouId be used. Therefore, since no decision has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature." D. Eller's building permit application made no attempt to address the requiremeri�s �f section 66302, which contains regutations specifrcally for the replacement, relocation, or renovation of nonconforming advertising signs. Eller's claim, apparently, is that they are doing minor repairs which do not rise to the level of renovation, thus they aze not subject to 66.302. Nor, apparendy, do they believe their repairs amount to mod�cations of existing advertising signs; thus they are not subject to the moratorium on building permits for billboards. The districY court judge wrote that replacing sign face panels constituted renovation. C. A dictionary definition of renovate is "to restore to an earlier condition, to improve by repairing..." (American Heritage Dictionary). It is reasonable to suppose that there is a lower level of sign repair than renovation--say, minor repairs or routine maintenance--but these terms aze not found explicitly in the Zoning Code on signs. � � U�-dS • � � � C� Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the code and basis for denial of application. A. The Zoning Administrator's letter of 10l17/00 denied the huilding permit after concluding that at least in the case of billboazds the sign face is the same as the sign itself. Section 66301(2) says: "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any estent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." The Zoning Administrator reasoned that this language creates a twa-hurdie test, that if either the sign or the sign structure is damaged beyond 51 percem, then any repairs must conform to all of chapter 66 and, in particular, to section 66302. The information Eller supplied about the sign faces indicated that they were 100 percent destroyed. The Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the two-hurdle test follows from the disuict court's statements about the Zoning Code's underlying policy of removing nonconfornung billboards over time and that a biliboard without a face ceases to function as a billboazd. f] Eller's information did, actually, show that one sign face remained intact. The west-facing panels on the Checker Auto Parts board was not blown down. The vertical angle-iron on the west end has a small bend that curves the face backward, but the panels are probably usable. The Zoning Administrator's letter went on to suggest two altematives to Eller. They could reapply for repair pernuts and indicate how their application met the standards of section 66.302, or they couid appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. C. The Zoning Administrator did not question whether Eller's applications to repair the storm-damage signs on W. Seventh Street violated the temporary moratorium. The letter from the W. Seventh Federation, wtuch was written several weeks before the storm that cause the damage, specifically asked for a moratorium on repairs of damaged signs. Relationship to November 2000 billboard ordinance. Eller's application was made long before the new November 2000 biliboard ordinance was written or adopted and the new ordinance is not relevant to the case. The new ordinance was published on 11/24/00 and becomes effective on 12/24/00. But for the Planning Commission's information, the City Council did not significantly change section 66301 and retained the first couple of paragraphs of the eausting 66302 but cut out all the rest of the section. The new ordinance also added intent statements, both at the beginning of Chapter 66 and in the paragraph prolubiting new billboards, that the number of billboards in the city should be reduced. If the Council had adopted the Planning Commission's recommendation about what parts of billboard structures could and could not be repaired, the repair and replacement of 9 �� oi ��LS structural parts in the present application would be prohibited. But the replacement of sign faces on signs without structurai damage, which was the subject of the 1998 case, would be permitted. . PED STAFF REC011-Il1�NDATIONS: The Zoning Adminisuator has correctly interpreted Section 66301(2) as creating a two- hurdle test for signs and sign structures. If either is more than 51 percent damaged, the repairs or modifications or renovation must meet all the other regulations in the sign chapter of the code. Except for the west-facing board on top of Checker Auto Parts (1209 W. Seventh StreeT), the sign panels aze gone and the Zoning Administrator properly denied the building permit applications. 2. Although the west-facing board on top of Checker Auto Parts meets the test of being less than 51 percent damaged, it is in the W. Seventh interun special sign district. Repair of that sign structure should not be pemritted during the moratorium, particularly when the letter from the West Seventh Federation specifically reqnested that damaged signs should not be repaired during the moratorium. The Planning Commission should again recommend to the City Council that the language in 66.302 needs further work, although it does not need further review by the Planning Commission, which has already submitted it's recommendation for rewriting the section. Attachments: 1. Eller's appeal to the Planning Commission 2. Eller's building pernrit application on 6J16/00 (W�hicn inciudest�e �:�y �cun;,i? Res�!r�±�an 99-1091 on the 1998 storm-damaged billboards case) 3. Eller's supporting documentation 4. Zoning Administrator's eactension of the deadline written on 8/18/00 5. Zoning Adminisuator's letter denying building pernuts written on 10/17/00 6. Piamiing Commission Resolution (98-45) on 1998 storm-damaged billboards case 7. District Court ruIing on the 1998 storm-damaged billboards case 8. W. Seventh letter requesting interun special sign district received 4/6/98 9. City Council Resolution 98-733 approving interim speciai sign districts lO.Location maps • � • K;lSfiared�PedISODERHOLIZONINGl00-I50-648pcspffiepotLWPD 1 � 0 � APPUCAT3pN FO}i APPPAL � DepamnenY of Ylanning oxd Pcnno�nic Developme. • Zoning Settiax I1QQ City FIaII �irsrter �5 West Faurtk Street , Saint Paul, MN SSIQl 166-6589 APPELLANT Name Eller Media Companv AddreSS 3225 Spring Stzeet, N.E. Cj{y Minneapolis $t.MN Zjp 55413 Daytime phone $69-1900 PROPERTY LOCATi013 � Zoning Fiie Name Eller Media Comnanv Add�9sSlLoCatlon 1209 West 7th and 1184 Wese 7th and 2014 - 20 Ford Parkway TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: CJ Board of Zoning Apg�ais ❑ City C nci� under the provisions of Chapter'�; Sectio 66. 4o8�9�Qh of the 2osting Code, ta appeai a decision made by the� Zoning Administrator 0 � October 17,, 2000, copy at F(e numDsr. (date GROUNDS FOR APPEAL; Expiain why you fee! there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refiusaf made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pfanning Commission. See Attached. • Attach additional Sheet if Appiicant's � �-. �Nlarvin A. L3szt�} Bernick and Lifson Suite 1200, The Colonnade 5500 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416-1270 _� as� � City agent J"�tin t-� tc.K L�' ((— (5 �� J._ v� as� Grounds for Appeal: The zoning administrator nnproperly denied Eller Media Company's application to repair storm damaged signs at the above locations. The zoning administrator misinterpreted the St. Paul I,egislative Code in determining that two distinct damage hurdles must be met, one for the sign and one for the sign structure. This is especially true when the determination provided that "the zoning code does not give us clear direction in how to process this type of app2ication and we have had difficulty reaching a decision." The undisputed evidence established that each sign was damaged in an arnount far less than 51% of its replacement cost. � � • a� N�U-3e-1900 18�56 FR�M CITY pF ST PRUL LIEP TO 92283314 P.6be � JVK/ �� BERNICK AND LIF50�' A PRpFE551GNAC ASSOGIATION o •.-� t} /� �_�,�'� '�:'::I•��-�i V ATTORNEYS AT LAW " � ��: � . . .... � NEAL J. SHAP10.0 SAlll A. OERN�CK� MARVIN A. LV52T� THOMAS D. CREIGNTON SCOTt A 1�F50N OAVID K NiOMTNGnLEi PAUL J OUAST� WiLl1AM 5. FORSBERp�� MICHPEI R.BRADLEY STEPMEN J.GU2iETTA� SUITE 1200. TME CO�ONNqOE 5500 WAY2ATA BOU�EVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTq 55416-12'70 TELCPNONE I6�2) 546-1200 FACSiMILE (6121 346-1003 June 16,2000 . Wendy Lane, Zoning Manager City of St. Paul 350 St Peter Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN SS1Q2-I510 RE: 1209 W. 7th Street, 1184 W. 7th Street,1142 W Dear Ms. Lane: � 0 `_ ;,.� rU .,-, 7th Sheet, and Ford Road and Kennetl�r- � _, __-� -:,,-� �,:; Enc►osed please find Billboud Permit Applications for minor repair of storm damaged signs at each of the above locations. It is my understanding that you have already received from Eller the supporting documentation verifying that in each situation, the sign was not destroyed by more than fefty- one (5 t%) percent of its replacement cost. Although Eller does not believe formai Billboard Permit Applications are necessary or required to be submitted in conjunction with the enclosed documentation, Eller has submitted them since you have indicated that LIEP will not process the storttt damage repair requests without the submission of formal pemiit applications. As I am sure you are aware, each of the above signs are legal nonconforming structures. The St. Paul City Councii has aiready determined that in such a situation the applicable ordinance provision is §66.301 (2) and the only determination required of LIEP is whether the sign was destroyed by more than fifty-one (51%) percent of the replacement cost. (See copy of City of St. Paut Council Resolution dated November 10, 1999, attached hereto). Obviously, LIEP is bound by the C'sty Council's determination since this submission and the one before the Councit in the attached Reso]ution aze identical. I fully expect that these applications wiil be processed by your office and determinations made prior to your disseminating any of these materials to other persons or entities. In the event you have any questions regarding any of the above, do not hesitate to contact me. Very tru(y yours, BEAN K & LTFSON .A. ' ,, iy � �-. Marvin A. Liszt • MAL:dI Hnclosures cc: Eller Media Company Petex Warner � I ��:150I�OMITTEO �N WISCONSIN C {+qy�p�CCRRIIEO�Pl3�} ♦ VNTANT �� J.CSOI�OMliikb`�Fl�i .�. �0.FS� PROGERTY tl�W 4GEC�AUST «m..m �...c.�..uo.�ax..[ w �ssen+�w• 'nDM1TiEC �N MASSACMVSETiS ANO OISTR�d OF COWM8IA IEGAL Aa51$TANT9 KAtHRVry Q.MASTCRMAN NANCY l. WHAYLeN TOTAL P.002 . d� as`� Councit File = — '�qt CITY OF Presented B;� Referred To RESOLUTION Green Sheec =_L�j L.��{ T� SY PAUL, MTNNESOTA �S Committee: Date 2 WH�REAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-:54 and pursuznt to Saint Paul :; T egisla.i � e Code j G5.40"o made appiication [o the Saint Paul Planning Conunission 4 (Commission) to appeal the decision of the Saint Paul Zoning Administrator to allow repairs to 5 storm daniaQed advertising signs located at 1820 Grand Avenue and at the southeast comer of 6 Ford Parl.�vay and South Cleveland Avenue; and 7 10 I1 12 13 1-� I� 16 17 1S 19 ?Q 21 •; � 23 24 25 26 27 �s 29 JO JI �? WFIEREAS, on August 6, 1998, the Commission's Zoning Comminee conductzd a public hearing where a11 interested persons were �ivzn an opporhuuty io be heard and subrr.irted its recommendatien to deny the anpeal to the Commission; and i�'FIEREAS, in its R.esohstioa No. 93-T�, datc-d Auaust �4, 1995, the Commissior. decid�d to d�ny ihe appeai based upon the tindin�s ia Resctution 93-43 which is attac'�ed lzeretu an6 incomo,ated herein by reierence; and �� VYfTE rAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zonin� File 98-2�7 and pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paui Legislative Code y� 64.206, fiied an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a hearin� before the Saint Paul City Council (Council} for the purposes of the ac[ions taken by the said Commission; and W$EI2EAS, on October 7, I993 and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Lz�islative Code �y� �"••'�� -�^ ?^R �-�_`_ -os�ce to affected nar[ies, a pubiic,hearing was duly conducted by the Council where aII interested parties were given an oppommity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Council having heazd the statements made and havin� considered rhe application, the report of staff; the record, minutes and resolution of the Zonin� Commitcee and of the Planning Commission, does hereby; T2ESOLVE, t� af�.i�� ine QZCIS;C�R OT the Comnission. The Ccuncil iinds no erro; i:i anc iact, pr�ce�ure OT tiC1�I: �T II1312 b�' iitc' �In;1Il1II!? �pII7IIllSS1QP_ a1R� iI]2L LOII!DH �..4Q2 � 6C.��Ji 3L�PI1�S IO �,ese nui? - :,01?O�!I11R�? 1i�� 2:Llcii;_i :_ni:S : HIIQ DZ IT s e � �� ,: t ? 3 4 • � • :co; 3t q.`� -to q.� FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a cop}' of this resoiution to Brian Bates, Esq. on behalf of the appellant Marvin Liszt, Esq. on behali of the si�n compan}�, thz �1 Zonin� Administrator and the Plannin� Commission. P.equested by Departn_.^.: o°: 2y: °ocra Anp 5y Cic: ?. to-te' >y: �/dWG✓�M�_ �v/27�4'�'7 �p?rcved �y :^a;ror "' S''�a_s�:on to Cnurcl �y: � .,3�cnec. �y Co::aril: �sc.= _1 __. \cl \q��°, .�� _ ""'__'c Sy Cac�tc" s=_cret°r� CITY OF ST. PAUL OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMEN7AL 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 FJSE Number Sireet Name �@$$ '��/ ' L(��C1 �/'d l� r4uld Contractor � )(,z� J�'jzc � �- (!er�FF.�� Addre. /� City :ContactPerson ��:g /ll�t.�r�•- State iess/Owner� Sa Addre Cifir New Bilfboard Billboard Demofition ❑ �, BILLBOARD PERMIT APPLICATION Cross Street Qf Applic (��' nrk i h— �7 (Permitwiil Ee madetl to Ihe Cor '3225 Sp�� • �+a Mr,�nz� �l;s.N'� P.v. E�r lyso ;�.n+ttcP��S � 71J� �+4 rt Date Es[imated Completion o S/ j -/J S S `/13 �� ; - Phone ss4BS ESTtMA7ED VALU $ �' S''bm.IK/� �mpany this permit appiicatior Biilboard Dimensions Length Height(Abc iype of Biilboard (Check appiicabte box.) 7otal Square Feet Width Free Standing ❑ Wall � Roof � /�A� �l d �� `I CJ Fil! out this sec[ion for Illuminated and/or Electrical Billboard. NOTE: A separate Electricai Permit is REQUIRED when the biliboard is illuminated or is an electricai Check box of hpe: EIECt�IC81 - Illuminared � Contractor � y�,��,�,r ��c� � �.. Contractor Eleccrica! ❑ phone Number Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all pertinent state regulations and city ordinances will he complied with_in rform' he 8rk for which this permit is issued. _- - C�C'/2� Gi— l°o� plicanYs Signature Phone Number PAYMENT CAN NOW BE MADE BY CREDIT CARD� ` If paying by credit card, please complete the following information: EXPi'tc� i iv� i,A � E: Master Card � j vi�a n ❑ ❑ ❑❑ u I n!'(`ni TTiT Tii iA�tRFR � ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate App r o vals Structu�al Review FOR ppproved r� -��- Description of Pioject � • {� <f't � • ci.7_ �.� • S , _ / i � �ET�; ;2� I �t � L' OF � PROJEC !�(1c� ^� ance to Nearest � oard on the sam of the street (In Feet) ; � A c S o ��. ��Q � �r, r e �_�� 1 ' fd l�✓✓-�� SUMMARY OF FEES Biltboard Permit Fee $ Plan Check Fee $ Total Permit Fee $ (Make chedc payaE�e m Ne G�ry o� S Pa FAX lT? Would you like YES � your permit � faxed to you? NO if yes, please enter, / � J Z � �/ �` �, your fax number. � 6 L- Remarks • Non-Confarming IPIN � - ) �gy Sign Credits ��/ C1TY OF ST. PAUL OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102-15t0 !rJ Number Street Name St,Blvd„Ave,etc. ��t r— � �ess 1 �• 1 � � ��2� C t t Address NSEW �� . on rac or ) r � yp � - y �I� ° � n CI� �ZZS S�`�"� Indude Contact Person �,� �� Stat8,Z1 +4 �'��n✓l2� o� C! z/�� r� P P i�s, r 3usinesslOwner �;��,,,,. j� 1 Address l I b� w• � cry Sd. P� l, M� include Contact Person Stdt@ Zi +4 L" ^ Esti ate Start Date Estimated Compl New ❑ Ezistin� Biilboard ❑ �� g ) , � v Biilboard Billboard Demolition / BILLBOARD PERMITAPPLICATION �� Cross Street (If Applicable) Date �/,�/ ieCmvattofsACmess) phone ��Z S-1. F1 �. ,nl ss�J3 �'62-1`t�'� SS ICZ $ re_� �. � � � �ype of Biliboard (Check applicable box.) Total Square Feet tllliboartl Dlmensions Free Standing � Wal! � Roof m �� Width Length Height(A �ve Grade) / z-�J. x z, fi�. ys CA�. -:H� Elec�ricai is REQUIRED when h bElboard isBilu o is eleetricel Description of Pcoject g�llb n� to Nh arest Check box of type: E�eGtflCBl - Contractor� r' �� I(tuminated � K� In ��Z t �� C ,� �. Eltctrical � Contractor Phone Number Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all ertinent state regulations and city ordinances will be complied with in � �rfor n� l e work for which this permit is issued. �- �iz��'�9-/`fa D ApplicanYs Signature Phone Number 'AYMENT CAN IVOW BE MADE BY CRED/T CARD� lf paying by credit card, please complete the following information: EXPIRATION DATE: Masfer Card � Visa � ❑ ❑ ) �� _-------- ---- i oar on e sam� side oE the street (In Feet) --------- - ��<�i c�_-'�X iS��n� � -- _'F/�+'1.CCY �.-, j��4c �.�c / rL cr� �,-+: G S�� z { �'S --� I��m, l� —7 -- --- .PnG��t �o-+��t_ _ SUMMARY OF FEES Billboard Permit Fee $ Plan Check Fee � $ Sotai Permit Fee FAX i ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate S (Make Weck payaE�e to t�e Ci:y ct St Pa_ Woufd you tike YES� your permit ❑ faxed to you? NO f yes, please enter, yourfaxnumber: i Approvals ictuFal Review Zoning District Required FOR OFFICE USE Ol Approved Review %Z� �� —70 � G� Sign Credits i� �� ` f 8Y CITY OF ST. PAUL OFFICE OF LICENSE. INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 S7. PE7ER STREET, SUITE 30Q ST. PAUL. MINNES07A 55102-75)D Number Street Name ress ��Z j�_ `��l Contractor�� „{;�� ?�„�P�� a Contact Person �� M�� r""Z� nesstOwner �� /� V ,� Include Contact Person _ ,—�� ❑ 2r<.- L� ❑ New p'�rExistin Biliboard Billboard Billboard Demofition �t Date � Estimated Co�, � q ate �l/06 'ype of 8iilboa d(Check applicabie box.) Total Square Feet Free Standing � Watl � Roof � �� D(!�' W�dth / G "Tj� FiII out this section for Illuminated and/or Electrical Billboard. NOTE: A separate Electricat Permit is REQWRED when the biilboard is itluminated or is an elecYricaf Check bo � of tvpe: EIBCt(iCB� J Illuminared � Contractor � Q�ry� � f- E�L—{ �, � �� Elzccrical � Contractor Phone Number , Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all pertinent state regulations and city ordinances will be complied with in rformin work�or which this permit is issued. � � ( / �z 6 �-l�aa A I' nYs Signature `Phone Number 'AYMENT CAN NOW BE MADE BY CREDIT CARD If paying by credit card, please comptete the following information: EXPITZATiOiv D� i E: Master Card [� ifisa � � ❑ � ❑ �ACCOUNT NUMBER: ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate > ' ' 2 <,� �� .�yi�' �n , L.. a1-- _ P ) — ----- I � , // { �( 1 ;,.," ___�{I..L f.�.r /Y'f''1�� / r nLi� C?o>1 -_��'t m, ��(�_ �' z �d.� L4_�__ __� SUMMARY OF FEES Billboard Permit Fee I $ Ptan Check Fee I $ Total Permit Fee I $ (Make check Dayabia b t�e Cny c` St rau FAX lT? Would you like YES � your permit ❑ faxed fo you? NO If yes, piease enter, ��/ �� ,� `!� „ your fax n�mber: UI.Y_�1 Appr Structural Review District Required i Approved BILLBOARD �� PERMIT APPLtCATfON `---`---- ` St,Bivd„Ave,etc. N S E W Cross Street ��t Address (Permilwlll4emailetlmlhee�clof��ress) '�225 $ %� City �',n�tz. ��'s� �J.1 5 5 y/ 3 c+�+e �t.,+n !' . Address � Z b'8 � �-t �c•�i{ A�-z- - c;�v �-�.. �'�.0, � ✓� ss �d� S Length � 2 �-�J. Description of Project ��/� �/z�� Phone�� z, �6�-lRD� Phone ALUE O PROJEC7 .m.f�C'iil !'71.C«r�t.J' Height(Above Grade) /�wv-rix Z� / Distance to Nearesf � ��Billboard on the sam side of the street � (tn Fee[) -- - -. Remarks . Cretlits �� `�' �8Y C1TY OF ST. PAUL OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAI PROTEC710N 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 Number 5treet Name �ess �Zd� � � �L Contractor r �� ,, K p \ � Contact Person � r� S N<< `d ��r J iesslOwner� � I� a �c� SI,�. ]L-t r Indude Contact New ❑ Biliboard Biliboard Demolition � (Perm4vri6 be maded m the,COnVattMS F;:reszl 3 2 Zs S�r ri� $'�. .a1.C: � / 1 'l , nntGp.,l �s, M� SS�lt3 �300 P"�0� l/•ndb �G�. Nk no�c�� t,�e ��G•l s, M,,t_1 � SS J2.0 )ate Estimated Completion ESTIMA7 �/l $ ��P fype of Billboard (Check applicable box Total Square Feet Biliboard Dimen Free Standing � Wall � Roof� � Width Length �L� O s� -� - /2 4'�. x 2�-�a. Fitl out this section for Iiluminated and/or Electrical Biilboard. NOTE: A separate Description of Project Electrical Permit is REQUIRED when the biliboard is itiuminaied or is an efectrical Check bos of type: EIOCffICB� -- Illuntutared Contractor �„L�K r E�2C_ar1 G �p . (� � 2 �,� !7S �X � � Contractor --� � � Electrical ❑ Phone Number w S��L��'r=�!� licant certifies that all information is correct and that all state re ulations and city ordinances wili be complied with in �i�mi �the work forwhich this permit is issued. -__�"" v�/Z � -l`lC�O plicanYs Signature Phone Number 'AYMENT CAN NOW BE MADE BY CRED/T CARD If paying by credit card, please complete the following information: EXPIRATION DATE: Master Card � Visa ❑ � ❑ � ❑❑ ACCOUNT NUMBER: ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate mce to Nearest � �ard on ifie sam of the street (In Feet) ., G t,- c. S f. �..� / ; �' -l� _C� ��r'� �.,.e. - _- -- - SUMMARY O FEES L Ob°-/ i0�� Phone NM(n Height(Above Grade} . -�..� Billboard Permit Fee I $ Plan Check Fee � $ Totaf Permit Fee I $ (Maka check Paya0la fo ihe Ci�y o' SI Pa� FAX lT? Would you like YES � your permit � faxed to you? Np If yes, piease enter �, -, yourfaxnumber. �� 69- ��6 �" Approvals ictuFal Review oistrict Required � Approved I, BtLLBOARD Dl-3S� PERMIT APP LICATION Street (If Applicable) � Date s-�r��-� Remarks Non-Confortning p�N Ke� Sign Credits � g1' ! �.: �'.� � �� s` ,� • � ��.� � �_a � � --.r: � � 4 < - . ��-:� '� ` �' ` . ,' �`�' 3 ,_ ', i " F .; i y' � � �. �� •� .,.� S r . i . ;F�� y5� @'�. ��, y S . f •' ; } t' , � ; - � �:. �:� b , k. } }.4: , �� 5' f � �} j ! f . .� s C �� '4 fr"_. S�-� �... S '�`4 ' a�: ' , i t � ' 4. �. . . •. ( � S1 F Y . � i ; ; } r �� ' �- i . - , ,-..-: , . ; '._�- . � � ; a .� �. . � e.. `:..:. - F, ? x � � � A� � ., � f�,tic.' ' � : . } �'++�:�1 /'bi�`z_ . .�� a 'b \ E y:� .:. ��:.g�`�,,:� �+. . r,, �,� � � �' y � : �F i:`i ; � 7 `� t �L ri3* l t�:i 1 u � ( � 'i�� th f'-� � � 4' ' 4. ' . �� ti� � . �� I' : . �; �� ' '� , '�,� C � `�' f fst �;`' � ... . . �{ . . t . ._ ' ,; s � �t � � � � , � � + � t � � �� :� / P`K � . . ; � ' - _ �., ..-+�. F.� �s�.., � z •�,#yr a +...'„� . . - _ - . .:. � 'r s . � " L , a � �_ �+ � � ..N t �-` r �x � � ',. . � � T,. . �t � � . 'r t � � r �}'' F '° ._ � r � - ,�i ^ . � _ 3 . � F _ -.""+, y: _' -� �' + f : Y ,rr _ � ti � ;i , 2' � S� x ' f = .-s�a3-.�� 5�_ . r . � _ } �.�_ '" � . . . . _ F t ' . . " � . z 1- , . j 3 � -_ . .' .. _ .. "i �' - '4� r � � ?. .rrR . e� ' . r" 1 � y � . � : �- '} F. ; 3% f y� . � 17r 3�?t`+'Nrril�T��_ �ti-rv } _ .:.1i�3*. - ; ' � - a/} . �-a • � ! ��.f .... ': . .. � � �.�+�¢ �f i�RZ.. �t i � _� 1 J .�+' _� � _� � �i � 1 �` � � .. .. � 4�� -_ . . . .n.�.. � . * Y 4 � _� ��a � -as� � :� Tififin's 24 and 30-Sheet Poster Panels, verticai or horizontal, are made of the finest steel, meeting the highest miil tequirements. Tiffin's speciai engineering and design ofEess speedy assembly and easy erection and �nstai{ations on-sife. Tiffin Posters can 6e compietely assembied on the fioor of }rour shop, or the ground, on-site and quickly and easiiy lifted into place on yourstructure. �� . .. A smooth, continuous surface is formed with Tiffin's Rib-Locking or interlocking sections. Tiffin has always been the fore- runner of new desig�s and innovations in outdooradvertising to improve appearance and life, and make instaliation taster and simpler. RitrLcck Sections fri instantly with Tiffin Sprits. Ti�n sections, parts and hard- ware are interchangeable with your existing inventories. � PiflY 13�20 FR(x�t F�Rr1ETC�,iNC_ n p. Box 1989 � 963 Pleasant Hill Rd. „uluth, Ga 3Q095 ate: 05/21/98 � TO E O R M E T C O, I N C. ORDER ACCLPTANCE 16128697682 P•@1 O� �SV JP OEFICE:� 770-476-7000 800-367-6382 FAX: F300-239-2394 '770-497-901� �� NOTAX Sold to- Ship to: � tLLER MEDIA ELLER MEDIA 3225 SPRING ST NE 3225 SPRING ST NE , MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 MINNEAPOI,IS, MN 55413 � ATTN: Tom Klees ATTN: TOM KLEES + 612-869-19d0 Fax:612-869-7082 612-864-19Q0 Fax:612-869-7082 � Sales Order Order Date Cust No. SLS P.O. Number Shzp Via 86511 OS/21/98 ELL023 1 Ship Via -------------------------------------------------------------^•------------- ��rd Qty Item Number / Description Unit Yrice II/M Ext. Price ------_....---° -� _ -_ _.. _---�-�----------------� °--°°---° °° °--------------- � 5 *90-FXMW **Parent Item in Kit�"* 5145.55 EACH $727•75 FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM WHZTE 10 9Q-FXWV � FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM WH`TE VERTICAL �0 90-FXwH � EORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM WHITE HORIZONTAL 90 *90-FX-TRIM-BKT **Parent Item in Kitx* $1.79 EACH $161.1� FORMA-ELEX 300 TRIM SRACKET � 90 90-fx-trim-bkt FORMA-FLE7C 300 TRIM BRACKET � 360 10-32501 - TRIM SCREWS - #14 2P '� Si l�-°-5ZQ2 SC.26 EACF; $21,06 ROOK BOLTS/NUTS 2 � S 10-21090 $34.55 EACi?. 5172.75 F-109 FORMATIC SPRITS � 5 *10-21092 **Parent Item in Kit*� $3.10 EACH S25_50 F-109 Z HANGER PLATES & BOLTS/NUTS S 10-210921 ��j� � P-I09 Z HANGER PLATES•WITHOUT B/N � YJ � � O � � � �/ � ! Page: 1 �,/ Jl �. 6.1998 1• 41PM 7IFFIN h�fHL PRODt1CTS� � /� � ; �.(. �Q : �� I � � � �b. J/ (04-7 . . . METAL PRODtlCTS 450 W211 SVeek Trffin, Ohio 44883 /(419j 447-8414 May 12, 19�8 ��`�� - • �.�,c,Cx.�.f.j �� Mr. Tom Klees II,LER Iv1�'DTA COMi�ANY 32?S Spring Street, N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 � Dear Tom, N0.176 P.3 a I -3�5� WATS 1-$-'�0-537-0983 FAX 1-419-447-8512 . �� v � �a�� CI'�d �( . Phoae: #bt7r869-1900 Fax: �612-869-7082 't�,�r� v"�'� '�'I` �'��..- :. It was a pleasure speaking with you! Per your request, we aze plsased to provi�e: o�s quotation for the following: ' • :��r.��,_ _:y �� 1 t f �t 3 � � � � � � � (8) Each I8" x 24'S-1/2" Horizontal 5ections (3) Each Sprits � (2� Esch 2" Hook Bolts (4) ,Each Hanger Plates � TOTAL. PFR FEr! ;E �499.25 _ �----- - (4} Each #95-158 Comer S:�pport Brackets for Fiberglasa'frim $2.€,��)/Fach (14) Each #1026 Brackets • $1.�?�ach *F.O.B., Tiffin, Ohio *Tax not included Torn, if you have atry questions, don't hesitate ta contact me �rect �t 1-800-53 ?• 0983 _ We are looking torwazd to worldng with yonr plant again. Sinoerely, 1T�FIN METAL PRODUCTS �� Peg Wennez Sales Manager/Qutdoor F'roducts Division � ::::. CREATIVE DESIGN lN lviETAL FABRICA, �'!ON a I � `�'�`` a (�� # i c�� t'� � n r d r 1 � l� t. d , �'�� ,liNF17-i7�7� '�te •••c ""` W.T.MCCHLLA. P.E. � . . (MliC1 McCa14a. BE. eBW 75YaAvsmis no.tlL9makl�M1PaAC MN 55�7H (fi12) 580-7��G ]Une 29, 1998 Mt Thomas J. Klees D'aeuor of Operasions E11rrMediu, Inc. 3225 Spriag SirxtN. E. i�Tanupplis MN 55413 DearMr. Klees: 1N 11.�UL ��-oC7U r�".�i� 1151't" ��.., � re: Fow storw d�nnaged signs Wc� 7`" Street dt 1 otha location St Paul, Mu�neapolia WTM Job No. 1075. This is to certify that I inspea.ed the above 4 signs on 7une 18, 1998 in your presenee. Each struct�ue wili ix descn'bed in the ocder inspcctaf, as follows: t. 1184 Wat 7' Street is a double faced Vee stntcWre with a heavy steel wide flange beam fiame on the roof. The wesc A frames have be�► removed beca�se they had been bont diuing the stocm. The east tight gage steel sign psnels aze missing_ Ihe major part of the strudtm, the h�avy steei roof frame and t�st A ficames are �lamaged and stcuct�rally satisfactory- \ ,�p� 2. C3211'�West 7'" Stceet is a bi-direetioral3 postec strueture with a heavy structucal stcel wt�e flang� beazn roof frame. All A fraraes are intact, Z signs have the light steel pa�tls missing, and the 3'� has a couple of paneLs bent. The heavy scee[ fraau and A frames arc uadatnaged and ahueturalty adequate. 3. � 1142 Wat 7`" Suea ia a singie poster ground bu�d with the light sieel panels missing. I'he 3 vertiral sapports are fornied from ]0 gago stxl tapered channcls bacl: to baek fosauag 3 I beams. The beams are set ia 3 sted caas that appear to conuun saad, noc conctde. The 3 beams tilc varying amounts but do not appear m be daznsged at sll. �.� Coaection requited is to looxa the sand and stcaightw the vcrtical t�ame �i3 replace the paaeIs. 4. Ford Pukway at Kenneth a� F�illcrest is a bi-directional 3 poster strucwn with a heavy structural steet wide narcge b�,,. -.-:.c: �zexe: 9ae szeel channd, sectinn restin8 oa tbe heavy steel frame was bart aad had been replaced_ Alt li�it steet i r,.ne7s are missing. The hcavY steel frame and A fiames are iatact and scructurelly satisfactory. In my opinioq all four locatioas listed abvve are suucnually adequate and rathu easilY refurtrished Piease f�ed free to catt me should you havc any civations or want fiuther detaila. Struetural Comuiurte Brrdqes - SavcwrN Gbhcroro • Erpen Tisnmorryr �y 6 ��B � P.. /� f G • ' '7 'tn7HL P.82 • � ��, . � .�.- ��.,�.�Y.�� ,..�:>a,� ,�:�.�:.,..� , ..�,.�. ..<� � .,.., 07/02/98 16:04 F.+.S 812 451 5929 . 1 �. �,r, ��es � oy.,►: �o �p {�• South St. Pau4 Stee! Suppty Co., inc. 200 Hardman Avente N. South S't. Paui. MN 55075-2A20 (612) 451-6666 � 'I-800-456-7777 Fau: (612) 451�929 Sfl. ST. PAUL STEp_ $()pp�y - ?i 200 HARDI4AN AVE M. .. S0. ST. PAl1L . MN 556752420 URTE; . 0?/02l5'S QUOT'E '#: 0144Q I5-0166 REQ SHIPe 00/00/C�0 •. 0100539-0142 UNIVERSAL OUTDDOR, INC. UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR, INC. 3225 SPRING STREET N,E, 3225 SPRING S7REET N.E. HINNERFOLIS MN 554I3 MINNEAFOLIS MN 55413 —_--- --- ------------ O1 60223 10 EA ANGLE 2-I/2 X 2-1l2 X 1/4 �� ^ � �� WIDTH LEN6TH 20' 820 35:9SOd CWT 319.34 TERMS: I/2% 10 NET S(� 02 62254 10 EA CHANNEL 5 K 6.?# `^� � w WIO7H LEN6Ty 20' 1340 41.80QQ CWT 560.12 7ERM5: 1/2% 10 NET 3C� 03 Q1263 WIDTH 94 91302 WI�TH ld EA CHANNEL ErX 54.5# t_ENGTF! �20 �_ , - - 14 6A CHANNEL $ X 11.5# LEN6TH 2c7' u � os oiaa� WIDTH 1 EA WF FtEAM 8 X 24# LEN6TH 20` 21�0 ! 34"s9540 CWT 838.95 TEFMSd NE'i' 3G 2300 39.9500 CWT . 918.85 TERMS: 1l2G 10 NE'f 30 ��___/ 50 ST PAUL STEEL ;� '; f�j001/002 e' ' . i a; •. �I—dS� : 2��es �?�1��r'�: �1V�- � �.. k80 59.OQ00 CWT 7ERMS; 1/2'/. 10 NE'T �C n � 254.40 0.'e/02/98 I6:04 F�b 612 451 5929 SO ST PAiJL STEEL South Sf. Paul Steei Suppty Co., inc, 200 Hardman Averate N_ Souih St Paul, A,}�V r,�p7c,�pq� (s� z) as�-ssss • �-soo-ass-m-i Fax_ (672} 451-5g2g OI90530-0102 UNIVERSAL OUTDOOk, INC. 3225 SPRING S7REET N.E, MINNEAFOLIS MN .°,5423 ` ,. .. S0. ST. PAUL STEEL St1PPLY 20p HARDMAPf AVE N� 5�. ST. PAUL MN 5''atl^�ti424 DATE:�07l02/5'9 QUO7E #: 0144915-01h6 FEQ SHIF: QO/0o/i�0 UNIVEkSAL OUTDOOR, INC. 3225 SRRINS STREEf N.E. MINNfiAPOLIS MN 55¢2„ ^- - --------- -------� --------- O6 00716 1 ER WF BFAM 12 X 4U# WIDTH LEtJ6TH 20' 840 ,3.OP00 GWT 424.Oa TERMS: 1/PY. 10 NET �( � � 07 OQBP9 I EA WF BEAP! ib X 45# uIDTH LEN67N 2�' 4R�F.� CQMMENTS 900 53.Q000 CWT 477.00 TEFMS: if2% !0 NET 3(% � TOTAL WEIGHT: 8740 TOTAL: 879E.7! o�-�.'�� 002/OU2 • :�NIVERSAI DUTDOQR INC 312 344 4177; 07/06/98 11:37AM;,j�x #156;Page 2/3 � .. � � - •: UNIvERSAL GUiDGCR � � � E_' _ �' :, � ' 6= �•� .� � +Y :.~ 5.. : 1 . +� '�:.� ��K��i��• � ��ti��n� _�t:.:'_. �.s....s�. _.-.•—.�g i CQNKRAG?ORs AR�B � � � �;�„�...�a ti._...: �r�( �r. is�s �Mr. BilE Hcggatt pt�ANTUM STRUCTfJRE ANC DESIGN 93Q Stf{es Drive Addisott. {t!'snois 60iQ1 — — -, , F T- ` r (76�) 9g6-6E 'S .. . . ...,..__.:.._�.._.:. _•_ .- gpgEA6'S'K£NILWORTNAHEP IE PAOSPECT HE�BHT6, u., SO: '6 �� . • �� N° � � 713� m �gb xu,�h.e._r_ 2Q34 ��, 1�' x 25"Vee" Cent�rrr+ourt Roof BuiIC : 1010 West Lake 6@'aet 8t Dupont Mir�r�paiis, Minnesota Co o1e �on [iai�e: April 1, '1998 Furnish �nd instalt refer�nced strudure in accordancm �+ith P�ane and sp�cif�catlon� P�' DravYinQ Nutnber97QEA'and 874BB. � 8U@TOTAL ��g7�•Q� Sappteme�tal charge tc fumish and instsll.two {2) VSr�� x 55 "spacet" .. bemms tio �tlow Na 20" d�arr�ter main hacizont�l pipe suPP� � .. d� a HYAC ualt on trie ruof. A4so �4uire9 ai thi.? sedon `�s fietd yvork s�ort�nin8 ths main vertic� $�+DPoR ootwmn to mstir�tain ths P�PK ovetali heipht • SUBTOTAL S'�,355.0@ A! the dir�cxian of NTn�saDalis operatiorss..tt�id wotk relocatsn9 � bott+ frant waticwaYs turtl�er aw�Y fiom the Upripltt�. Thls wotk Snclud�d extanding Si�e Srontrvalk gttppert ba8ms, n�vlsing artd ssbricaflrs9 a rtev,r.ccassavet �UBTOTAL d s�fetY rail.: 860.00 �ank ycu� T. E�,s: (J2139) � a�2 aaa ati71; , •: TOTAL A11�0UNT QUE TFi1S iNYGlCE We appreci�ts you� businesst N�t Ten c� a} �ays � adltalae t:z9Ftl;,� �22a;Page � � U :� : �.:. ��.: :... � . r,x. a�t-�.� _ . dlraix� - O�wP. F�ro S S [4eae.��_�_. __ . _ 01 -�`p � ��,i89 OC � � � W.T. (Mec) McCalle. PE. � F `�i � � � � 6SW 75YzArenue Norfh. Brookiyn Aark MN 55428 (612) 560-7446 AUgUSY 2E, 2000 Mr. Thomas J_ Klees Director of Operations Eller Meciia, Inc. 3225 Spring Street N. E. Minneapolis MN 55413 Dear Mr. Klees: re: Storm damaged sign 1184 West 7' Street St. Paui, Minnesota WTMJobNo. t075-A. � This is to certify that I inspected the above in your presence today. We surveyed the structure for d'unensions and section properties. We compared photos from June 18, i 998 to photos taken today. There has been no discernable additional deteriosation over the 2 year period. � Using the dimensions and properties noted above, I calculated dead load resisting moments and ;, obtain 94K'/49.SK' = 1.9 FS> 1.5 required. � In my opinion, this structure will be structurally adequate with the repair or repiacement of I beni 6 inch channel. Please feel free to call me should you have any questions. Very truly yours� //� � � ' j� %��F.E� W. T. McCalia, P. Ettg. Copy: by Fax, Frank Berg, P. �., City of St. Paul. �� Structurai Conwltant Btldges • SLvehus� Conciete - Expert Testimony .� 9bbL 095 Zi9 i n«�yau�h�ma[ ' w'y: Prepared by me or under my dircct supervision aM that 1 am aduly tLegiACred En6�� o^da �he lauspf�heSta�eofMinnesota/� lA/. �f �7�'�_6 �!/ Date Regrsuahon No. 10540 u � • '3'd `ELLQ7�W 1 M d0£=60 00-6Z o�-as � -_...__. -r;.� ,, ,;�.�. � � .. . 0 �1 '� _ a8& zl�,k�2.a�ac�T7�j��1 F�m �3�,Y Yft - . �4.�� .F... f�'.� . .. . + N.�.4 y `31 $ � �� „�, -� �.� . . .�4 ...r�. ',',-, � _ } . ' c � -: r ,, t��'�R� :� r _"bsf) «r.�3� l � � �' ! 1 �� j ..� �� _ � �,� ��i �� :, - f - ,. ��1ax`ar^... ' � � �`�`:..5 . Y... Y �u+fYY_ �+$ ��"�''.�_;:�..� � s '� ��" _ ... �: , .... . ... .uYi'Y{nt"' a`_Vi+.T..+r .. ✓ _ �'��e .... _.. i184 7th 0 b�-�su • � � � r. �- '�"'� : :: rc:�.. .. •' � -.K � �.+w �� , .� �' � 7 �. �� ' �` 3 ►.� � 3� '�"/•` � ' - ::eIM �..# : > � s^" _� p- � ' � A� . ;�, � , � � � � ....�_'�,. •-� "�''--� _�.�. �� v s �'� Y 'cx �`�'-:�--�.----' ��$'�'.�z��s�Cdrv'2 . .... .. . - . . . . ; \ :' - . . ". �.f �� ... � �� ' �. �'>. T��%� ' i��' r ,� ,: � �,', ,y _ ; _� `_ . i !�'�. -� . �►--�' t='� ,�� _ ,.%� �-� � •� -�` +� : , � T . � -. �� _ .'., _. .�_ ra � � �. i " . - " ._ `'\\ ��' �4 . .. � / . . . t-..�R �,� . - .��:' �� '_�"'�� - - - � _ . ,+z> `:: ! �j o�-a�� i '�� • 0 � � �, � } � STORM DAMAGE OVERVIEW . . ELLER MEDIA COMP�IY � LOCATION 1184 W 7 TH C' VIEW DISPLAY 2 POSTER FACES �� o�-as� � Photos one and two describe the pmsent condiuon at the site. Prior the storm this unit had an east and a t�•est face, each �cith a sinale poster panei. The storm damaged the easterly and �yesterly si� faces and bent the verRcal supports for the a�esterly sign face. The damaged sign faces and bent westerly suucture were removed. The hea�ry• steel mof frame was undamaged and is structurally sound (exhibit four, McCalla, 3une 19,1998}. � � � � � Repair at trus site will in�olve fabricating ne�r torvers for the w�est face and a sign face (see photo rit-o) and trim for the east and c�-est faces, and then installing the towers and si� faces on site. On site work will be accomplished in one day by a ciew of tiu�ee «orkers (24 hours). The remainder of the time ��•ill be spent on preparation and fabrication in our shop. The electrical service at this locarion is still in place and the fixNre and platform for the r��est face is in stomge at our shop. C. NOTES / AMENDMENTS At the City's request we have prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPL.ACEMENf COSTS LESS DEPRECIATION" workshee[ and materials list specifically for this site. In that process we discovered rieo changes from our estimates on our original "Stonn Dama�e WorY.sheet". We found the repairs, if identical to ihe preetisting sUvcture would be with a mix �f 2.5" x 2.5" angle and 2" x 2" angle, not solel�° 2.5" x 2.5" angle , and the cast of the identical replacement would be slighdy more than �ve had estimated. Those changes aze reflected in our Storm Damage Worksheetdated 4/4/2000 '"�� .:�J � � „� � � �� E 4s `-f U�-�iiC �!�/�- �t, v t e� � i. : ��►r • _� �:_ �: •_ ��-asa � - ,� faces �s�lface. . Total site procurement - - - ��c� °u : • r: .yt r �� • t : : .�: . .: . . .. ,. . ,.. :,. -Estimatedcoss------------------------ oaS•f'o -Aeliverycherge- ---------------------- S - -$81CSL3Y��--.—�Io_'_�""""'_"'-" f �6i.c1Q ; . ' SUBTOTAL----------------- � `�'a9L•rro '� '�l IN-SHOP FAAtZTCAT[�rI: - Labor to temova basic materiaLa from truck; in-shop fabricatiou,and assembly; in shap P��B . ". I ': -'L- man. crew Q g houzs p. 352. o0 �'. �� ! '� RTOT/�I-----�----^-�---------�-------------- �3SZ,vr7 � '-^ � ,. :��-: . ,�. ' , ii:::::r,x�.,i „•_. � - - -_.._ ...� .�. � ��I C_ .`=: _ p��iur`e,includes (a) erew & equipment necessary to haul suucttiue & material to ', . site and - employ aa auger to dig hoIe and haul dirt: . � =,: � � , � (a) " man crew @ . houzs Q to di hole and haul ! �c1ut�--'�----�----e----------------- (b) use of augar for ,_. hours Q i �_,Jtu -------------------- ,�.�_ ; - Labor to febricate footings at site and pour coiierete �ootings at site. , . - _..' Ataa c�cCw Q _ _ �� {`� ,5�; ..lhr:. ----- -------'------ "3s.�--� ::� ._ y� coacrete Q �_JYd- - - - ^ - - - - - - . N�f --- - EcI!uPment requued:. . • . � : (a) onc ' �ua1c Ca� ` ' � hours S N� ',�; •^---------------- (b) oae trucic @,, hours i. ��ro��--------�----------�------- �-�— � :: �: � ,� , � . . .._tlih .1 _... �� , • �. ;�. • . . . . . - r Pagc 1 of �� -asd � • � Ar�xarsai , s . � LOCATIOrT # . � . � •�flr P ACE"__R�Pi, h:�NT COC� nFp� .LATTOLY (COi�1TIN3£FI21 � i .. � ' Sl ASCF�y'�r e rrovFR C'IgUC7ZTRR 02�7 CTTF.: � � - - Includes assemtbly of fascia, stringets, platfomis, ladders, brackas, etc. flik5ii� _ 3 man crew Q� hours Q. ,_ � �$Jyt--------- -------�l - �4�P�L tequired: :. (a) oae oth w. truck Q � hours - - - - � � cs0 '. . Q. s��u. ------------ �� (b) one��r� tzuck Q �- houcs _ @c sn �hr.--------- - S /��o� i� �,.,,A,,,�c�.� � r�-� . �, 2 � _ . r ' -------- �� zo � vt� c�,7BTOTAL-- � ;` , ::, - '-" .1� • . ,�y.; �` ' `. e . .;,�:;,� •'n t� .� . . .. . ` .. ..... . . . . .. . •.. ., � u .;� � � . Page� � • � �• � AP'PEtAISAL !! � LOCATION �t � O l -2S ° t. : : y ��. ►lt • e • : y ; •. • uru�.� ► � Fi F�IRGAT �'T L�NA`I'IO23: �� `,` -:Purchase of basic elecuical material including li�t fixtures, ballestq, Samps, boxes, <` j haagers, brcakers, ctocks, misceIIaneov.s items such as coaduit and rnnnectozs, clamps � � �, . � and,chps,etc.(a3 �, --------- �/. ; � .. � . f . - Sales fax @ � % for maurials - - - - - - - - 5 85; c�J � � � i � ,- Load and waload equipmeat at site = a 2 man { ccew @ � hours each Qa S ��r• - - - ,�.-�OD •O�O '- Install eiecLcicat panels, run conduit, pul! wire, inscall fixtures and baliasts: � - � maa crew @ � hrs. (a� ��/k�r. ------------------- �aD"�a - Equipsneut requued: (a) one n� 'tcuck Q�� Y hours Qp S��'•---------- S dd� � . a (b) ont truck Q hours �,� /hr. ---------------- S (c) one truck @ hours pa nu.--------.--------- �_.___.__ f . . ' ' ' •: � .., ' � -- `� SUBTOTAL ------------�--- - - ---------------- '� • �� Ps; � 6►-asb n.rrxa�sni. � . . � - � . ,� LOCATION # � .. �'ih' P ACE" $�P�ACF cOSTS LESS DEPRFGiATIQ2V ! O��DI � �q'�g(i �$ aT_ P/�TNi'RRC; - Ctew to paint upzight4 iacluding structucal steel, laddas, sUrinB�. �, etc., alI icems �XC�g2 fascia. - 'L mau crew Qa � houis @ . y�1hr. ------------------------5 3s7�� - �w r«�a (a) one paneI uuck �u�d for �.,_ hours � ��- - - - - - - - - 4 . ofl : 3�JRTOTAL-..-------�------------------------- �SS2�crd . I�1LS�. .i,A�oti�: � ;: Permiccosta--------------------------- �3GZ, c� SoiIstests --------------------------- S �i/!�/ �, �3c�.�- I?IRECT/HA.RA REPRODUCTiO1V COST (ITEMS 2-� ----- l J/ i � , r : ; . �,q�raTTOx: - , ,s � The abpye cosis are for la.�r n�d zavv materigls onlv end do not iaclude "induect costs" inclu3ing such items as ( - staadard overhead sllowaace and (Z) wucpreneuriaUprofit --- as explained in ihe nattative of tfie zeport- �i�� Page � � � 4• AYYiiA1�AL # L:�'�'AZ'I'32`1 # � � � d�_� � 1 �� : �1' : : �J �ar�a/ a y . 1 ' : �l : 11 • � • ��t►t t � lu�ua: • :�I�;�r ylr�� • . . ...�. •r� L ..•. � - ``� � � � � � Ia place nplacement (diiect cost) = S 3/67 a0 (pages i, 2, 3& a) s�tnosai -------------•---------------say, a ao�F . i � Overhead/conhactoz's aliowance @ t S �o - - - - - - - - S �'0 7S, o-U_. Entreprulcu[isl proflt � � °/-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30 2 � v0 REPI.ACEMENTCOST1�iEW---------------SAY, 3�.0� � ': : �s� itu: � � .• . .. ;� � � � TOTAL AEYREC7ATION ESTIMATE - - - �(�.�3 )• *.NOTE: DEPRECIATION IS ZC� % OF DIRECT COST (DEPRECIABLE ASSETS) � oN�j, rc ONc; . . . TO�'AI, REPLACEMENT CO5T 1�iLW ------ 5 32�G 7, oo '' �. ..LESSDEPREC3A�TONALLpWANCES ---- �Yr.3 y , � REPLACEMENT COST LESS DEPRECiATIO1V VALUE - SAy, �� 3 ��. �� . I I � / . `�, /I�/� v� � � �� .�l_. (I) actuaI age of tfie in-place oucdoor advertising structum and - (2) recogniting the sttict maintenaace schedule appIied to outdoor advertising sirucLures and - '(3) the conditioa and quelity of construction and - {bj thc locatiau ead cconomic lifc expectsncy of the outdoor advertising structure ----• We have atlived at the conclusion that the overall depreciation esiisnate oF �� %* should he applied or as follows; �� .. Page 5 of 5 � - `. , f;� ; .. � , . , � ,.; � _ � Vv�.a� � �_Q.a� 7d� 9� V� e,u.� �� ; o� I� �„ � `;, � F -- i ;� :.� I` -<.. � ; ; S �C � $ � � �^ pZ..te�-+.^- �c i Z .-, a' --- ---. 5;.�'�` Uv �- `, F �, � 1 � °' ' ; � G' c'.�.a�c�.-Q w� 't� � -�T ` r S . � - • II' 1sG r z- �/ �- x Z�/Z �-° �ivx,. � 1.eo/a --�—°2 `f �t. 6 O —._.... ,;; . .., , �. `: `' S� Z'� �C a`� S<„ �:vu�C�,� 0 5 7. o(� . ;. ; � �—�----" -- �: �E 1' l�a..� � � e4 � —. + t (� /� � � / �}'�'' � �.I 1 2 �._ � X � �Z'//O�177. w �. �'7 _. _.__ . ..__. — .�s.o �( n cJfl 0 r= � �_..M . _ ,., . . � i i �: jy.c.f�u-� - 13� � � � ' - o� :'��:� ;��--��sa _:� ..�::, ;,�<. :� ; �� .?� �� ° r," � 1 ,Ii�'yS'�,. �.� 1.. � �,;. . � ` '" l -- �,,.. �L �. :�� u.- ; T I °. . � .i.> ; ;� : • J� 7 6uo� + ----- � � � �-� x��. � F.! �Os V�`-yC/��.0 O� �'yQrv� TiZu�-..- c %t � � >� �. � : . � , ��y,� A i, .3al. � _,. _ �� '�-, � �. �U 7 $ . 8C� S S',��c `/77.'07� as-�, z z�. vz� � �ozs, 90 F . � ..—_._.--ii — ...� j� � oi-� � �. � C�l �� 1-�S� C_/v�_� W.7. (Mec) McCalle. PE. 6600 75'/zAvenue North, Brookyn pa(k, MN 55428 (652) S6D-7446 August 28, 2000 Mr. Thomas 3. Klees Director of Operations Elier Media. inc. 3225 Spring Streei N. E. Minneapolis MN 55413 Dear Mr. Klees: re: Storm damaged sign 1211 West 7'� Street St. Paul, Minnesota WTM Job No_ 1075-B. � This is to certify that I inspected the above in your presence today. We surveyed the.Structure for dimensions and section properties. We compared photos from June ] 8, l 998 to photos taken today. There has been no discernable additional deterioration over the 2 year period. � • Using the dimensions and properties noted above, T calculated dead load resisting momenis and obtain 162.9K'/99.K' = 1.64 FS> 1.5 required. Tn my opinion, this structure is structurally adequate as is. Piease feel free to cal! me should you have any questions. - Very truly yours, 1 hueAy certify thal Lhis pian, specifica�ion or mpoA was prepered bq me or under mydirect cu�enision and Ihal 1 am a duly Registered GgiMer ufder Ihe Iqwsyf�leof y)� � � '/ � �� Ll/ '/2'"L`� I��i t ,�� natc Q7�Regishetion No. 10540 W. T. McCalla, P. Eng. Copy_ by Fax, Frank Berg, P. E., City of St. Paul. Shuctura! Consultanc 8ndges • Strucluta/ Concrefe • Fxpert Tes�imony � EO'd 94bL 095 Zt9 '"3"d`QlLBJ�W 1 M di£=60 00-6Z-��H ot -as� PREVIOUS 1209 West 7th i i • � �4�'� :.: li�l �='�'= --- �;�r r, 'I� ,..�:�=��±. k . .. . - . . ,,,s,..- ;• _ : � , ._ _ .,;��, �: - ��;.: . _ „�. _, .° a.r.. `"'m'" _. ` — ' �r � ...� .; . .«. _ ;. ., - �. _' _� r ,,.: ,� �� . � . ,7 .u..s � � . . , , , � ,. . . . . . . . , ., _ � ��' I:�ii�Ii�i��e�ii.r� ..-•�.� --_. l��3:`:`Rb 17M\�s'i��.�'�w•w.r��r�..-. � �l� '7.�!°A�p'"�� : sr, va� . .. -:..r; � :C ' . .,:� . '� , �,— , "�.�..�� :,z.�. .. . . . . .;{�- _.x. �.-.�- . __ant_ _ �_.' _ ":-. �..,. -� -s�+�_ — _ ^ ' � , � .. . .. . _� "_ ` _ _ j.,, _ .. . . � , � . � . _- �� . . ��' �..r.. . _. . � ��.., .GRf. �_ ._ . ,_.. �, , � �''i�t4�y��. . '' ... _ -.: �..;: ,�,.� �-, .,,` �.4� -�`� .. . _ : . . .. , __ . _--°. ... _ , , ._ _ , _�... ,;: . . . . . . .. . -� _:�:; .. .., � -s...�_ . .� ..:. �. . . . . . . � . .. � � - v��:,: :. �., -�.i� � �■iri► _,_.,......�.. _ ■��iI�I� �� /��-" - � r . P. . ; s � : ��.� : � �'. - � - 1 �,, : � ,�� ,�,�3 �- . . ' � � . : �-� �,:rk 9 4 ' <: -� ' x .:.�----= --�'�' _:� �t� ._ - --- . -.. ...� . ._ _. .- _--.—__�_ ___-' __ _- � _ ___ _ . ... ---- -� � `\ _ ="µ � .'_ �„� _ . �y � �� _ .. . �... �i .,_ �- �3'-�-��s' : ,;: � - .=` � � �,�',�� '"� �- __-- "� _'=,—___�----� _ [ �,3?i'�Y �„`;.�«� ' ,+ 1.:.- -'`�' �; >_ -� s �.r�;. ,., : K f, .. T :s' ( 1'< w n - ?- �" .z'-r'+°'�a_ .�`�� L: `F0 (�..� ' J ' i -- . �� ::�: ��.-, ..;._ .._ _ r � ;I � �* _ _��, � � _ �.,,,1�,�',.- ,.,..`_ . `° � _ j, . t � . � -__= !.y '-. �� __�— -__ _ � _ . . .t:z' �.s,; ,\ '� . t . � 4 � � : :t. � �, ` ��" � � � �}�. � ' " � � ka .i�. .�-�� ' � .', ' ;-ss-= . .,�" ._- . _ � _ - -_ ....�. . .3. . �r.r.�.� .,. ...: _ . •> � �` �llltt'A�4Yt.'�ES�-•.. - ._ � } � ; . '�`-- '� ��, '� �' : _ �� ,��'�'�:�:� � _ �_ �z .. _ ._ . ,�.- _ , r � .,. . _ - _ �,. � ... , _ .....��- __. _ +... - _ . , _ ;�,� ' _ � . .� � -- : . � . _. .. y. T " - ,_ ._ ._.._ - �... ..� '~ 'J^*-jfl�l'.� 3' P } Y ." � ,. �:� i l i k , .. . ..:.� f� �Z �..p ';. �l��w k . , '' � - ��-. _ x�. � ` _ ' , � �' / � ° � /�� ; :i�� lt�. � /� I _ J lt � - , �r�.'� �� .- �► � • ,i�'�.i �. - r , �� ,ti� �� - � . � � � � � � . � .. � � � � K r . �.. s..-k s ' �� _ a. . 5� � �: � . . . � y� i = �p 3i.. . � � . . . �.�i _ _... , .�:'n. . ..�.,.,.-.". .....� �^"'�� . , . ��, � �� STC?RM DAMAGE OVERVIEW ELLER MEDIA C4MPANY � LOCATION 1209 West 7th Cd' Vie� A. DAMAGE DISPLAY 3 Poster Faces ot as� � Photos one, two and ttuee describe the present condition of this strucriue: 'Tfie damage was limited to the siLn faces. No stcuc:tmal damage occurred at this Iocation (Exhibit Four, McCalla, June 19, 1938). The electrical fixnuzs and ser�ice remain in pIace. � B. REPAIR � Repair w�ill consist of fabricating three sign faces in dur shop and installing them on site. We estimate this �� ill require tfiree workers on site for a day and a half, 36 houts installing the faces, and the remainder of the rime in the shop fabricating the faces and preparing for the installation. � � L�J C. NOTES / AMENDMENTS At the City's request we have prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPLACEMENT COSTS LESS DEPRECIATION" worksheet and materiais list specifically for tlris site. In that process we disco�-ered the cost of the identical replacement would be higher than we had esflmated our on our original "Storm Damage Worl�heet". This change is reflected in our Storm Damage Warksheet dated 4/4l2000 4f4!2000 • \ I � �� ►�L'� �T�%I�::L. ` . t��i°"TM'��s ►��:�: - : _; . x:. ,� r- �$ : - _ - �� _ ,�_, __ — - - - -' _ .-. � _--- _ .�e.►_ - - _�---"- _ _=,- _ — � . ,_-_ = - � . -- _ ��-�s�-: • °� . "'a� = � . _.� . � _ � ,. —'7r'4:-._ � � � . .. .. . _ ` ^�'.. '.. �.:� �..�� ..�:::... ��I,~t r e, 1 �_ , � i � . e� � � G � 'f S��%.',ki ' , �. �. �V _ �� -. i. � : . k ...✓. . � �• • ' E '� ' . . . ' .. _ � � n � ��. - 1 n {---��. �� — ' �"i' � -•-... !� �! . _- , v�. � _" � , y�,.�.__ '-- — .. 8 . . �.,..,� . ..� c�?_ze� � ; _' �,�� ' ' y . '—% i��tti:�-�..�. ..,," -- ' � §' µ &n��.. ��? . . .. � �� f � �� 'r � w � � . . � � � } � �� . � �<<� • . • . �. e��. . .. .. �':.9 . � . � . } �.��w�y�� . E � v�-as� STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET ELLER MEDIA COMPANY LOCA"fION 12Q9 W 7th Q View DISPLAY 3 Poster Faces A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS 1. STRINGERS AND St1PPORTS (i} ft ang(e iron @_ per ft none ft"C' channei @ per ft none 2. SIGN FACEAND'fRIM (2j 3 sign faces @$499 per face 3 frim kits @$220 per face B. LABOR 70 hours @ $22.00 per hour COST OF REPAIRS Estimafed cost of new identica[ structure (4) Estimated cost of new repiacement sfructure(4} Estimate oi cost of securing, stabilizing and clean up on May 31(3} 18 hrs at $44.00 per hour (i) Ses note 2c (2} See nofes � a & b (3) See note 1 (4} See note 3 Afi costs are direct cos�s a�a�2000 �b $� 497.Od 660.00 $1540.00 $3697.Q0 �1-8;538�$25,837.25 $35,500 $792.00 • � • � " RF, � . p��:� co� „�,.. ,, :: ,5;_ ;�. :- ;� ;; �;,,Laborto �� il � r�AVtl� :��+�p- h, ,,:.. YP �� B .� c �`r _ � ��Si�.,yY'm.c,;��.Y�'J_--ia_ � � Total site procurement - - - /G�� FR�: __�. �n, includin8 �'- �: • • :� _ £.= ---- ---�---------- S9773'cs0 �~-;�' . _ 's';.'_. ------ �r..� --- . .---_ ----------- ��---------- �io�Y.�� .' ''�= ' . - �. - K%z_ � j � .. materiaLa fitOm truck; i aasembly; ia-shop lIIBR_fCiCW (L� ��"O 1108i9 �C13 , � � , .{ro-�"'�1� ... ;; �'•`'�_.--' -,-+:�.' =r^,: - _ _ _ _ _ _ "' ... _ S j3ao.00 • STIBTOTAL� �"'^ - --------------------�------- ��-�.i r�:�,� . . - I�E"� . ?:.'� �=<:- procedure�includes �(a) crew.& eqaipment necessary to haul shvcnu�e 8c material to � s`;=: "-- `site�and;,.(b) empioy aa auger w dig hole and haul d'ut: .� - :�. �vi : ,u� _ �:�.., t�h.�? :?= _' (a) _,.,'� man crew. aQ. houzs Q- � y a_ . S'_Jhx to dig hote aad haul -- ---- �: :�:°�- a�-- .- -== s �� =� - : � (6) ;use af auger for hou:s � �; �; . �;�_, ' ------------------ S.NI� - Labor to �'abricate footings at site and ponr . concxet� footings at site. ' maa czew @ ' hours (a3 . : wS ,Yat3swncre[e,Q�_JY� ------.`_ S �-,-�=�-- ; '� - • - EcIuipmeni r�qaired; __;;; .��,i - �� ;,.. n,. ,. •� � � �"` � -. . }` ;� one �` hvck � ^ hovrs • :� :'^_. � :� ;:r.:`'.CQ3,�.�.__/hi:------------------ � N-�- . ,: . ... .�_ ��•. avckQ :;-=w.= :,. : '� _hours � N: +��= ;>,'. �`:: -..-- .g `S�' =''�jbr:' - --' �---' y � '' 'µ;;_'��;'�C�3;.. . . ,' _ . , .�,L-_ �i �-_ �t �=�� - ---- ------------------------ `_�- � .�- �i. ;x: �� ;x � �- � � �_`+:'� �. _ __�"�:, _�'�'� ' ,,,,.. ..,. ��,,::�..:�r r ;��;. �';,'t.>� �'r= �� " :�:�' ;,:: _ „� . _ �.=.f�°�.•�.. . .;....._ _ ...� bl-�5� � . . ; . .; . � � Page i of _.;�� :,:,_ r=_ ,; .�:�<;�:,_� , .:,�:. ._ . �'°:=;�;:;: �. _ � 'zr:..' ' � - . - � - APPRAISAL # � ' LOCATION !� �. - _ ;- - =.;::.: - - - �'��:-^ :'- s :: � ; :�ti�:V, - =��;i; - �,: �;�;":;�>.;-;.�� 4* � � . : � . S r '� �'Y_ �� - ��;ix s- ..J- bt�a5� � � s�� Platforms, ladders, �;; _ .. � _, ---�--�� , �� -._rA??.F�ea; re4au�: - ., .� .�; a, ;�.., .s. "a �`�=�� .-�:.:`. `�s;:��,u ` �,�'�_:: .� �; :. w � �, ��:��. ,:�� 3 ,�_ °� ;` _=�' (, onc U'^ huck �--hours �� -. :�_ -, :�� 5� , :� -., �� _�----------------- da��o�c� n:;=s-�,;r ..�:_.>,<, ��,�� :<, ... : �;H,;-<. �`�.;_' � _ �'i«`.:-.;.,: `' ��,�}. ::°.��-�.. -- -- -------- _ `` <`�(b) oae:�i��' ttuck @ 3 L hou[s �, . =; K � �-�Qa S�`SO�`/Lr: - - _ _ 600.CTQ � � -� _ ,�.... , ,.. ' � � � -�� .T_ �-. _ �) 1 °"T/t,a�.?f�. �— �G /�•v � ap' ' � - �;..�s�; �.: � ,�..:�=✓.�s� - . ° ...:.j��y �� .�- ./—/��j _ i:_^.`<p:.: ._ ;L:,_ . yN�. Y . �v - � . •':Y,-;...+.3"'.;' .ai. . s,' ��.. �.."stra�roT�r: ---------------------------------- � �� . , _ -._�- .; . �.. - - :. - � . . � . �_ . ;�� _ ' � � . t �•-�. . . _ ..� � . � �. _. . �. . . , _ ::- :.. . . . �•`'`i:��_ �tr . .. , a ; n ... . ��J 3. �. . �, _. . ry J . , `�__/ Fl Page 2 � ., �'> r 'g_i . : . - .%' i APPEiAISAI; # ` �` ' ^' r nn��rmv.� • . . a � -35`� -�i'- -:i=�=�= � � . - i' T-�(4::c: _ _ ' . SS " s :::"•IN-PLACE" RFp A� NT OSTR T�S,S D 'VRF['TA'j'IOj` ( pT , Ii� bl .T. . T T./fT.T i7T�m.r.�-..;� , . 'L . .,_... :r = � : "_ . ..:. - .� � �,, .. , , _ .�r i�-. Purchase af basic eIecaicsI material iacIuding light fixtures, ballast9, lamps, boxea, ��= �S�,.b��s, clocks, miscellsaeous items such as conduit and conuectors, clamps �andclips,`etc:� � /SSv,mO -------- �?�, :Iz� ;,._:�,'.� - - �:`)•',.- . j:;�?)i:;:a ..- ' ^y' . h �. q' " _' .'.....�. � ♦,..� w � �SSiCS Qe`G S IUfOL�fPf �� ,. , � -- �', ��. . _ - ;j`4' ;',f, _ - . - `"i.: - Load and unload equipmeut at site = a 2 maa : .;,. -`c: crew uQ'` 2: '� kours each Q� 'SSr,r� lhr. --- vD:oO . - .`L . ��.iw:�)i� : y�� .`:.' ::�y ' . . ,. - 1"''.. � 'u;z.', . . __. . ..... ,.. ..... C':1t:iG�_:t;.:.. __.:.;x.... . r,•'� � �.li' . anels, run candwt, putl. wire, instatl Sxtures and ballasts: cr�w,�' 2c7 hrs. (a1 �-. -- . --. -------------s3a�.a� 4; �•' - -..:. ... . . �. truck Qo � hours -1br � - ---- r----- S l[9r90 rrfl � ' }: r - �UCIC Q hoUts �r• ----'-'-..�"" �. :=� � `:.. . i :' .,-,�a:�...:- .. _ 4ttck Qa hovts .1�• --------------- ,�.._.,�_ .,:: ti a '' i. . _ �' > -:: r'• ' .`�f�C"'dw—_'.�'1_,'� r . 3'.:...,��Y.:%�+i�.�.�'�'� . �.c.., �s�- ; i; -' ��.:: ��:. _ :s:�: ��a:°:a:<-::c�`� '� �.�>.��:�-: � .. I ..: ' � i. . .�• - , . � ,,:�� ; ��:. .. .. . . . ..� -.. :; : : S/,a�J : , Pat � `fp`Y < _ . ; -�-- hours� -------�_,� � _ - e: - {"� A IC�C LGQlt1I'Cd f07 � �/hc -------SSao�oO �. ; _ �� - - - --- ------------------- � �� . . t; �_ • ti . 'udtng sGhvchctat a, etc.; elI .�.. ., . _-.:: ;<-,: ��..:: - _ . . i�i : �: � F.. :'.eiyY,.?iu . � _ . .�t ' � �p , :i '- ":. „' :'=Permitcosts------� ---- S 3G2•oD . . ;1 _ Soilstests - ---------- -r -----•---- ,�,_'G'� = :_- . - -�• ,> - �` �. :;Si1RTOTrL7•.------------- �. -� -.: "�;;_ '�� v�;��'a�'_ ----------------------- 3G��o0- -;;=- �°} , . �. s;: ; :. � #; �::x. , :=��.. � �; . • :LL�,. ;� : - ��.,. `�-� ; REPRODUCTTOi�' COST (1TEMS 2-7) -- - -- ��-asc� � � fr37. a � . . . ; . M ' . •i nat 'ais o iv and do aot include "indirect costs" iacluding such items as ( auepreneurinllprofit --- as ex,plained in the nacrauve of the report- y4:[ ':;{, ' w� r ?� .'� _ ... �..._ --• '': - . .t�..�"`�..�:. a page 4� Hrrxniaru, rt LOCeS,TIOPI # -��' :3 �� i "'y:_, ^ - � }, Sittproctuement - ---------S o Scn.ot� :5� �S.—;.n_.,414 _-r1`i-- -,;.M-�� ;'�v: ::� ;: / � P� rePl�arc (d'u_+ect cosi} = S�S 2S - v ` --_'—�'-rsv}��i`:: GiLa:. t' .?_.�'._"�Aig ��i_ �^E��=3'�'te-'.' � _ . . � iP� I) (pagts 1, 2, 3 & 4) """"""""'.$ � 3 �O�O �,`�_g'o---------5 1 /'�,S ! 'o 0 . - , - ----- �.__s3 cosTrrEw-------- :..,. -_., . . �a;lY.:.' , ��'O�� .� 8/3 �� c�-c7 :s; . .�.,r.. ::> , _ < aa�ertising stru�mre aaa - �schalule applied to oucdoor advertising struciures aad - of conshvctio�t and - : life expectancy of the outdoor adveztising structure ----' '.'' - . -; w . . . �sion that the overali depteciation estimatc of - or.as follows: . - # �;�s;�? . �TAL DEPRECIAITON ESTII�tATE - . - 9P ��.e0 + . - z : . ". , _ : : . . , t� OF DIRECT CaST (DEPRECIA$LE ASSETS} ; , • b -{ R ��:� pa-�*�vd :i _ 7: - >.,. .:�:=;�:�.�:�:.�:TOxar: x�rr,nc�MEr,rr cosr rrEw - - • -- - i3d.vo .."v>��_ "• '=r�: ..e>;��'��7i_:...: ; it ��",� ,;�� .:� s. . �. _ ``F .-_ . _ :::._ ,�? �` ` ,' LESS v AI:I.OWAIVCE5 - - - - [,� �� 7 �� :;,;:- " �:2,�-�,.' .. �, ~_'• �-� .-_"; REPLACEMENT COST LESS DEPRECIATION VALtJE - Say, �� a�� ' . � �� . ;:?. . , .. ,� � _ .. -. . . <.;. �. �� . . y � r 1 ��'�V Page 5 of 5 '`��.:'� x � _-- - fjl �2.Sc� .�� ,��.-. -�= _.._.__�.�_ - - � :,» _ �} . _ - � �_ :. ..... �:i. _� _ _ __ . . . . ^_�1M � �-2�t-c..a�--�O � f�-a.� � 1�-h9► V� -P��,7 ,. F t fi� � - �=----,,;� `�"''`'�/� � � .�� ,• -� y�.. - _,� :�,�e . � i � i:f.�= �i,: _. ��,r>: . , . �" � t :+:i> .}1 :. "� .x:...« <: � ' _ . n: s.,",�� `:fis�. . �-�� . . . :{. ►'�"`.� 197� P�a �l3ySi� C�--C - _ {� ,'z„ > � �/ � ,} , � .s: �o ��a . �ti `I . : a.�,,o.n�-�..Q rr� , ,,. � C� �r. 4,i9 13'�, G � �' ' .1 ��- �/�+.- ` Z r lZ D,.�ovQL �-o-� St 1� �/ a o sri 4�, ua ip�: : : , .— '}, ` 2- � i X 2-�/L (J?titr4 /ull�`CG*.N-, c.-� l�'� / J G c� a8$'� crD �:; � r iL x Z�Z S t,� � �it�-�.0 o.�t 1 Zo �/ co I s a�rU ,., E'; o .� Yv kS 3Go< u-v ::; . � � 2:�a . cro � 7a o. �rv � � . . i. � '� -- / Z � �—.CrCQ.��uv u.1.. //J 2-d / /�y Lo ; `:r .�; .,:_ � Ui��lTcc � � Z`/o ob d-'lo m� _ �_. . - . . . � �-� . .;:,;,.- .:. �,. , -- ,' `: l� t o-v t4- r+^- t� /��xz..Q /5� t� �c�/, oc� 30/ av ,: . s ? � �. 3;- a- So w o�.� �' � � �t,a/�-P-tL � L�l� ,00 �3P ov ' - �'� :.]' . .�.� �..1,�. � �- � l C�o a-�i �-v j z -_}�: :�_�.� � ''�'- '�e-�-�. a-s nx "� ; �� .o-o a.,:�ro Y; - t - M: s_,-:;;�, ;. �" � . .�. - � �>�i�_, ;;:��-�-:�,� /��+-c.v� . . ~` � `f S4. `f� /7'S8. Zo -".:. .r� : ; � .-::... - :��:,,: :�:�.= - _ �:" .z'i . A��a.: ��: ' = e ,r.`� ,,' A o-r /� _�_'��".3: - .9:'.. �� .i � 4 �;' . �.a: ' � � i� ��6} - , , � /,S �. � � ` "y':'✓�" � - s� :2{��. . S •�°-e=i ' �:i�._. e� / � -I � ! W+� s��l.:;�i: � '1'ir.. �z' i/ e��JICl� �� `.t:�G'' d yT:.. � � ' ` ;f� :��•. „�#.�� i ` _ �"�.4� - - ` •�do- " • • y .�'-.��,.� = 1" �:::. °`:=`� ��., ,,.o .. . , -� _� . 4Se'_ � � t r�`�` ... .' �� .-. ii - • � . . . . �.: ;t =r :T'U`•-"f.".`4�LS' :�� • � :� ,�,,::: .�:: :�=.•�; =:. ,.�- ' = :.`�: . ::>:�Lu..��+�.asso � � C.�,.� �l �-i 3; - �;,;�, <,;.=• � �>.. . . 'v�-' `�'.. �[r' �S.-" I ' 9" ^. { . 1 . ^ .�'i"S ? c ' � s^ _� '�r°-'� -s5€::� . � : - _ ;�`''r'a� ' ;�.� _ �:�.,'.2M+ - _-�' - �. u . - .'Y.: K'=`i�,•, . -}�.' >eMy_��. . . . S � , ifc .�a>alC+:.v^ i�^ ` ..: :..�t,'`'o_'_%i=':'.sritl, . .,y:_s'. . -; � � F ' ' .- - _ _ y 'i�.�' : F�r.j..o.� S„�=�._ _ _ _ ��_�:' ' ' 2 ,... � �y'."^ri,;�:,..5::' _s t�l�':=�T.;; - . . '� ..i,;: '!' :�T; �.,�:.. � // F . ...`; - - , j i � ' '' - a: '<i; : i 1. .� � �i 'r7 � WT (Mac) McCelle, PE. 6600 75'� Aveaue North &ookyn Park MN 55428 �s�z> ssoaaas August 28, 2000 Mr. Thomas J. Klees Director of Operations Elter Media, Inc. 3225 Spring Street N. E. Minneapolis MN 55413 re: Siorm damaged sign Pord Pazkway & Kenneth St. Paul, Minnesota WTM Job No. 1075-D. Dear Mr. Kiees: This is to cerlify that I inspected the above in your presence today. We surveyed ihe structure for dimensions and section properties. We compared photos from June 18, 1998 to photos taken today: There has been no discernable additional deterioration over the 2 year period. --� � Using the dime�sions and properties noted above, I calculated dead load resisting moments and obtain 284.4K'l171_K' = 1.66 FS> 1.5 required. One bent 6 inch channel was previously ✓ replaced. ; In my opinion, this structure is structura!(y adequate as is. � Piease feel free to ca31 me should you have any questions. Very truly yours, �►i ' 6` �%/!i`" Z�G�i� W. T. McCa11a, P. Eng. Copy: by Fax, Frank Berg, P. E., City of St. Paul. Siruciural Conset/tanf Bridges � SVUCfural Concrete • Fxpart Teu;mony i hereby cerlify lFal ihisp�an, speeiirceiion nr rcpnrt xas prcpared by me or undm my dirccl supervision and that I am a duiy Regivtercd Gnginxr undtt Ihe la.� 9 ! �te�o( j M� n� [7/• ner� Regishation No. 10540 C�� o � -�� b0'd 91rbL 09S Zi9 '3'd `E�LE��W 1 M diE=60 00-6Z-6ny ° t� f t - ��$ti '"r'rsg r t` s �"< ��. � ; �r �' £c � . �� .: -^---..�� y, y�r� ��ar'i � �� .6 �`-� 3 ,s . �e� r,�,�n°',� "�'+zt3�� 2vi7 ""� o' x:�.� � � a s - � � "��" �`��i.`�"'f�.3�3,y1}' l � �'}��y,�� y�..�� a ��'-� ! � r`�v' . ..n � 1t�#� i "d �� y r' - u ' �?�'' .F� t 3 r � � 1<n- ! i x �PS'�°�Sq � ; ..x.:; ., ,"? S ) `+Sti�P' � ; . , . � � � . � � 3/ts �� f:.��.ec.. _ _ e ~ � ,�` '""z. Y.,I �'�""4°''` � ��i `•, � . „ � �.I r . . : y'��P ' � ,, � . 1 �:.�i -' ! �f I . _._. " , t �''*'"'. � "` - -„ _,;; .,eR . . . . . . �., .: �"� - . �"t� _ .. � . r'��. � . �:�:, ° .. �:. � ..::a _...r-.,._._.. .. � �' ` � ' i'� ' .F { � 4 � s f� • Y 4, a . .�.: �i••r ) — � rv � 1 �� f w.a� !�" __. . .. ' ' �� „ - r �,.,. ,� �: {, piCj(d�%�j i , f • :4�r ��„ „�.... , .. .. ` k � � �+�1��, � '��.. ��'�»' ` �� : s ' ' ,_. ..'.. z. nz. ,..,::. _ . .. .� . r � _. . A:- - `Ti�.�r-- � . � � : k�y,s�c. . . ._.-� ra�� r . ?a ' -�" t A9 v__ �� _� �� Y ; . C h .n 4y F '�'- 3.♦ i:-, SY I �.� � .-��.. _ . + Y 5 5 t � a+ � f x ' '� �. r ?� � „ �� i�� ni : }�l�', r `i� .� p I� ' �ix ' _ G�� „ rt° .� � 1 7 �9 - i' , :L tp7��" t � �.; �, �. ��, ,� �.: �:�`"t �. _ ; E y� .. . . �S � _:.};\to \p, _ . a� '.3 .. � . , ��4"t :. , _ `� �4.'i xa_ • _ .. I . . . . . . � :A, �. � _ ua . . . yvy��vr!��.�"]"Y'-i`q�ju rccY " 1 .. � .I � - t.w.rp.y^�d ��.� W+w' 3 "�'wxf. C�a.' i n y " �, e :ee r � a '` �.2 �� ' G�-' �`II . M ae.�.p �� 'M [ ; . � -T"�-` 4.,.7�:yx _' ^ �u i9v�`�:'i�-��.ti3.�..�£`. ��'.S��.v� '� � _ i..�,y ��``�`' � � �. ,, , � .,� .�...-�.TM...�..,a .:�, �:: �.� � � ;,,�t ; <�_�- , y _��. _ �....�� l - , : ,r�t ��,Q....:.?��! � `�..--' ..i `� � "s b ; ' � � � � >-`�, _y � ' ; � � , s j , �� E .�. ,.sa.n ',+'� �- � . �. �,' :�`-�� ''.� �' `�'�.:. �.�.. .�� ,..��.�:-._--• t�o "_ ,xm- .- -, � �� t-a�,rV ' ��.v"-r':#� S3 �. r y � ^ �: �� y _s.",^:?�� '.�.' �S� -: � _ }r �7 � : .r.-ea�vVa � �'t . , . . � ,+ � � � � � kp,Dar.� f � ' �� .. �.j� yla ��. . . `.. .. ... �� .. � 1 � . L� � t _ .. , . � ,. x . � - � -, �... _'`�. :.. � .: . . . . . ... . �:. . y � , �._ <. , �_ ._'.r:. �_ v .— . srcv� '� �-"-n � i� G�: . , = ._----- - .. L� �� -._.._._ . .: , . Y , '.:; . � i � � . .. „�- ;� � . r ?- _n n,. :e- . _ F rR . — _�� .,- B -v, .a,c:' ..::g� . .. . . 2�.:�I. � .�-... av P - ` � _ ' �. �._. � �..�_�_ '_ .. .fl ' . . � ' �� ..__...._. . T �' Y � F-��c' r 3 �. y F . .. ;. . r ` „_ v " . : . t ` > r I '" z . .... .. � . .. , �� l��f:•��.� -- - - ,; �` '— . ,� ...:a - � �;C..i:.;.ir-,�G � � , wy��%��..�! � .`�� - �+.r_c-.. .�.- -w: � � ! R � . . .. c s '� f`�.� 'L� � a " ',i r �_ � ' .�„ . t � ��' �y�,,. �.: �,�w��,�� ; / iC �r i lii:�!".1� R��4 . �.. .-. ;_ �� ' � �.., ,_ - ` ,� °: '- - W. � - -_ —�- - = �� xe. �'` .. ., �� Y n.,� �' �:, -�_ _ . .. _ .. ._..,�YGR.u:� ��.�,'. :. — � r : �',t r.r .'.�� ^w S'�' '� '`' i � :'s �w�' � �'�'" t �� i ' �. YC� it�: c-4V.� *�: 'r `� h .. � s • �.: .. �.. ' . . _:.::. :. _�...Y.�._..__.. . .:J ._. v rv _F�e . , � ....a ry -- , a .� \- t'< :�.- .. . , ,_.. ,.a ..'.:..., �.. .'.. • � : .. �..: . + �,. c5 ' .�.-�, �� 5' � -�� .! . �� . .... � . � � ' "0 1p •• _ . `� j. .. � � � t"ZeSYt.� � �`; �� my "�.."`_` _ ' � ._._� ' �-«,.=-_-- � ;�- � � � .>..;� n ;, .v�_.y � _'—�'" O 1-dS�� • �u��t� �6 �lAC�_ VaY !�+„�,'1�� G�t�.�C.Ge�. � � Z` � A � �� a 1-�s� �• � STORM DAMAGE OVERVIEW ELLER MEDIA COMPANY LOCATION Ford Road and Kenneth (Most FasterIy Structure Highland Shopping Center) DISPLAY 3 Poster Paneis A. DAMAGE Photos one, tc�o and three describe the piesent condition of the structure. The heavq suvctural steel wide flange beam roof frame and the upright towers are intact and structurally satisfactory (see exhibit four, McCalla, 3une 19, 1998). The damage �•as the loss of the [hree siga faces. � . .. . The minor reinforcements to the structure, the angle and "C" channel, and han�ng the ttu�ee sign faces 1ki11 require a tluee person creiv on site f'or a day and a half. The remainder of the time will be used in the shop for fabrication and preparation for the on site work. The elechical ser4ice for the shuccure and fixtures for the westerly faces are in place. The fia for the easterly face is in storage at our shop. C, NOTES AND AMEI3DMENTS • At the City's request we ha��e prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPLACEMENT COSTS LESS DEPRECIATION' ��•orksheet and materials list specificaliy for this site. In that process �ve discovered the cost of the idenlical replacement �vould be higher ihan �ve had estimated our on our originai "Storni Damage Worksheet". This change is reflected in our Storm Damage Worksheet dated 4/AJ200() 4l21/2000 � � - .. . . -. ,.:.-- . . __ . I L II . . _ . � .. . .';,.`, ' ' . R D. � - . . ?' �'�1 !' F . -. .. _.. � f �: l t .t . � � � ._ }� - 3. S � i ^ . . �� .W �� '�6� . Y � t � � : ''' .c ��1��•'_�a��1�� x�` y . _ . E f " ` �� r .e�,��G`�s � o' r:{' � � '- i�'-T � � � E�� e.. f 4� �- b� t a'� e � ' �ir _ - � FK �c F� t� - ' � r � . ' - <% E � f � .� e - � �: '9",...": 4 i � � ��v. C . � ► f` i'' r ' - �� ---�_' �. � . e►-li 0��.� _ _- - - �� i�' � . e � � �Y � _ r,.�� ` _ + � �-' °' , .. z `� f� � `t e i. • ` �_ � a � «�_ _ , �, i . a _� ; 3 b _ �' t� `�� ° t ° -' �+�w m "e"'_.. ` '�a- m �—� < ..�+��.. .. « " r-� a �. ; +`s� y .`*f�de� ` � � � �' � � [ � � . . . � - . . �. t : � �. e - t: � :� �. �� t -s t ' t�� - �c� u-.<,_� ��__ �'��`„t �� -^^" ` � � �� +-...,m"� � �-�� c� '�� ' , _ _ � ' � � � la�� ' � ` t� �-��' � . �� r E��, .. a,. � .�..' {6 � cse ��sx�,nsnia.n.�>-�a.�:ii �;`..,'?°i f .. t� . < .' w �.. � u�.� �.�. .��. � i: 8 IC��_:.._ . . ...� — . v.T.,_. ��:�.� - _ . ' ,� � � "° � i: , _ ' _ , ,,:d. = _ , - } � .. ..-_. a. - _ "'_ .. . 11 �� CcF.I �_ �•� m'a:�.i.�l. - - .. ,..... . z ` , ° " `�- 4. .�° . ` .... e ;� . .:. . . . - - �: �.-„n... - . _._ u __ � � -a. : � -- : . r .�.- . .. r , ��.�T—. - iAr°.�c-�.et�►��'�`r°;_.'' :�_. — � -- �- ee��a` ' . . �� .. � � "+f ` �.3_.. �:a � _ � - - . q . '- •. - �.,��,.�� . _ � � :.�:i��.'t_= .na - �, — - � � �� • � � � i i � I • � STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET ELLER MEDIA COMPANY LOCATION Ford Road & KennethDISPLAY 3 Poster Faces A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS 1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS {1) 44 ft 2.5x2.5 angle iron @ 1.6� per ft 8 ft 6 in. °C" channel @ 4.19 per ft Ciips and bolts 2. SIGN FACE AND TR1M (2) 3 sign fiaces C$499 per face 3 trim kits C$220 per face B. LABOR 60 hours @ $22.00 per hour COS7 OF REPAIRS Estimated cost of new identical structure(4) Estimated cost of new replacement structure(4) Estimate of cost of securing, stabilizing and ciean up on May 3i (3), 21 hrs at $44.04 per hour (1) See note 2c (2) See notes 2 a& b (3j See note 1 (4) See note 3 All costs are direct costs 4/4/2000 $70.40 33.55 38.00 $i497.00 $660.00 $1320.OQ $3620.00 $48�,339� $23, 660.68 $35, 000 $924.00 o � - 3�'�i �� .�'u.e i'!� wy f :[�i�r.��.Lli�- � �� -asa ' °IiV-PLACE" I�F.PL.A , . COSi L• .SS D .PFt�'C'IATIQN ,�4iTF,�ROCtTRFMENT: - � faces @ 5�v face. � • Total site procurement - - - ��,� _� ' �1 BA IC �TR 7CTLIRx A. TAT.c - Purchase of basic suvcture, inclvding ugrightS ead fatcia: -Fstiinatedcost------------------------ �°�), 5 7 -Deliverycharge- ---------------------- S �/A -SalestaxQ,�,�%-------------------- $sz3.oq .. SUBTOTAL------------=----------------------- �S7•GG �,l IN-SHOP fi�,BRCATION; - T.aboz to remove bavic materials &om avck; in-shop fabricabion aad aasembly; ia-shap P��B -�. man crew @ 3 c� houzs @ 2z , a,> _ -------------------------- S /32u.vo . $ITBTOTAL----- S /3u.� 4Lxai n� RiLiGA F�071W ,S S'IRt tCT[ TRF TO/ON SITF �Nl� DI�HOLE; - Procedure includes (a) c:ew & equipmentnecessary to haul strvcture & material to ' site aad -(b) employ aa aager to dig hole and haul dirt: (a) _ man ciew Q . hours @ S� -_' /hr _to dig hole and haul � --------------------� N/ (b) use of auger for '__ hours Q . T��• -- --------- ��L - - -- - Labor to febricate �ootings at site and pour concrete footings at site. _ man czew @ hours Qa SJ1u:------------------------- � N/� •.�yazdsconccece��_IYd• ------=--- S �"/19 : - Equipment required: . (a) one truck Q _ hours � ---------- lU s? @ �J1R'- - - - - - - - �—_-� (b) oae truck @ ____ hotus Ca3�_/hr.----------------- S N/� svBrQrar ------------------------------------- �! � Pagc 1 • .'_ . '�!� . � o i -a-� � •APPRAISAL # . • . LOC 4'I?flPT # �� - � "T?�?-PLACE" RFPL•ACEMF'NT A TS L•ESS DEP FCTA'�ON tGONTINL�DI � � � u�: 1' ': �' yl 1: •♦ �t � � - Includes essembly of fasci� suingen, platforms, ladders, brackets, etc. Qn site. -� man cccw � 3 v hours � ;�"'� • ----- ----------------,S�c - Ec�uipment required: (a} one �UO rs� truck (03 3 L hours @ ��.�_hr•----------------- >�..�'� (b) one ��T� ttuck @ � houts @�_�fac. � �Coo�ot� (� pz•L Ti2Al �-!_ /2. � t (e �'^� �t .�r . � � � �S.Pv�N� Si.�TOTAt.-------------------------- S �5�/G•uU � e n z e • . � • '.:iG: . ..^ . `�✓. .... page 2 of ` � • . APPRAISAI, tt � � �.00ATION # _ o�-as� m t • . • : ul �y � e • � __' : __ • � • � 1►lJ � � • i: � tl Jull►: f � ♦ -.Purchase of bagic eiecrdcal matcrial iacluding Iight 8xtures, ballests, lamps, boxes, hangess, bieakers, clocks, miscellaneous items snch as conduit and conaectocs, ctamps and clips, eu. @ S isso • � _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ s o . cp. -SalestaxQ G�� %foraiaterials-------- o-d.�� - Load and unload equipment at site = a 2 man crew @ � houcs each (a3 S 7 � /hr. - - - S �� - Install e(ectrical panels, iun conduit, pu[i wire, instalt 5xcures and batlats: - �' maa cnw (q� � �. � $ �� l�li. "_"'__^""^___"' 70<�O.d� • - Equipment required: (a) one G�a�iu-�. 'truck � a � hours @� so /hr. 9d-a.vz� ' (b) one tzuck @ hours �; n..,----------•----- � (a) onc truck @ hours @�_�------------------ �.____.____. S TU'I' L------------------------------------ SSSS�/�oo � . - -;. . - � .. �� . � . APPRAISAL #1 . . . . b I — �� LOCATTON # �• °IN-P •�tCF" �P .A .FR�T COS7S L.F.SS DEPI�F.GIATIOlY (CONT,[N,�T � 1 II; yl l: :': hli�:�� - Crew to paint uprights inciuding s�uctiusi steel, laddezs, sd�engers, trim, etc., a11 items txC�gt fascia. � - �� man crcw @ � bouis @ S 2-�.rrz� /hr.---------- ---------- a�� - Equipmeai required: � (a) one panel uuck zequirod for ��,'�� / (� hours � �,?? /hr• - - - - - - - - L_L_.=`� O Si1RTOTAL------------------------------------ S�I07�J0 �1 • � : �t� • Permitcosta-------�------------------- S Soilstests ---------------------------- iS v/-1 SI7RTOT�-----------�------------------------ �3b?.o?7 � DIRECT/HARD REPRODUCTION CO5T (1TEMS 2-� - - - - - �� L lo ►� : •► A 2he above costs are for ]abor nd jg�v mate ' Is oniv and do not include "indirect costs" including such items as (I staudard overhead altowaace and (2) entrepreneurial/grofit --- as explained in the nacrative of the report. • �� Page 4 of � �. ir;cnTTOrr �r � � � (1) Site procurement - • - - - - - - - - - - S/�, ��tJ• v0 (page 1J C1) In place rep2acement (dimt wst) = S 60 �G (PeSes 1, Z, 3& 4) � Subtotal --------------- ---- ----------Say, S3 /GO, G-� � OverheadJcon�accoz's allowaace Qa `f� � - - - - - - - - S /537� _J'.o- Entrepreneurialprofit@,f�°/----------- 5)z ' �v-O � REPLACE MEPITCOSTNEW---------------SAY, S� � ': : ��a �lu: �, After corisidering: (1) aetual age oFtfie in place outdoor advertising strueture and - t2) �coSa�zing ttu stcict maintenancc schedule appIied to outdoor advertising struciures and - C3) the condition and quality of consCuc�on end - (4) the Iocation and �conomic life expectancy of the outdoor advertising structure ---= � We have ar�ived at the conclusion that the overall depreciation estituate of ___ �°� ` should be app(ied or as follows: TOTAL DEPRECIATIpN ESTtMATE - - - 3S(�+ * NOTE: DEPRECIATIOAi IS LS�°/. OF DIRECT COST (DEPRECIA$LE ASSETS) S�NC— L— U3ION.�: . . TO�'AL REPI,ACEMEPiT COST NEW - - - - - . ; S G . � � LESS DEPRECIA�'ION ALLpWANCES ---- 3 Sy9 1 REPLACEMENT COST LESS DEPRECIATION V.ALUE - Sny, WAtuwawpd ' �,.,. �� - � �„�.� �-� _ �' . � �� , �-L SG ��.'��' .. �� ' ot a s'� � � . Page 5 0� � , � . . � �- -- -��?�,�..� d ( -a-� � — �/j� �u � � IC�i�� - �-, - �— 2 �. 3 � G " C��-�.c� _ .__y,,g ^ .- _. . _ . . _ � � G' l� f � L/��_rJ�.�. 21 z��7__ - �" _ ! G" lu � �—�_ ------ - -- --- � . Z-�l ». �xi� �,.�_ j�r.� -� Z c� 2�G o�p 7-- _.. �. X Z . `f'� � J, �o . (-------- �. _.._�.--�---- -- .. _ a" Z�C 7i ft/ Cit7.d�0�i�0�Gei- � 9 �� G c� __ —�� , � _.._ - ---- -- • --... �-___.� a � y � � _ - ?�'3�.3.� - s S/. Zp ,_3Y 3- Za �5_ L o _ dt7 3r3.G o __ x z L /�%L �� _� .Piw�--_ 7� /. G o zo . cro -- -------- ---._. . . . . � � _ � . _ ..--�-- -- (u �GaT �-�n.r,_. -- -�'Q,c?o._-- `f `av' °� � �. ___ _ . . ... _... - ---.. . 3 ` a D `� (� �°� —.� �.--- . . 2 SD. � � _ 7Sv . �-t� --- --�--- - - -- �- --- - .—....... -- , _ - - _-- -. _ � ___...__— �- ' L vc1? �aiz-2 �? Yo. v� - � 4/v � u� . �. ----_ - - - --- --.,. _.. . _.. . - _ ___._.. __ -�.l_S ..�� T � ! �oti+� wl �� - �f ,, � ��' ybo , �O 9ov , az? ____ _ _- _�S�%Lyu''`_�%._ . .: . _ . . _ 3 - .�-5 u wcr-� �-� ?C�u�-e-o �;� aYL.a�v � ----- - - -- - - L �?.1.G�J�q �.C(J .—..-- -� /frr�-� � t� _G� _rC1st_'%✓�30_/, or� , � a �v � � � �t.c�- , 3 ._ �mfn,�� .�o ---_..—_ ---- --- ---� = `� -- - -- ---_... _ . --- ----- � i r � �_�� 6'.�-�J. ' o-z �rS 5• ��4 . ..� � , T� ova__ o-c d'�3&', sv �._..-----..._-- ---.- .., ..--- �-- _ I �ti.��,� a�...�.� .� s-.o� ___ `__...__ 'N�.R.c t..�n,c., t1�o,� Lw=Gi wf a�rs,�:� --}— - /---- - --- ---�- - -� - — ----- -.__. __ . .... ��__ 7'c>'�`o�..l� � -- — —• ---- - - - - - - -- __�__ �.(v✓� _ / 5� J -° - ----- - - -- -- - �'`�'�- � a �- : 36.crp .� �' � __z,6/,oa . . / �`S� 2. o `��7�00 as d-v ."� 3 , cl-p. ._ __ _.. _ :;.. _.. _ __ . _. _ �� 7,� .�: 2 --- -- --- �� o�-a� STORM DAMAGE OVERVIEW ELLER MEDIA COMPAIVy LOCATION 1142 W 7th @ Bay DISPLAY i poster Face � A. DAMAGE The damage to the sign face ailotved the three uprights to bend at ihe base, see "Site Visit Report" of Frank Berg, 7une 24, 1998, photos one and tsro indicate rhe i��o verticais have been straightened the third vertical rvas pu(led at the requesT of Mr. $erg so he could inspect it It was not replaced and is stored on site K�ith the platForm that was removed for safety. I: ' •� The repair «-i11 be as recommended bp our consulang en�neer, W. T. McCalla in his letter of September 28, 1998. The Z,S x 2,S angle iron will be used to rebrace the staucture, and the "C" channet tc>i11 pruvide tfie weIded patches over the corrosion and frachu�es noted bp Mr, $erg and Mr. McCatIa. The work �vill be accomplished in one day bp a thrce person crew, w1th most of the day spent on site, The electrical sen-in� the structure is in place, and the fixture is in storage at our shop. C. NOTES / AMENbMENTS At the Ciry's request w�e have prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPT.ACEMENT CpSTS LESS DEPRECIATION" worksheet and materials list specifically for [his site. In that process �c�e disco�•ered the c.ost of the identical replacement c�rouid be]ugher U�an we had estintated our on our originat "5torm Damage WorksheeY'. This change is reflecte.cl in our Storm Damage Wori;sheet dated 4/4/2000 a!arz000 >� • • 1 Y�� _--�� ' ' � r _ . z,.� - -.` _ . w'A`'� �( �,3'my.�r�i`�'�',�S'„_-t � � s-' _ � ��°.�-�s.r . _ ,� .,,. _-� ,� � ►,�� - � _�.� � 6 � .. i ��t.� � . � ,_�._,s� ��-�' �� [t � _ ::;,:� �_ _ wa.ae� i � �-5 � 1� 4 � -,_-wn. ' -. F �'„ . R 5 �.: � � � � „t � �� . . N 54 V,�ay �' � "SK .y M � � W �.. . �; �� ' T JHf 3 �`�f , ��..s.. .i'� �' v ' . 2 ' ,�. . �� . . ..>.. , s .. ,�. `.. �. . . {... . . . � �� ; . � �� , `� . � ', -ce.a' ��..� , ,_cc- _ ,. _ c^ '�".:. "'", . . _ . -..-�. . . � .. .... +s�L �$ �,. � r " , �� _' � � � _ � _ . i � � �:� ; = �... . _ _ _ � �, �� d�-as� SatN7 PAUL � ARAA � OFFICE OF LICENSE. INSPECT[pNS AND ENYIRONMENTALPAOTECT[ON Rabert Kusfer; Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Colemars, Mayor 7u1y 2, 1998 Thomas Klees Director of Operations Elter Media,.Inc. 3225 Spring Street, N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 telephone; 612-266-9001 Facsimife: 612d669099 " RE: Engineering Report by W.T. McCalla, re: four damaged signs, W, 7ih Street, Saint ' Paul, Minnesota, dated 7une 19,1998 - Dear Mr. Klees: I perfo�ed my own observations of the sign at 1142 West 7th Street. Based on the results ,_ of my observations, ihis Office is requiring that your engineer be retained to loolc more closely at ihe condition of the wind damaged sign structares, and that the report be � resubmitted. The engineer's report must indicate his procedures, explicit facts as to his observations, and then his �engineering opinion. A copy of my site visit report pertaining [o the sign shucture a[ 1142 West 7tfi Street is attaclied. i may be reached at 266-9072. SincereIy, �---�--� " �-�-- Frank Herg, P-B- Staff Structural Engineer Acting Building Official Enc1 cc: W.T. McCaIIa (with enclosure) B UlIDING INSPECIION AND DESIGN 350 St Pue� Strnr Suite 310 SaintParaf, M'vu�crata SS702-ISIO � � � • a I -a� � i ,� u BX: DATE: Frank Berg, P.E. City of Saint Paul, June 24, 1998 SI'TE VISIT REPORT F� �� Office of LIEP PBOJECT: Wind damaged sign at 1142 Wesi 7th Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota PUR�OSE OF VISIT: The purpose of my visit was to observe for myself the condition of the sign structure becavse of conflicting reports from 1) this O�ce's own inspectors, Mr. Dave Kenyon and Mr. 7ohn Hazdwick, and 2) Mr. W.T. McCalla, engineering consultant to Eller Media, Inc., report dated Iune 19, 1998. BACKGROUND INFOI2MATION: A suong wind storm occurred during the evening on May 30, 1998, that caused considerable property damage. On or about June 8th the sign suucture was inspected by Mr. Kenyon and Mr. Hardwick and it was detemvned that this sign (along with some other signs they inspected) needed to be observed by an engineer and evaluated for structural integrity. PROCEDURFS: My qisit was performed at about mid-day and was approximately 35 minutes in duration. I took twelve photogtaphs. I did not take any measurements. i OBSERVATIONS: . � . .. . .. The sign structure consists in part of three vertic�lly cantilevered columns each made''up of a double, cold formed, steel channel (channels positioned back-to-back). The base of each column projects up and out of a sand base contained by a steel pipe se[ into the ground. � The column nearest West 7th Street was observed to be signi£cantly bent at the base with the middle column bent slighdy less, and the .column furthest from the street bent hardly at aI3. The steel pipes into the ground appeared to have not ro[ated. Corrosion was obsecved. The corrosion was most severe where the channel shapes penetrate the sand base. l�� a as� The flange of one channet (in the column nearest the street) was observed to be completely � fractured straigh[ across its entire width. This fractuced flange was on the "tension" side of the column considering the direction of the bending. Significant flange buckting and web crippling was obsetved at the base of both channels comprising each of the two columns most bent. Newly chipped paini was observed at these locations. CONCLUSIONS: = The sign must be moce closety observed by ihe engineer, and then re-evaluated. The channel that has fractured has essentially no load carrying capability at aIl. The steet, wheze it has deformed, has exceeded what is called the "elastic limit". Prior to reaching the e[asfic limit steei wilI deform under Ioad, but then retum ro its normal shape when the load is removed. Once the load is enough to result in the steel exceeding its e[as[ic limit, the sieel is permanently deformed. These columns cannot simply be straiahtened out without having lost some load carrying capability. • m � � m i t o� . � W.T. (Mac} McCalta, PE. 6600 75 fiAvenue Nonh, Brookym Park, MN 55428 (672) 560-74-06 September 28, 1998 Mi�. Tfiomas 3� IClees DirectarofOpera6ans - . Eller Media, Inc. ' 322i E. Minneapolis MN"55413 re: Storm damaged Builil sign 1 I42�FVest &trEet St. Paul; Minneapolis W'CM Job No. 1075. Dear Mr. Klees: This is to certify tliat I" inspectied' the atiove June 1 S, 1998 in your presence and' again $y myself 7uly 31, 1998 to establish material in formed channels. • The 1 West• 7-`� &freet structurtis a single� pos4er- grvun�- buHd- with- the-light- steel- panels • missing. The 3'vertical supports are formed from l0 gage gaivanized steel tapered channels back to bacR forming 3" I beams. T;�e beams are set in 3 steel that-contain The�3� beams were tilted varying amounts but were not damaged"by the storm. Correction required is to lift out � the-3 beams, leaving the eacisting cans nrthe-ground: Wel�patehes onto- the�cans where corrosion • has eaten ttirough at the ground� line. .We3d� patcties on the tapered beam tliat has corroded through at grovnd-]ine: Yamt.the welded� areas, replace t�e sigrr beams and replace the paneIs. You may wisfi to replace the top one foot of sand witfi concrete, "doming" to sHed water. Tn my opinioq•this structare-wit� be adequatewith-the abovenominal repairs. Please feel free to call me s}iould you }iave any questions or want furtHer details. Very truly yours, • - � �1��:�.a//`�``�\./.� 1%l � W. T.McGalla,_P..Eng. � I hae6vcatifythatthisplam,spai[icaEimorreport wupcepaedby meor�mdc mydir�svpmision md�thaz t azu�a duly Regsttred Fngci� vadeyffia , lawsofttr of. ' •• . , Date � • Re�c#im No.105<0 Copy. Frank Berg, P. E., St.�PauI City. Structural Engineer Struet�ral Consulfant 8ddgee • SUUCroraf Concrere • Experf Tes7imony � �� R -�$ O � �� STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET ELLER MEDIA COMPANY �OCATiON 1142 W 7t6 @ Bay � DISPLAY 1 Poster Face A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS 1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS (1) 72 ft 2.5x2.5 angie iron @ 7.60 per ft 20 ft 8 in "C" channel @ 4.59 per fi 2. SfGN FACE AND TR�M (2) 1 sign face @$499 per face 1 trim kit @$220 per face B. LABOR 24 hours @ $22.00 per hour COST OF REPAIRS Estimafed cosf 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), 8 hrs at $44.00 per fiour (1) See note 2c (2) See notes 2 a& b ;3; _ Ses_note 7 (4) See note 3 Ali costs are direcf costs Qnr_.. �; $115.Q0 81.00 $498.OQ 220.Od $528.00 $1453.00 �$4�$8032.35 $13,000 $352.OQ � . r L� r� � l��z � r�- w��- .. � � s��s� �e ��-K-�f3�� .. � lS� _aso � � "IN-P ,AGF." IZ�PL.AC�. � COSTS FS D,PRF. rTIQN � � IT .PRO f'iiRFibtENT_ � - � faces p. �l�ce. , • Total site pzocurement - - - � � � . : : s 1!: �t i. �i�1•`��7/_�� ,.- . .: , „ . .. . •, :,. _Fet:mats.iCASi----------'^-'---'---" �� .30 - Delivery chaz e- /� - -------------------- � -Salestax(a(� �S %-------------------- S )39• 1 SUBTOTAL------------------------------------ 6 .o '}� IN-sxop�AA SC�,T[ON: = Labor to zemove basic materials from �uck; in-shop fabrication and assembly; ia-shop P��B - �- man crew @ � hours Q �_/hr• ---------- ---------- �2&8•� $�.,TRTOTAL--^--�--�- ----------- SZ8'8•� _- Procaiuze inclssdes (a) c,�ew �t equiQmeat necesssry to haul struciure & matezial to site and -(b} employ aa auger to dig hole and haul dirt: (a) 3 man crew Qa � hours (a3 a a-ov _ w dig hole and haul dist--------^-----�-------^----- S.2GS��YJ (b) use of auger for � hours Q s�• •------------------- Saad.60 - Labor to fabricate £ootiags at site aud pour coaciete £ootings at site. -,� maa crew @ _� hours Qa �r.____,Jhr: ------------------------ - � Yatds concrete � S._..._JY�1- - - - - - - - - _. - Equipment reqatted: (a) one �T��uck Q � hours Q ��_�- ---^------------- ro� �� ho� a�"o �.vA �dd` �fl c�s^_� ----------------- s � �UBTQTAL--------------------- � • . . � Page 1 of a�-asa APPRALSAL �i . ' � • . LOCATI01+t # . ` . � � 1� ' : �1 ; �1 ul � � � • : �1 : M • ► • ►1�t►1) 1 ut: 1' ' : �• 9l /: • • y� - Iacludes Assembly of faseia, stringers, platforms, ladders, brackcts, eic. p�s�. -� maa cxew �� hours Q-- --- S S` 2-�. U� ��u'.--------- ---� - �cluipmmt required: (a) one govr. truck (a3 � hours @ 5 � — � J�------------------ s yor� (b) oae ��T�" truck Q � fiours @�_�'------------------ 5 S�d't� SiTATOT 1.-------------^-------------^-------- �3�� UY7 -. . . . . . - -- - - - � --- _ �1:. '� ; :k: '�� . :� . :i . k � . . . � . . . . . . .. . . � • Page � nPPxars�u. # . � . o � -�-sa . iocaTTOx� - . :' �'T�* pL,ICF�' R�,p CF14"�NT CQST ES- DFpIZF.�TATiON fCON'[71Vi7Fi)1 . �, : 11 luti► : � � ► - Putchase of basic eleccrical material i.ncluding Jight fixtures, bsliasts, lamps, boxes, 2�aagers, bzealcezs, clocks, miscellaneous items such as conduit and rnnneciocs, clamps and clips, eu. Q S. -- - - - - - - - �� •. � _ G2�?- - Sales.tax @ � • 5 % for materials - - - - - - - �—Z- - Load and unload equipment at site = a 2 mau � �,� ctew @ �._ houts each Q �• � - - � � - Install el� cal panets,� mt, P� wite. install fixtures and ball�cu: �r �� lus. ��/hr. -------------------5 GGY7•v-O _ gquipm.ent required (a) one /.An�.u.. truck Q � houzs v ------ 5 ��.�rZ'? @�__I1�r. ---------� (b) one truck Qa hours @�-____.—�hr. --------------- � (c) otte tru�k (a3 ho� Q$.�,,_/hr. --------------- '�.�-- SL�TOTAi_.- -----�------------ �,.�/?a•y7 � .. . �� .. Par � APPRAiSAL # LOCATIQN # - o�-as� � 1 ► ' : �1._ : ' v� �� • . � • . � .rn.� � � 1 1; bt 1: � ': h/� +- - Czrw to paiat upzi8ht4 including strucriugi steel, laddas, strinBccs. trim, etc., a!i items y� fasci� � men cxew @ O houis @ : �ff �-�.v� /br. �3 sl•�tJ - Equipment required: (a) oite Faaef uvck re4uited foz � hours� 3 �1�- --------S�� S �.� fuif.�� : il � rercnicaosts s 3G2.u� Soilstests ---------------------------- � S L IR TOT� T . ----------- --------------�----------- $ �6� `°a ' • DIRECT/HARD REPRObUCTION COST (ITEMS 2-� ----- S� �� : �� The above costs aze for lahor �„d raw materiale o�iv and do aot iaclude "indirect costs" including such iieau as ( standard ovezhead allowance and (2) entrcprenenrial/profit --- as explained in the narrative of ihe rcpozt_ _., , . _ �� Page 4 � nrrxataAL ii I.00ATION N V � 0 � -�c Il ' : �t : �1 ul�f� • � t ' : �l : r � ► • �MYhI 1 � lvlu : : • : �I' : � � y� 1 � • (1) : Siu proctuement - - - - - - - - - - - - S 3 SoO.c� (p 1) (2) . In ptace neplacemem (direct cost) : S S� 3Z �3� (P88� 1 2, 3& 4) Subtotal -------------- ---------------$ay, S S3 .3S•'� • OverheatVcontractoz's allowance @ � % - - - - - - - - S �/'O; ofl. . Bntrcprcneuiial ptofit Qa /� o�� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,S/�25,� -. , � REPLACF.MEM'COSTNEW---------------SAY,. yS".3� ': : I�♦ tl��: � Rer considering: (1) acival age of the in place outdoor advertising structure and - _( reO°E�°8 �° �� tnaintenauce schedule applied to outdoor adveztising s4ruct�ues and - (3) the condition atid quslity of construction and - (4) the location aad oconomic life expectancy of the outdoor adveztising stxucture ---- • We have atrived at t}ie conclusion that the overail dc estimate of �v %* s}iould be applied or as follaws: TOTAL DEPRECIATLON ESTTMA2E --- d oG. + * NOT'E: DEPRECIAT1pN IS Z� % OF D7RECT COST (DEPRECIABLE ASSETS) !�� ox.ni, x�rrac�l►�ivz� cosr �w - - - - - - ,�ys/ , 3 � LESS BEPREC7ATION ALLOWANCE5 - - - - (,� �.� ) REPLACEMEPiT COST LESS DEPRECIATION VALUE - 5ay, 'PVao.rawpd � (� 1 /� C //� , L / y � ( l � . �� f1Y3�3� Page 5 of 5 � � � � c�[—a5� ; _---- l.t'`—''-,Q,--7�f --2 i5`� . . � ��--Q -- -- --��.e-�`.cQ� • . • - - -- -- _ � _ - ---- -- --- /� / � I � G-��s .. � r ��..�L__ �_ _._Tou...��. a�_� a- �y��.. =_�63.? � � _— � _.__ � _�f8� ---= - -- � � • � �� .� %L k Z� � _�1.bo �,% .-.r-- �---. .� /4�� 2 /y_ �?--� J n.� _'c�'J ;:_. �– ) _ � � , r n �'.e7�� c � - --�1c1S0, OJ �Sa,SrU_ _. (__ a o-�" ?�G..�a _ . ...a..y � 1 cro v4 t��. /�v>�.e.E' i5G'� w �� . ..._ ,..- --._._...__� . _- --. .. - _.. _ .�.�- �t�-c, -� � �� - �----..-_ ------.. �� _, __ -�;--- - �- -- - -- -- �„V,.,.�. . ,,� — .�. - ��r _ . I o-r G L ---xa `—�---------- - � - -� °-7° '- �� ,. 1 �� S�-c.t- �'/'cX - ��.'•. St�....--- - _ r z fzE ,� s. �.�`.. � a � 4, s � _ ----- --... . _ �� _ _ � � �,<,c -� �-z�t i 3 ? o — — _. � —__. .. ---, _. _�.��-- -- T 3 7. �j O ,_ .. . ��a y��3d . ,_._. . --- -- _.. _. __ - - ..._ .. , - M�� - - - �-- -� ------ �u� ,�� , - - _ --- ____�",.t.,�'�i5 �,_�_-_�r__—_---- , .— -------- -- - _ I • --- -.. __ _ — ----�— — — / j . _. .. �� I � �— . � � � CITY UF � _. Refernd To �so�.t�orr PAUL, MlNNESUTA .....� i. O � -�-5 � � i � 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lI 12 13 i5 I6 ? 19 2U 2] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 • WHEREAS, Scenie Mumesota, in Zoning File 98-154 and pmsuant m Saint Paui Legislative Code § 66.408 made application to the Saint Paul plaaniag Commissipn (Comrnissionj to appeal ihe decisicra of the Saim Pavl ZoniaB Adminis�atar to allow repairs #o storm damaged adverEising signs located at ! 820 Grand Aveaue and at the southeast comer of Ford Fm'kway and Sovth Cleveland Avrnue; and ub&c �� on August 6, 2998, the Commission's Zoning Cuauaittee conducced a P hearia8 where all intetested persons were given an oPP�ty to be heazd and submitted its recommec�dation to deny the appeal to the Commission; azsd WHERF 48. in its Resolurion No. 98-45, dated August 14,1948, the Commission decided to deny the appeal based upoa the findings in Resolution 9&-45 which is attached hereto and incmpomted hezein by zefereuca; and R'AEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-241 and ptusvant to the prm of Saint Paul Legislative Code §(q.206, f�ed an app�� e by the Commission and requesced a hearing before the Saini Paul Ciry Councp (Council) for the Purposes of considering the aerions takea by thc said Commission; and WFIEREAS, on October 7, ] g98 aad acring pursvant to Saint Paul Leg�siative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.20& with notice to affected parties, a public hearing w� dyiy �o�s�d�� by the , Counci] whore all imecested parties were given an opporhmity to be heard; and WI�REAS, rhe Council having heard the statemrnts macic and tiaving cottsidered the application, the reporc of staff, the reconi, minutes and resalution of t6e Zoning Committee and of the Planning Cummission, does hereby; RESOLVE, to affirtn the dc�ision of the Cominissioa. The Council {�ds no etro�. in at�y PPU�� noa-� �'amede by the Planning Commission aad that Zoning Code § 66.3QT rming advertising si�s : and be it _ _ l�i bVY!(Y13 GllG M _\� � ,� —��_Z Grear Sheet # ��L�� l� ��--- �� ?. FIIVALLY ItE50LVED, tkat the City C2ak shaiI mait a capy of this resotution to Brian p(-c�S � 3 Beces. Esq. oa behatf of the appetiaat, Marvin Liszt, Esq, on Behalf of tfic sign comPanY, the 4 Zoning Administratvr and the Ptanning Cvmmission. • � � � � Aequested by neyartaaeat oE: A60pked by Cauncil: Dnle xdoyti4n cezcilied 6y Colmeii SeczeLary �= Apysoved by Mayor: pste 8Y: u Sy: —_ Fesm d by clLy Ateetney e �'!' l✓c�'wrNC.—., ��/zT/9S Appzwed by Haym toz Sabm3ssioa to [rnmcil By: u � �� r . .. _. .. ... .. .._- . .,: ... -,aa ��N�� T OTFICEOFLi , _ , q�p EIVIRONMI:NTALPR07ECT70\ � Robe�t Aessleq Director • CITY OF SAINT PAUL Non�e Coleman, Aluyor August 18, 2000 Chris McCarver V.P./Real Estate Ivlanager Eller Media Company 3225 Spring St. N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 Re: 1209 W. 7"' St. 1184 W. 7` St. 1142 W. 7` $t. I.OLIRY PROFESSIOd'A7.6UILDhCG Telephonee 6�1-266-969p 3SOS1.PeterSfreer,Smitc300 F¢csimile: 6.i1-366-9G99 SnintPnrrl,A4innesataS51G3-7510 651-?GG.g!?J 2014 - 2018 Ford Parkti��ay • . Dear Mr. McCarver: In response to your_appiications for building permits received June 22, 2000, to repair the advertising sign structures that sustained storm damage in1998 at the referenced sites, I am extending the deadline for response an additional 60 days. In reviewing the costs of repairing these signs, it appears tl�at the figures are based on proposed structural repairs that �i�ere never approved by LIEP's structural engineer, Frank Berg. Before we can verify the exact costs we need to make sure ali proposed work is acceptable to Mr. Berg. He needs to meet with you and Mr. McCalla to discuss Mr. McCalla's recommendations for each site. Please contact Mr. Berg directly at 651- 266-9D72 to arrange the meeting. Sincerely, "l�r��. :�a�� Wendy Lane Zoning Manager c: Frank Berg l'� CITX OF SA1NT PAUL Norm Co7emart, Mayor October 17, 2000 Chris McCarver V.P./Reai Estate Manager Elier Media Company 3225 Spring St. N.E. Minneapotis, MN 55413 Re: 1209 W. 7"' St. I1S4 W.7i°St. 1142 W. 7`" St. 2014 - 2018 Ford Pazk�vay Telephone: 65l-2G Fauimife: 651-26 651-266-9�2q Dear Mr. McCarver: We have reviewed your applications, received June 22, 2000, for pezmits Yo repair the advertising sign structures at the referenced locations that sustained storm damage on May 30, 1998. On August I8, 2000, the deadline for the City to respond was extended for an additiona160 days. As we previously discussed, the zoning code does not give us clear direction in how to process this type of application and we ha��e had difficultly reaching a decision. The sign at 1142 W. 7"' St. is no longer there and you indicated ihat you did not want Yo pursue fhis'permit appiication. Tne otner signs arz a�:-i�ga1 ner_�enfoa�?�ing ___ advertising signs, Iocated in areas where new advertising signs aze ciurently prohibited. Section 66.301(2) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code zegulatas nonconforming signs and sfates thaY "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any extent ofmore than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." There aze riro distinet damage hurdles that must be met, one for the sign and one for the sign structure. A sign structure is de�ned as"Any structure �i$ich supports or is capable of supportin� any sign as defined in this chapter. A sign structure may be a single pole; it may not be an integral part of a building." The information you supplied indicates that the si� structures had damage of less than 51 % of their replacement cost. A sign is defined as "The use of words, nurnerals, �gures, devices, desigas or trademazks the purpose of which is to show or advertise a person, firm, profession, � �`!. �� o� �� - E, INSPECTTONS AND ENVIRONMENTAI, pROTECT[ON Robert Kessler, Direcm. LOWRY PROFESSIO�`ALEUILDING 350 St, Peter Saee{ Suitz 300 SairtlPaul,Mirsnesom 5�/02-ISlO • . a � -�-s� Chris McCarver � October 17, 2000 Page 2 business, product or message." In this case we can only conclude that a sign refers to a sign face. No information was supplied regarding the sign face. It appeazs that 100% of the sign faces were destroyed for each of fhese sites. Section 66.301(2) spzcifies that if the nonconforming sign is destroped to more than 51 % of 9ts replacement cost, it may oniy be reconstructed in conforn�ity with the rest of the chapter, which, in the case of nonconforming advertising signs, �vould mean Section 66302. None of these signs couid be renovated under Section 6b302(a)(5) because all of the signs are roof top signs of more that 400 squaze feet. If you want to bring the signs into compliance with 66.302(a)(5) by reducing the size to less than 400 squaze feet, you may reapply for repair permits, indicating how each of these signs would meet the other provisions of 66.302(a). We are hereby denying your applications for permits to repair these signs: If you disagree with this interpretation, you may file for an administrative review before the Planning Commission within 30 days. If you choose not to appeal this decision, these signs and sign stnictures, must be removed w�ithin 60 days. � Sincerely, �� a� Wendy Lane Zoning Manager � �� i ' ` • , ,, - .� ._.� of saint pau! �ninq commission resolut+on file number 98-45 �te August 14, 1998 �;IHEREAS, SCENIC MIItiTNESOTA, file � 98-154, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of Section 66300(j) of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code, of the Zonino Administrator's decision regarding adveRising si�ns damaged in a storm on May 30, 1948, Iocated at 1820 Grand Avenue, the Highland Village Shopping Center, which is on the soutb side of Ford Park�vay bet�veen Kenneth Street and Cleveland Avenue, and at 1142, 1184, and 1209 N. Seventh Street (lzgal descriptions on file); and WHEREAS, the Zoning Commitcee of the Planning Commissioa on August 6, 1998, held a public heazing at �vhich all persons present �sere given an opportunity to be heard pursuant Yo said application in accordance witfi the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and , � �VHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zonin� Committee at the public hearin� as substaniialty reflected in the minutes, made the followinQ findin�s of fact: A maj or wind storm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, I998, causing a great deal of damage to homes, trees, and po�ver 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 Jane 10, �Veady Lane of LIEP �vrote to Eller Media that, as a result of the inspection, rir�o of the dama�ed biiiboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the middle billboazd structure at Highland Vilta�e had not received s[ructural dama�e; just the si?ns and poster panels, �vhich provided ihe baekin� f::he signs,_had blown down. Replacin� poster panels c3oes not, as a matter of standard City practice dating back many years, require a buiiding permit. Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to replace the poster panels on those I��'O S1pR5. �Ss. Lane's letter said that the other four billboard locations--one at Highland Village Shopping Center and three on VJ. Seventh Street--were found to have structural dama�e. 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 damaged is that the renovation costs aze less than 51 � moved by Field seconded by in favor 10 (Field abstained) against i�� j � • ❑ � ��. dt-d ♦ � • percent of the replacement cost. � 2. Ail of the biilboards in question are owned by Eller Media, Inc. (formerly Naegele and then Universal), tivhich is a national billboard company. All of the bi1(boazds are in B-2 (Cotnmunity Business) zoning districts, �vheie ad� signs aze permitted if they meet certain size and spacing requirements unless an overlay spzcial sign district imposes stricter regulations. None of the billboards in question are conformin�; they are all legal nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Grand Avenue and Highland Village signs are in Speciai Sign Districts adoQted in the 1980s where billboards aze prohibited. The W. Seventh Street bi116oazds are in an interim Special Si�n District approved by the City Councii earlier this year, tivhere ne�v construction and modification of billboards are prohibited until ne��• advertising sign regulations aze adopted by the City Council. 3. Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16, 1998, appealed Ms. Lane's decision to ailoFV reglacement of the poster panels at t«�o locations (1820 Grand Avenue and the middle billboazds on the Highland Village Shopping 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 bilfboards �vill 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 (66.301)(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 are regulated by both sections and by appticable special si�n 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 ho�v the renovation cost information �vould be used. Therefore, since no decision has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature. 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 sion 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 paragraph on exemptions from getting building permits (66_405), tivhich refers to "display surface" and "poster replacemenY'. The latter terms are not defined in the code and, being subject to interpretation, are a responsibiliTy of the Zoning Administrator. The City Council is expected to amendment advertising sign regulations later this year and �vilt receive comments from the Planning Commission before doing so. Code amendments «�ould be a better way to clarify how sign faces should be considered than trying to reach a decision throu�h an appeals process. 6. Scenic Vlinnesota's third and fourth specific appzals ar�ue that the installation or • replacement of sign faces shotild require a sign (building) permit. On replacement of the sien face (poster panels), LIEP treated Eller Media the same as they have ireated al1 biltboard companies. For many years the Zoning Administrator has interpreted 66.405 to l�� `°" . �� .e��y - :A � allow poster panel replacement without a sign pemut. Poster panels come in kits of interlocking 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 Yhe set of billboards ai 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboacds on Highland Village Shoppina Center, LIEP inspectors determined that no structural damage had occurred. Ms. Lane's lztter of June 10, 1998, is clearly consistent �vith established practice; any other decision �vould have been discriminatory. The fifth specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that the �6'. Sevenfh bitlboazds cannot be replaced or renovated at this time because of the interim 3pecial Sign District for the �V. Seventh neighborhood. In February 1948, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that created an Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to inake recommendations to the Councii. Dnring the study period, the ordinance provides that district councits may appiy for a special sign district by ��ziting a Ietter. In eariy 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 not rendered a decision about whether or not the �V. Seventh billboards can be renovated, and an appeal is premature. THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, that under tfie authority of the City's Legisiative Code, the appeal of the Zonin� Administrator's decision to a?!�sL ±he tepi_acement of the sign faces without sign permits for the billboards at 1820 Grand A�'enue and for the middle set of biilboards at Highlanc! Viliage Shopping C:enteris nere�y denied; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission renders no decision on this appeal as regards the eastern set of billboards at Highland Villaoe Shopping Center or the bitlboazds on W. Seventh Street; since LIEP has only asked for information from Eller Media on these storm-damaged billboards and fias not yet made decisions on �vhether the}• can be renovated, appeals about them are ptemature. �+ � l ��' � ol a � � • STATE OF b2IN1hESOTA • "`l� COLNTY OF RAbqSEX ` r--- SCENIC MMNESOTA INC., et el., . PLAI\'TIFFS, DEFENDA\TS. 1��I�Y�P�'� - D t-aS^ � DISTRICT COURT SECO\73 JUDICIAL DISTRICT Cn�n. Dn�s�o� - nio� u�.�, J. FILED COUrt Administrator OCT 1 I. 7999 ORllER FOR SUb�I Cot�xr FicE �o: C4-98-10951 This matfer was heard on 18 August 1999 by the Honorabfe M. Michaei Monahan, � CITY OF SAtNT PAUL, et al., District Court Judge, on cross motions for summary judgment pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.P. 56. Court Docket Nos. 1 S& 22. Richard B. Bates appeared for Plainfiffs. Peter W. Warner, Assistant City Attomey, appeared for Defendants City of 5aint Paul a�d City Council of the City of Saint Paul (the "City Council")(defendants collectively "the City"). Marvin A. Liszt of Diamond, Liszt & Grady, P.A. appeared for Defendant Eller Media, inc. ("Eller"). Based on the arguments o# counsel and the entire record in this matter: IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' mofion for summaryjudgment is GRANTED. 2. Defendanfs' motion for summary judgment is DENIEd. 3. Judgment is granted to Plaintiffs and against Defendanfs: (a) declaring that the resolution by the Saint Paui City Planning Commission No. 98-45 was arbifrary and �pricious because it misapplied the provision of Sainf Paui Legislative Code § 66.405(1); and (b) declaring � I 1�J o�-asc� that the action of the City Council of the City o( Saint Paul in refusing to sustain Plaintiff's appeai from the decision of the P(anning Commission was arbitrary and capricious because the City Counci( fai(ed to set forth the basis for the deniai; an@ (c) awarding Plaintiffs their sfatutory costs and disbursements. 4. The following memorandum is a part of this order and constitutes the court's findings of fact and conclusions of Iaw to the extent required by AAinn.R.Civ.P. 52.09. 5. The automatic stay of Minn.G.R.Prac. 125 is vacated. 6. The maiting of this order by the court to counsel is notice of its entry for ail purposes. LET JUDG�SENT BE En'TERED ACCORDINGLY �VITHOUT STAY. � Dated: � Oh3o6 ct gg. ' ��.� �� The forago+ng shail corstitute the judgment of the Ce�rt. Mich el tvfonatian �`� / En � tered: �� (;�iC�?i;El 6. (:iQ° District Court Judge )q � ��• � �n �/�� FN� C iIL Yt�iilli�{ISlidiJ( - !i / �` . " [ ,� / `` • �� f �,�., D�b40RAI�DLJIi �,usiL ��..F/L 6y ��L'�-' �, ' FACTS. De�i:�� Cie;:t ��lf(1�G2'yf :�`.�` In this action Plainfiffs seekjudicial review of the City Councif's decision denying their appeal from the Saint Pauf P(anning Commission's decision' permitting Eller to replace the face panels on two of its outdoor advertising signs located within a spec+al sign d'tsfrict without a permit. !t is another case arising as a resuit of the wind sform of 30 May 1998. See Scenic Mrnnesota, Inc, v. Cify of Saint Paul, Second Jud. Dist. Court File No. C5-99-1900, It is also evidence of the decades long struggle between the City, its residents, and the outdoor ' P(anning Commission Resolution 98-45. 2 The signs are located at � 820 Grand Ave�ue and on the Highland Village Shopping Center at Cfevetand and Ford Parkway. -2' 1� u • l J � i -J-S� • adveRising industry over the proper place of biAboards within the City. In a series of enactments in 1984, 1986, and 1988, the Cify adopfed various measures that made virtualiy afi biliboards within the Cify a legal, non-conforming use. In so doing, the Cify articuiated a variefy of pubiic hea)th and safefy concerns supporking fhe notion it woufd nof permit fhe repiacement, relocation or renovation of billboards. SPLC §66.302. The specific biilboards at issue here are legal, non-conforming uses because they are roof top advertising signs. SPLC § 66.214(h). During the May 30`" storm, these billboards and ' several others were damaged. The City's zoning administrator determined that the biliboard at issue here had not susiained structurai damages. The administrator informed their owner, Eller, that it could repiace the bifiboards' face paneis without obtaining a permit. In reaching this decision, the administrator relied on § 66.405(1) of the City's Legislative Code (the "SPLC"), That provision provides, in part: The foilowing signs shall not require a permit. These exemptions shall not be • construed as relieving the owner of the signs from the responsibility of its erection and maintenance, and its compliance with the provisions of this chapter or any other law or ordinance regulating the same. 1) The changing of the display surface on a painted or printed sign only. However, this exemption shall apply to poster replacement and/or on-site changes involving sign painting elsewhere than directly on a building. ' Plainfiff appealed this determination to the Planning Commission pursuant to SPLC § 66.408(a) and § 66.300{j), The Planning Commission denied the appeai and uphe{d the Zoning Administrator's decision to permit the replacement of the face panels without the necessity of a permit. Planning Commission Resolufion 98-45. The seasons for the P{anning Commission decision were documented. /d. Among those reasons was the Planning Commission's finding 3 The special sign districts involved here wera crea:ed in 1P84 and 1986. SPLC §§ 66.2161 & 60".2763. u -3- �� o c �S � that the City had consistently not required that a permit be obtained in order to repiace the face paneis of billboards. Plaintiffs appealed the Pfanning Commission's decision to fhe Cify Council pursuant to SPLC § 64,20&(a). The record before me consisfs of fhe zoning appeal packet and the transcript of the hearing before the Cify Council. The City Council denied the appeal in a four to three vote on 7 October 1998. Tr. at 55-56. The City Council did not make �vritten findings expiaining the basis for its decision. The Plaintiffs argue that this failure is itself enough to reverse the City ' Council's decision. The City argues that the Council adopted fhe report of its Planning Commission as the explanation for its decision. The transcript reflects that the motion before the City Council was to susfain the appeal. Tr. at 47-48. That was defeafed. Tr. 55-56. There was no motion to adopt the Planning Commission's resolution. B. LA\Y. i. Rule 56. Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings and any other evidentiary submissions show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that fhe moving parfy is entitied to judgment as a matter of law. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988)(citing Celofex Corp. v. Catretf, 477 U.S. 397 (1986)). The facts presented on a motion for summaryjudgment musf be viewed in the lighf most favorable to the non-rrioving party. Id. But, the non-moving party musf provide speci5c facts indicating that fhere is a genuine issue of facf. Hunt v. 1BM MidAmerica Employee's Federation, 384 N.W.2d 853, 855 (Minn. 1986}. 2. Standard for Review. The standard of review is whether the [council's] decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, with review focused on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for fhe reasons given. Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307, 313 {Minn.1988). Absent indication of arbitrary and capricious conduct or manifest injustice, a court can, but does not readily, substitute its judgmenf for that of a city counci!'s. 7he subjective balancing of factors -4- I �� u � • o I -�-5 d � in granting or denying variances, for exampie, is a c{assic area where judicial deference is extended fo the executive branch. See Sagsteffer v_ City of Sf. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488 (Minn.App.1995) G DECISLO\'. 1. Summarv Judament. The parfies agree on the factual record. There are no genuine • issues of materia{ fact. The only questions presented are le�ai. 2. Record on Review. The City Councii issued no findings or conclusions supporting or � setting out the basis for ifs decision in this matter. Accordingly, I have no way of ineasuring the reasonableness of its decision. This is particularly disturbing given the nature of the City Council's delibarations as evidenced in the transcript of the public hearing. At one point, one City Counci{ member went so far as to suggest that the Council had no idea what the issues were. In the face of the lack of a specificafiy articulated basis for the City Council's decision, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment must be granted. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N. W.2d 409, 416 (Minn.1981). This appeal was filed within 30 days of the City Council vote, one presumes in order to avoid the argument that the time for appeal had otherwise expired. The City has not argued that the appeaf was premature but rather only that its pendency precluded the making of the appropriate findings. lt cites no law in supporf of this notion, The idea that the commencement of this appeal inhibited the City Council from making the appropriafe findings is without merit. 3. lnter�retation of Ordinance. Assuming that Planning Commission Reso(ution No. 9&- • 45 fulfilis ihe requirements of Honn, the question becomes whether the City has properly interpreted the ordinances at issue. The sfandard for review is de novo. State ofMin�esota by Minneapofis Park Lovers v. City of Minneapolis, 468 N.W.2d 566, 569 (Minn.App.1991). A zoning ordinance must be given its plain and ordinary meanings, it must be construed in favor of -5- �� bl the property owner, and it must be considered in lighf of its underlying policy. SuperAmerica Group, inc. v. City ofLittle Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Minn.App.1995) (citing Frank's Nursery Sales v. City of Roseville, 395 N.W.2d &04, 608-09 (Minn.1980)). The zoning administrator's interpretation of SPLC §66.405(1) is du6ious af besf. The plain and ordinary meaning of the provision is fhaf fhe replacement, relocation, or renovation of the adverfising matter placed on a biflboard may be done without a permit. 7his is clear from tne reference to "cfianging ffie display surFace on a painted or printed sign"(emphasis added) and � the reference fo "poster replacemenY' and "sign painting". The distinction made by the provision is befween changing the advertising content to be placed on the panels of a billboard and changing or replacing the panels themselves. The first is permitted without a permit. The second constitutes a renovaiion of the billboard and requires a permit. There is no ambiguity in the ordinance requiring that it be read in favor of fhe property owner. Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent Svith the ordinance's �nderlying policy. That policy unmistakenly contempiates the removal of nonconforming billboards in special sign districts over time. A billboard withovt face panels ceases to Function as a biliboard. tt tacks a biUboard's essentia! functionality. !t is nothing more than a colfecfion of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a biliboard ceases to function as a biliboard, fhe policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permif before the bilfboard's funcfionality can be restored. M.M.M. -6- �� t . • • / � Pam Wheelock City Planning & Economic Development 25W 4�` Sffeet Saint Paui, MN 55102 Dear Ms.Wheelock, �i�u1��e�' b o, �� o West 7th/Fort Road Federation 974 West 7th Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 56102 (612)298-6599 RECEIVED APR 61998 ZONING Tf�e West Seventh Federation request that a special sign dish be created for the �Vest Seventh Street Area. The boundaries shouid include all of district 9. The special sign dish would prohibit any additional s atrns, modification af existing signs, or the replacement of any damaged signs advertising signs, except bus stop signs. If you have any questions please contact Betty Moran at 298-5599. Sincerely, • � . Richazd Mi er. � c.c. Roger Ryan Chris Coleman John Hazdwick U _- � ` : • �t( - , �� . . u.. _ .-.. - .. !� :��:�_r. .. �-::_; - : . _ ` ~ -. ;v. � fF ?:r `..r,� ' - � a• `• � � M1 �'. a - � . � . .�. . . Y �•%^}� � �� .- .. `° _ .i ■� � � .z =y��t:•.,.� ' w�i� �r �i` .x�o�Y�t4:' r • —i^ '. " - us3�"�m loyer:. ��<�t:��, '-:�%' '"�-;. - �Y'c�:E'Si�l Presented By ./�'/y1�7717�t� �//2��/� p, o�-a5'c5 Council fiile # � 3 3 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet# /�� Referred To _� � Coznmittee: Date � , ) 2 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, in Council File 97-1568, as amended, �� 3 adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the establishment of new advertising signs and the 4 modification of e�sting advertising signs, pending the City's study of the need to establish 5 special district sign plans pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.216; and 7 9 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 WHEREAS, Couucil File 97-1568 provided tliat applications for special disiriot sign plan applications may be initiated by filing an application with tke director of the Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development; and WHEREAS, Councii File 97-2568 furtherprovided that only duly recognized neighborhood disirict councils may apply for a special district sign plan; and WF�REAS, the following neighborhood district councils: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,10, l I, 12, I3 (Memam Park and Snelling-Haznline azeas only), I S and 17, submitted appIications for special district sign pians pursuant to Council File 97-15�8; and � WHEREAS, Councii File 97-1568 further provided that any objection to the filing of a speciai sign dish application must be written and would require a public hearing. The pubiic hearing would allow the Council to determine whether an application was reasonable, not over inclusive, not discriminatory, and would further assist the planning and legislative process necessatiy for the adoption ot speciai districi sign piazts forincu��sa4:a:. i��tc th� Sai: ::?aul Zoning Code; and 'WHEREAS, in a letter to Councilmember Dan Bostrom dated May 21, 1998, DeLite Outdoor Advertising Inc. (DeLite) specifically objected to the special sign district application from District 4 Community Council and generally objected to all other special sign district applications. Delite requested that the matters be schedaled for public hearings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to DeLite's request, the Council of the City of Saint Paut duty scheduled a public hearing for July 8, 1998 with notice ta affected parties; and 33 WHEREAS, on July 8. 2998, a public heazing on special sign district application as 34 provided pursuant to Council Pile 97-1568 was duiy conducted by the City CounciI where all 35 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 36 37 38 �i i � �� ( �}-�� 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 � 7 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 • WEiEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made and having cansidered the applications, the report of staff and the testimony produced during the public hearing, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: That all the special district sign plan appiications aze reasonable. Although each application is geographically broad in that it encompasses the area of the enrire district council boundary (except for the District 15 applicarion that includes only the boundaries of the Shepard -Davem Forty Acre Study Area which is presently undenvay) the applications aze nevertheless narrow in scope in that they address only advertising signs which aze those signs located off premises as opposed to business signs which are on premise signs. 2. The prohibitions against the construction of new advertising signs or the modification of existing advertising signs aze also reasonable in that the special district sign plans aze designed to prevent consttuction of advertising signs under today's regulations which might not tie allowed if advertising sign regulations are amended. 3. The prohibitions of these special district sign plan moratoriums aze consistent. The council finds that the prohibitions apply only to prohibit the construction of new advertising signs or the modification of exiting advertising signs. It is implicit that these prohibitions exclude bus shelter and bus bench advertising devices as well public skyway advertising devices allowed under franchise agreements pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Appendices I and J; and 4. Implementation of these special distract sign plan moratoriums wili further assist the planning and legislative process. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the interim regulations in effect by virtue of this resolution and as required under Council File 97-1568 shall be deemed to expire at such time as either new regulations aze enacted by the council, or on December 31, 1949, whichever may come fust; and Z� Page 2 of 3 � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9� - �}�3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the above-stated zeasons, the specific and pL � general objections to the said applications by DeLite aze not supported; and BE IT FINALLX RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be delivered to the Saint • Paul Planning Commission, the Legislative Advisory Committee reviewing current advertising sign regvlations, the Zoning Admicristrator and DeLite Outdoor Advertising, Inc. � � i�'� Adop[ed by Certified BY= � / V Approved by ty yor: Date Requested by Department of: By: Form Approv by City Attorney By , ��✓�✓�vrc—� P/�7`�� Approved by Mayor for SuLmission to Council BY: By: n � ��.J�� <�� -tr-.�. Y • S �,ti�.,��L �� 0 � -3�� ATTACHNIENTS A. Appeai form and explanatory brief by Marvin Liszt !�, '`\ 1/ B. Planning Commission Resolution and Planning Commission�minutes for 1/26/Ol � t�7 �� C. Zoning Comtnittee minutes for 1/4101 (pubtic hearing and letters of testimony) and 1J18/Ol (recommendation) �.� `� D. Staff Report of 7l25l98 with many attachments sent to the Zoning Committee including e�ctensive documentation by Eller of their estimated repair costs �.- }� f.2-, }�. � � � t/ ` � �� E. Location and zoning maps ��J�} �- _ � \_ J • K:�Shazed�Ped�SODERFIOL�ZONING\O1-180.504CCL1R.wpd ` (' o � -�s� ` ��.�I�Cl� ! _a� l -� _" `. `"�� a o .� � : Iu � � \ ,� ��` �� '� � C O � O O O'O.O�O'O O�O � O p� .j I O O�O O'O � O C O -p- 6 � �c+� �. . . . a :�,U:O�O O� a a, i,_00 •�.�� 000� 'tS�p'O.¢ O Q ` 'S� �1f • . p � : — � — y 1 ♦ �+ �`� � � 1 0�� .�J . ' t � '� . �•�1 .7 � ¢ � l��Ji O j . Q . C+ O G• . � I i i �: G? P � � F-32 z?- , ' [� � . "� I . � • " � . O � p\� t . ; .: � • .` � . 000 0,0'OSO00�0,0_ �.�LQ-0 p �p � 9► `� ` . - _� ° Q : ; � • - � . � �': ; ; . — 1 �.. -• � cio� 1 i --� v �R'1 00 0�000�00 O Q '� � O�O � ¢ �¢ O� i0:0'�.J�.'� O D--� tr, . O ' • ' ' p� ' . . _ _ '_`_' - � -- O tTl • ; � � ; , , ; ..: . : . — Q . i . r . p _ . , ' `�"�.__ -� : ti cn .00OU00�?�� ' �r� � °,C`�'nt�i �Q: ��+ � r 'o j0� �'��I v . � , �.�nS{*o :4� �'Q Q t � p �' 4 � 1 i.: ze 3 1� 1� t�� v ��' � � i � . ' : �/ ~ ~ . � � ; ; ° : ; : : ; , t� ''• " : ; � 1 i f { j � � ' � , � � 4,000yo� �� i: fi' ' � , �"',�� i ��av „ p �c i ¢ � '' r vOC'.�C��'J��7 � (; "J�i� • �i /� �^D ' 'J! � `� ' ' '?J' `� �IIO��O�O�C1 f � 7; i: w7 O � U� Y{Yl � �� . __._ + � � `, 1 I � a � : v T : ; � I I E � ; .'9 �� ' � i�� l, , .' I ! . s - ��.¢��U.•�0.� .3� Qfl .ti Ip i i j f f i a .� � �o� y �� a o �°�i � f 4 . :e - - � o M�� •�, •�:�b• o l�.� ta ii� ,. r \o F��.� Na. 2. ,. : o � > �� ' � • _� � o� �'., o o , � ' � .. . . . . . � �. o , � � j�I�'�' �'1'� �� . ' �, b �o �a,a.v�i3�^?Lo.o, � � P � BAYaRO ' �. - � °. � � �./�� i�� i�i' � S- :-�i.��. `�` /'�� -- ---•-�—} �PLICANT �I j�R. � G�� nwP�rt� LEGENO 1 OSE �'��1�-" �� zoning district boundary - V� �� DATE � subj=d properiy n� onh'� NG. DIST�__ MAP ��/ V�� o one tzmily •�^ ccmrr.>.:;�;'. � �=� � n �,.i�„� � hvofamily 1 r., ir,dus!:ia! � �� 1, Q multipW_ (amity V vzczr.; f � e�°�:::.-.. � , � ��2tOSt��O��O�0i0 t3�� a� oto 9 a� , ;o!o�o�o o�o�oio ��fl ��TF � ► : ii ( -- ,P _ 9�� q �E s � � . . , : f�% j d OO�L3:3; � ': : ' '�s_�' � � � . '� i� ° e , ; o�', i, �' > > 1 p �O�;t)dfl'• .L� ;L) � .fil+!1:•i � r�;oio?o o�o o} o o�o�o�o�o�o � " � + ! � z � � i , . . • � � � � � ' ; ' � O JI ; 1 � � i I t � � 1 ' �� PKWY � ♦ ' l'�- � � � [� � � �t- , � .. i'� ' 0 � . � � r7' � �� Q� . 1� , �' •� •� � � ..� �� _ .� F a. �: �lKt � j: . . . . , �!1 �,.� ___�- O � o � « t6 I6O .d� O 2B � � r 2�8 V O16 i4 O � �� _ �- - otas�� _ `---_ o i �_ � � o '' 0 6 - � ��O�O O.O � O O� O'ic , , �) ' � �, .� a � ,oO O�o;o O jO�p'�O ,�� NOTE �� , � I . . o �: � � ,! �.r �� . � P � � • . �� I 4 .` w � r�HILLCREST f � f �w 1 --Ba��.arvD t \ � �� \ � �� 4PPLiCAM � �� '�"•-'�� LEGEND � 'URPOSE �� zoning Bistrict boundary =1LE � �` �� 6 `�g DATE � subjzd property ?LNG. DIS7�� MAP # � � o one family ��,,� � c.vo family "�� G�-"-�: .:.�.� j�, muttipte family � -.. � Q ��_ - '-\ .: . , ,. . -....: r�,orth�• • • ^ comrr.>_cci;! � ,..., indus::ial V vaczr., � v �... . . ... , _ .. !-, `�_ � � � �'. : �.� � i � (;. i ;tr�� ( 7. f-' '•i �l�� w ��_�a Z � �:; �: Y �: : �j, f- ' �.. /: f": ' 'I � di-�S� � i � DISTRICT 9 � °°° . • �� o�- ZO�� F�L� — � t�� y ��ti -- v �-�s�� , ! Z��'��,� �-��.� � ! - /�� o/ . • �� : � HIGHLAN� DIS7RICT 15 O .., _ ,a. �� -a sa �TIZEN PARTICIPATIO DIS RICTS � � . • 1.SUPJRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGH' 2.GREATER EAST SIDE 3.WEST SIDE 4.DAYTON'S BLUFF 5.PAYNE-PNALEN 6.NORTH END 7.THOMAS-DALE SUMMIT-UNIVERSITY ES7 SEVENTH .COMO 11.HAMLINE-MID4IAY 12.ST. ANTHONY 13.htERRIR�M PK.-LEXINGTON HAMLIP�E I�.GROVELA4D-MACALESTER (TS�H I GNLA!(D T.SUt1t1IT HILL 17. DO'rtPlTO'.1�1 y �" �a• t�� -6� � - 50� D� �� Ss� CITIZEP� PARTICIPATION PLAN�YING DIS7RICTS _ _ �_ _ _ _ __ _. Nancy_Anderson-01-180-504mar7-01cchn�wQd _ _ .. . _, _ ._,. . __ __ _ _. Page 1 STPAiII.QTYCOTJNCII, clrroesnu+rewtn, DcpcafPl�agmd Ecwo�cDCVdopmmt Phavr. (fi51J 266di89 Fax: (65t)22&32IA PnbGc aearing xo8ce FII.E # O1d8a504 PURPOSE: Appeal of Planning Commission°s decision to deny buildiug permi7s for t6e repair of seven bil@oard faces da in a storm in 1998. PROPERIY ADDRES5=1184 W. 7 SL,1209 W. 7" St, and 20142015 Ford Pazkway. APPLICnNT: Eller Media Compauy HEARINGDATE: Wednesdav azch7 2U01 at530 .m. All public heazings are held in City Council Chambe�s, 3 f7oor City Hall - Cmvt House, 15 �'. Kellogg Boulevard You may send written comments m the Zoning OfLce at die add*ess listed on iherevene side oftivs cud Please call Latcy Sodefidm , PED, az (651)26b66554, or your District Cwmcil Representative W.7 Fedeation at (651) 298-5599 or Highland Area Community Council at (651) 695-4005 at ( ifyou have auy questions. w:ua:zavao STPAULCITYCOUNCII. CITYOPSAWTPAUL Oepc ofPlamwg md EconomicDCVdopmev[ P6on¢(651)266d569 Paz (651)2283220 Public Hearing Notice FII,E # Ol-1S0.504 PURPOSE: Appeal of Planning Commissian's decisiou to deny buiiding permits For tLe reptir of seven biliboard faces damaged'm•a storm m 1998. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1184 W. 7'" St.,1209 W. 7t St.� and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway. ° APPLICANT: Elfer Media Company , � HEARING DATE: Wednesdav March 7.2001, at 5:30 o.m. - All public heazings aze held in Ciry Council Chambers, 3'� Floor Ciry Hall - Court House, 15 W. Kellogg Boulevazd. You may se¢d wtitten comments to the Zoning Office at ffie address listed on the reverse side of tttis cazd. Please calt Lazry Sodarholm , PED, at (651)266-66554, or your Disaict Comcil Representative W. 7'" Federndon at (651) 298-5599 or Higiiland Area�Communiry Council at (651) 695-4005 at ( ifyou have any ques[ions. Ma1IM :22N00 �a: K.,.,. ear1� ��`��.'-'.if'�, . ... �.. �,G p g��$ � � � i�ci i3`Y �v� � 6.�J f CouncII File #(;�— 0`1 S C'� � Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 2 Whereas, Eller Media Company [Eller] submitted applications to the City's Office of 3 License, Inspections and Environmental Protection for building permits to repair seven storm 4 damaged advertising signs on three sepazate shuctures: the first site is located on the rooftop of 5 Bill's TV, 1184 West Seventh Street; the second site is on the rooftop of Checkers Auto Parts, 6 1209 West Seventh Street; and the third site is located at the east end of the rooftop of the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Highland Village Shopping Center, 2014-2018 Ford Parkway; and Whereas, by letter dated October 17, 2000 the city's Zoning Manager denied Eller's applications; and Whereas, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.408(a), Eller duly filed an appeal of the Zoning Manager s decisions to the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Connmission]; and VJhereas, the Coxnmission's Zoning Committee conducted a public hearing on January 4, 2001 where all interested persons were given an opporiunity to be heazd and, at the close of the heazing, moved to lay the matter over to January 18, 2001 in order to obtain additional information about the damage to the signs on the Checkers Autopart site, information on the Highland Village signs and information from Eller on its clean up activities; and Whereas, the Zoning Committee reconvened on January 18, 2001 to consider Eller's application with the aid of the information requested and thereafter moved to recommend that Eller's appeal be denied; and Whereas, the Zoning Committee's recommendation was presented to the Commission on January 26, 2001 and the Commission decided to deny Eller's appeal based on the foilowing findings and conclusions as set forth in its Resolution O1-08, adopted January 26, 2001: "1. A major windstorm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to homes and trees and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, City inspectors from LIEP checked the sites of damaged billboards owned by Eller together with Chris McCarver of Eller. Although the public hearing produced some controversy about how much emergency repair work Eller did without building permits vsunediately following the storm, there is little disagreement between Eller and the City about the extent of the damage to the signs. Eaght sign faces are involved in this appeal: six of the sign faces were completely blown away; one sign face has a small section remaining; one sign face is intact, but slightly bent. The roof-top bed frames or angle-iron upper O�-a.5o 2 � 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 shuctures for all eight sign faces received some damage, though only one was damaged so severely that the vertical structure was disassembled and removed. 2. The billboard structure on top of 1184 W. Seventh ("the Bill's TV boazd") was a V-shaped structure with rivo 300-square-foot sign faces before the storm. In the storm both faces blew off and the upper structure for the west-facing boazd was bent and subsequently removed. Now the bed framiug and the angle-iron upper structure for the east-facing boazd aze all that remain. Aithough the west- facing board has neither a sign face nor an upper structure, Eller applied to rebuild it as well as replacing the east-facing si� face (that is, the interlocking metal "poster panels" upon which outdoor advertising messages can be glued or tied.) 3. The billboard structure on top of 1209 W. Seventh ("the Checker Auto Parts board") is a V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foot sign faces that face toward the east and one 300-squaze-foot sign face that faces toward the west. This west-facing structure still has iYs poster panels, but the angle-iron frame is somewhat bent. The sign face is illuminated at night even though there is no advertising message. One of the east-facing signs has a remnant-about one-fourth of iYs poster panels; the other has no poster panels. The angle-iron upper shuctures remain. 4. The two W. Seventh locations are nearly across the street from one another. They are zoned B-2 and are on a mixed use arterial street with businesses and housing on both sides of W. Seventh. Most of the housing on W. Seventh consists of small apartment buildings. The abutting properties on the neighborhood streets are predominantly single family, with a scattering of duplexes. 5. The billboard structure on top of 2014-2018 Ford Parkway ("the Highland Village boazd") is V-shaped with one 300-square-foot sign face that faces toward the east and two 300-foot sign faces that face towazd the west. No poster panels remain. The angle-iron upper structures remain. In addition to the billboard structure that is the topic of this zoning case, which is toward the east end of the block, there are two other biliboazd structures on top of the Highland Village Shopping Center. On the west end is a 672-square-foot billboard and in the center is a wide-angle V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foot boazds. 6. The Ford Pazkway billboard stnxcture is on the rooftop of the block-long Highland Village strip commercial building, which is also zoned B-2 and houses several restaurants and retail businesses. The Highland Village Shopping Center is part of a large neighborhood shopping district. The surrounding land uses are predominantly commercial with a church and parochial school on the next block to the south and a public playground on the block to the east. 45 46 7. At the time of the building permit application, all of the billboards in question 47 were legal nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Bill's TV board 48 was too high (over 37.5 feet). The Checker Auto Parts boards were too big (more 49 Page 2 of 5 i d�_asa 2 than 400 sq. ft. on the east-facing side). Both were in a temporary special sign 3 district for the West Seventh neighborhood where a moratorium prohibited new 4 billboazds or modification of existing ones until it expired on January 8, 2001. 5 The Highland Village boards were also too big (more than 400 square feet on the 6 west-facing side) and too close to the other billboards atop the shopping center 7 (less that 660 feet); moreover, they were located in the Highland Village Special 8 Sign district, where billboazds have been a prohibited use since 1985. In 9 November 2000 the City adopted a new ozdinance prohibiting new billboazds 10 anywhere in the city, which made all e�cisting billboards throughout the city into 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 nonconfomiing uses. 8. On June 22, 2000, two years after the storm, the City received building pernut applications from Eller Media Co. to repair the damaged billboards. The City's Zoning Manager asked for and received Eller's cost esrimates for repairing the signs. On August 18, the Zoning Manager wrote to Eller to extend the timeline for action on the applicarion an addirional 60 days and to ask them to meet with the City's struchual engineer to verify costs and to make sure the proposed work would be acceptable. As a result of the meeting, Eller submitted additional documentation. 9. Eller's cost information was prepared in detail and showed that, although the sign faces were blown away, the cost of repairs would be sigrvficantly less than the cost of building new billboards of the same type. For the different signs their repair cost estimates ran from 14 percent to 22 percent of the cost to construct a new identical billboard. These costs included material, labor, and equipment needed for construction. 10. During the two yeaz period in question, the City was actively developing a new policy and a new ordinance to regulate billboards. Through the wark of a Legislative Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and a ballot referendum, the City Council was moving toward a consensus that the city's 600- plus billboazd faces were too many and that reasonable measures should be taken to begin to reduce the number over a period of yeazs. By mid-November of 2000 the Council adopted an ordinance to prohibit any new billboards in the city. 11. On October 17, 2000, the Zoning Manager sent a letter to Eller Media Co. denying the building permits. Section 66.301(2) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code says: "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any extent of more than fifly-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." The terms "sign" and "sign structure" are separately defined in the code and have sepazate meanings; the conjunction "or" is explained in the code to mean that the items may apply singly or in combination. The Zoning Manager concluded that for billboards the sign face is the same as the sign itself. She reasoned that this language creates a two-hurdle test, that if either the sign or the sign structure is damaged beyond 51 percent, then any repairs must conform to all of chapter 66 and, in particular, to section 66.302. The information Eller supplied about the Page 3 of 2 sign faces (that is, the signs) indicated that seven of the eight faces were 100 a\-aS O 3 percent destroyed. 4 5 12. The City staff's interpretation of this two-hurdle test draws from a 1999 6 ruling by the Rauisey County District Court in a previous case about some other 7 billboards damaged in the same storm. The judge wrote in his opinion: 9 "The distinction made by the [zoning] provision is between changing the 10 advertising content to be placed on the panels of a biilboazd and changing or 11 replacing the panels themseives. The first is pemutted without a pernut. The 12 second constitutes a renovation of the billboard and requires a permit." 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 "Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent with the ordinance's underlying policy. That policy umnistakenly contemplates the removal of nonconforming biilboards in special sign districts [Grand Avenue and Highland Village] over time. A billboazd without face panels ceases to function as a billboard. It lacks a billboazd's essential functionality. It is nothing more than a collection of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a billboard ceases to function as a billboard, the policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permit before the billboard's functionality can be restored." 13. On November 15, 2000, the City received the subject appeal by Eller Media Co. arguing that the only relevant question for issuing a permit should be whether each billboard, taken as a whole with both its sign face and sign structure, was damaged beyond 51 percent of its replacement cost. This is the test for nonconforming signs found in Section 66.301(2) of the Zoning Code. Eller azgued that the City Council, subsequent to the district court ruling cited above, determined that Sectaon 66.301(2) was the applicable provision. Eller claimed, fiu•thermore, that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Section 66301(2) as setting up rivo hurdles was a violation of commonly recognized rights held by nonconforming land uses_ 14. After consultation with the Assistant City Attorney at the Zoning Committee's meetings, the Planning Commission agreed with Eller's claim that the 51 percent damage test is the relevant and primary section, but then disagreed with Eller's claim that the terms "si� or sign shucture" must be read as a single unit referring to a billboard face and iYs supporting shucture together. The Zoning Administrator's interpretation was reasonable: if either the billboard face ar the billboazd structure is damaged greater the 51 percent, the pernut application must meet additional requirements of the code, and specifically, Section 66302. Eller chose not to address not these other provisions. Moreover, the Zoning Adniinistrator's interpretation of the code was consonant with City policy on billboards and with the discussion in the district court ruling." Page 4 of 5 1 Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64300(k), Eller O�-2-5� 2 duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Coxnmission and requesting a hearing 3 before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; 4 and 6 Whereas, Acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislauve Code §§ 64.206 - 64208a public 7 hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on Wednesday, Mazch 7, 2001 where all 8 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 Conunittee and of the Commission, does hereby Resolve, to affum the decision of the Commission in this matter having found no error in the Commission's facts, findings or procedures and to adopt the findings and conclusions of Commission as contained in Commission resolution O1-08, dated 7anuary 26, 2001; and be it Further Resolved, that the Eller's appeal is hereby denied; and, be it Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Eller, the zoning manager and the Commission. Requested by Department of: sy: Form Approved by City Attorney 8,.: -�.�.� �✓G�w�,..�- 3-� y-o t Apprwed by Mayor £or Submission to Council By: By: by Mayor: Date ` \ ` oNy� S 4 . ` Adopted by Council: Date �\� 3pfy � Adoption Cextified by Council Secretary BY� �� - . T��r-�-� �s � � � � �� 6L� � �� ,� � I � D�ARTM6V�lOFPICFJCOUNCIL � � � � DnrEU��MrEO, '�. ' � , , , , , T D, ,�, .��Y�.e��i � _ � � ,z��a �4 zow� G�2EE1�'�HEE �T 'Ndr 1 � O� $ � .. �. �. � 0 ' COMACTP62SON,8�PHONE r mrmr�-a�e R.�k�u�-w'. �� i,�'an,�4�p�+i �,., �� W eA�s'�� rFl ,dq� wi rs:i_i�JiJOiii�a.�smo� '�; �ii , , , , � „ i.�„ 4 , ��Conncilmewlier, Cble�m2n� 2'66�=8620ti � " oaM,�rowccraR� �� 'crcccucz, ,' ' ' " �� MUSlBEON�COUNCILAGENDA�BVN?tA . � ; .r ,� ��, � ,. , , � i � ' � ' � �March�`14,��200i�(Suspeneion} � � � �� .' r �' , �� ' �rnv.,,oaEV i ,�,ucruaa� � � , , , , � � , � , , , , � ' , � � ROUIING , ' � ' � � � ' ' � ' , , , , ��' '�NeIICILLSErtVICFSOYt ��N/Y1C1111.�W�LGf6 N 1C • ' � � r�`mltl4rtASMiMrt1 � �� ' � � � , , � � TOTAf � # OF S1GIrYATURE PAGES' �� '' � � (GLJP ArL LOCA�ONS FQF� SIGNATUREy�, � � , �oa a�uFSrm � MemoxiaTiz3ng City,Council,action taken,on March 7, Z001, denying the','appeal o� $ller. Media C'ompan� fxom 'a ,decision of tfie Planning Co�ission �pholding,'the Zon3ng Administratox` ' � decisiou�to��'de�y tfie 6uilding p'ermits,fo��,repair �o� s,torm damaged�a3vertis"ixcg'�signe.�,,' �� „ � „ " � � � 1� J' , � RECAMMENDATIONApProve',CA or ,ejectfR) „ . , [usoxa�sertvteECOx[awe,�sKUSi�wgw,tten�wiYUw�neQU¢aqxs: , � '� � ��.��kiasL,�P�tmarec'rqdaed�maeracanqactr°rm�ga�rnren�� ''� � u �� . '� PLANNINGCAMMISSION �. � ' � � `!�S `��,' t�o `' '� , � �.� ` , O i - ' 'Cl8COk4A1fTTEE� ' ' � � � � ��F1estMCpn�idfirme�ertieenaaly� �. , ' ��'�GMLS � ECAM ' ER'�IC M�53lON , � ' ' vES ".,, No � '� : '; ' � �' . � �� " � � 3:�DOestlnapei,sdJRmP�asfdlnotndmal�YO��M'�YarteMa2YemWuYee?,� � ' YES, ," NO , ' . , , , � � � . � ' , , . �. 4 �Islltispered4frma , . � . ' � � r' k , � , � � �� , � � 'YES , � NO ` +,' � � � ' � i � � � . � � � � F�IamaYYe&�al5xefsoies�arahesheetaal �attachto9re�n�slicet � � � , i BLEMISSUE.OPP012TUNittI�^��.�f.When.Whe�e:'WhY1 " , �� ' ' �� ;, � � „� � .. � NITUQING PRO . , , _ , ' ' � � � ' � ' , � � , � , ' , � �� . � .. „� � „ � , ^ �, , � �, „�,, �, ,, ,,, .,,�,�,� - , , , ' -�', � � , � � , . , � , , , � � � , , � i �ri„ „ � ' , i ' ' , ' ' ' ' ' i � � � , � � , . , , � , ' , ' ,. ' , ' �� ADVHNTAGES IFAPPROI�� , ' , � �' , , - � , ., � � i , „ . , „ '�""" , �."'�.y"`i'� S ""— �. ..�'::b�.'�:'�,,,,,.,.•°'�' ' , , �....w�...�. � , � � � . ""�-, ". �• �,�;, � ; � , � , �, ,� W... � ,u � , � „, . _a. ,,:, .', , ' � � � ' :, .r;., ,.�°'�� "'�. . .Sx'�""'�'i�x",y" ��-.�...! . �`'„�- , . . ., , ... . � �� ' � , , , <�r �,,�� i I,..��, i �.' , , i �, , �,' � � , ' v :,.�� , � : . � �,; , ,,.. �„ , ., _ ,�t .�.. � � � � I ..J � � �� ,�� . ,� ,..i � �, . , � , � � � � , � , ' DtSA�VAfItAGE I�APPROVED � r � ' i � � � � � , , ' _ � , ,. � � . , . ' � �. ' � , i � , , , , � � , � � � � � . �� ' � � � � i �, � � . , „ , � .'� , ' ,�,,' ' ,. � s � OIS4�YANTNGE9,IFNO7APPRpVEO , � � , � � „ . , , � ' , . , , � � � „ � , . � �, � B�'tlN�ry{LI�I�IT� 1�7",''6d"�I,ix i W�: '{d '' �w u, ' r ,�, ' . , ,� q Y rM ,_'W ..q'tls�YP . ,. . . . �,' � , � , I � I,kl N�`�t'pdC'Y�,IN'M�2'NYMI� V^'�'s+�ntirnd i�u�I�m�maHan�,'urmmne�rl� w�ciini�w«.�w� rr �u i,u. a��,a,� . �� , �, , , .. ..vmnwwNp p,'rl�eiuNNiM'iWYeIY�MI�'I(�IAM'�iINP19E151PY�Nl�p1�9$�I�I��'�'Im��^�fp��fN'�ilvb°�or � � ALAMO[INrOFTRANSACTIONS � , . '� �COSTRtEVFNGE81106ETID(�dRf�ONE) ' ' � " '' " .Nd, , � � , , � , . I ! r � ' , '. „ '�" ,' �� , , � � � , f �„ d . WNDItl650URC� , . � � � ,ACTNITYNIiI�'�R � r� � � . FlNNJCWLWFORMnTON(oWWN) � � . � �' :��„ ti I Il�ly �y �fy„I,'�, I t ItI I [17�d,' IGlttk^ m� 'yT1{ I',4 I�p'1` I'b711 , Y'a::�b I-�I I4,nT 1'. � Y i� �� '', � � �� ' ' '0 .S.'�J�I�Wta.�rVd"M.�"dv�RYl'�Y}�Ir�+�'�i�Gfl4'C7MM1�IqtlI�f�Mlltl�l'JItl81i'el@,�Io-ILiLTY.61'E54�%�'.IDroCIY��1,IalGId9�I�l,dIl�ulk�IC�w"�"Y.fiIL)�'14%Y�F .Id„ihV'+k,�,� ' , ' � , . , � , , , � , � , � � ; � � , ... � � , � , , . , , , � � . � , � ' ' , � � , � � � �' � ' ' � � � � . I . ,, � � ', � � i. � � . . �, . .�, ... . � �,,, , � i ... �, i . ��{�'i� � .: i i ._ I,.. a � �.� . _. � �-asL� Interdepartmental Memorandum CITY OF SAINT PAUL DATE: Mazch 14, 2001 TO: Council Member Coleman FROM: Peter Warner, CAO RE: Resolution memorializing decision of the City Council to deny the appeal by Eller Outdoor Advertising, Inc. from a decision of the Planning Commission upholdiag the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny Eller's building permit request to repair storm damaged advertising signs. City Council Public Hearing Date: March 7, 2001 Attached is the resolution memorialiZing the Councii's decision in the Eller Media appeal matter. At its March 7, 2001 session, the Councii moved to deny Eller's appeal as it could fmd no error in the Plamiiug Commission's review of the matter. The Council also moved to adopt as its own the Planning Commission's resolution and the findings and conclusions contained therein. Please introduce this resolution under suspension today if at all possible. Thanks. PW W 1��► 3-1`c-a � DEPARTMENT OF PLANI�'ING & ECOI�*OMIC DEVEL(IPMENT Brtan Sweemey, Director �l—aso � C:TTY OF SAII�IT PAUL Norm Co1eman, Mayor Febrnary 26, 2001 ' Ms. Nancy Anderson Ciry Council Reseazch Office 310 Ciry Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: 23 WestFourth Sb'eet Sa�ni Pau1, MN 55102 Telephone: 612-266-6565 Facsimile: 612-228-3314 T would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, Mazchx2001, on the follocving zoning case: 7 Appellant: Eller Media Company Zoning File: 01-180-504 Purpose: Appeal of Plamiiiig Commission decision regazding storm-damaged billboards. (Planning Commission upheld action of LIEP to deny building permits for repair of seven bIllboazd faces on West Seventh Street and in the Highland Special Sign Aistrict where the sign face panels were blown down. Plamiiug Comnussion approved repair of one billboazd where the sign £ace was bent but not blown down.) Locations: 1184 W. Seventh Street (two sign faces); 1209 W. Seventla Street (three faces, one permitted to be repaired); 2014-2018 Ford Parkway (three faces). My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council on Mazch 7, 2001. Please call me at 266-6575 if you have any questions. Sincerely, I�w 1 ` Larry So rholm Planning Adiiiinishator cc: Councilmember Coleman Councilmember ITarris Maivin Liszt, Atty. for Eller Media Co. Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota K:\Shaced�PedVSODERHOUZONINGWl-180-504-EJ1erMediz.HI2G.wpd DEPART�IE�+T OF PLA.V�°I�G & ECO\OJIIC DEVELOP\I8�7 BrianSweeney, Director CITY OF SAII�TT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor r.�rr February 28, 2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson � Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paui, MN 55102 RE: Zoning File # 01-180-504: City Council Hearing: 25 WutFourtH Street Saint Pau{ MN55102 C7\'c� Telephonc 651-1666655 Facsimile: 651-12&337 S ELLER MEDIA COMPANY March 7, 2001 at 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeal of a Pianning Commission decision that upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny building permits for the repair of three roof-top billboard structures with seven sign faces. The Planning Commission pernutted repair of an eighth bi(iboard face, which was only bent in the wind, not blown to the ground. LOCATIONS: The billboards in question are at: 1184 W. Seventh Street (2 sign faces on top of Bill's TV) 1209 W. Seventh Street (3 faces, including the one that can be repaired, on top of Checker Auto Parts) and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway (3 faces near the east end of the Highland Villa�e Shopping Center.) ZOI�iING ADMII3ISTRATOR' S ACTION: Deny building permits for repair/renovation of the storm-damaged billboards PLANNING CONIMISSION ACTION: Deny appeal by Eller Media Company on a unanimous voice vote with 1 abstention ZONIIVG CONIMITTEE RECO1bIIVIENDATION: Deny appeal, 4-0 (with 2 abstentions by new members appointed to the committee after the public hearing was held) PED STAF�' RECONID�NDATION Deny appeal, uphold Zoning Administrator in LIEP SUPPORT FOR APPEAL BY ELLER MEAIA CO.: No one spoke except Eller representatives OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY ELLER MEDIA CO.: Two people spoke, representing Highland Area Community Council and Scenic MN. Two people sent letters representing the West Seventh Federation and Exeter Realty Co. • or-as� Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Secretary Febnzary 28, 2001 Page 2 Deaz Ms. Anderson: ELLER MEDIA COMPANY has appealed a decision by the Saint Paul Planning Commission that upheld a previous decision by the Zoning Administrator to deny building permits requested by Eller to repair seven billboards. The seven sign faces aze located on three different rooSops located on W. Seventh Street and at Hightand ViIlage. The seven billboard faces btew to the ground during the storm on May 30, 1998--the storm that wiped out lots of trees in the Hightand and W. Seventh neighborhoods. The sign structures supporting the biliboards were also damaged. (Eller's appeai to the Plam�ing Commission involved eight billboard faces; the Planning Commission granted approval for the repair of one sign, on which the sign face panels were bent but were not blown down.) � The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter on January 4, 2001. Marvin Liszt, attomey for Eller Media Co., presented azguments supporting the appeal. Representatives of the Highland Area Community Council and Scenic Minnesota spoke in support of the Zoning Administrator's action. Letters supporting the Zoning Administrator's � action were received from the W. Seventh Federation and Exeter Reaity Co., which manages the newer commercial properties at the southwest coruer of Ford Pazkway and Cleveland Avenue. On January 18, 2001, the Zoning Committee voted 4-0 to deny the appeal. (Two new committee members, who were not present for the public hearing two weeks eazlier, abstained.) On January 26, 2001, the Ptanning Commission accepted the Zoning Committee's recommendation and denied Eller's appeal on a unanimous voice vote with one abstention. The Zoning Administrator's decision is based on the Zoning Code language that if a nonconforming sign or sign structure is clamaged more i ��in �_� °-^.^.� rPrcent, it cannot be repaired or replaced without meeting a11 of the code requirements. The Zoning Administrator concluded that, as applied to a billboard, the sign is the sign face and the sign structure is the footings and framing. The sign faces were totally destroyed. Therefore, the billboard faces cannot be replaced without meeting alI of the conditions of the code. The Planning Administrator indicated that Elier could either appeal the interpretation to the Planning Commission or subrrut material to show how they could meet all of the condirions ofthe code (before last Navember, when billboards were prohibited citywide). Eller Media Company contends that separating the sign and sign structure is a novel and illegal "componentization" of a nonconfornung use. They maintain that a billboard sign is one structural and economic unit. They submitted detailed repair costs demonstrating that none of the damaged signs--taken as a whole unit--was damaged anywhere close to fifty-one percent its replacement • cost. o� -d-Sa � Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Secretary Februazy 28, 2001 Page 3 The Planning Commission's resolution lays out the essentiai facts in the case and gives the Commission's reasons for deciding that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the code is reasonable. The Commission found that the "two-hurdle test" for damage to the sign or sign structure is a straight-fonvard reading of the code and is consistent with the opinion written by the Ramsey County Court in a previous case about billboards damaged in the same storm. Nonconforming billboards are different from nonconforming business signs in that billboards typically last much longer. When the business in a building changes, new signs are put up--even if the sign structure can be reused--and the new signs must meet current regulations. But if there's a billboard on the roof, the message can change every month, while the structure and the sign face endure for decades and decades. As with business signs, it is reasonable to treat the sign and the sign strzictzrre separately. These aze components that have distinct definitions in the code and practical applications for many types of signs. The City has not carried "componentization" to some irrational degree that discriminates against billboards. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on Mazch 7, 2001. Please call me (266- � 6575) if you have questions and please notify me if any member of the Caty Council wishes to have slides of the sites presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, Larry derholm Planning Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor Chris McCarver, Eller Media Co. Marvin Liszt, Atty. for Eller Media Co. Peter Wamer, Asst. City Attorney Wendy Lane, LIEP Tom Riddering, LIEP Betty Moran, W. Seventh Federation Gayle Summers, HACC • Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota e -�� s��xT . . � ��VL '�j Department oJPlanning and Economic Develnpment � �r� Zoxing Section II DO Cit}• Hall Annex 15 l�"esi Fourth Slreet � Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION • Name Eller r:edia Coaozn� � AddresS_3225 S?r_rQ Street NE City_ Ninneavolis StIL�i Zip 55413 Daytime � � l�V Zoning File Name o0-150-648 AddresslLoCation 1184 k� 7th : 1209 W. 7ch: 2014-2018 Ford Perkwzv TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: Q Board of Zoning Appeais C�J C+ty Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 64 . 20 Eparagraph (a) of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Planr.in� commissior. on January 26 ,;�ooi File number; oi-o8 (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusaf mada by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. See Attached. �? � l.. 33�� .� � -! � Attach additiona! sheet if ApplicanYs � Date ',� /7 City agent � �, �r 6� 0 ar-�!� �5 SAVL q. BERN�CK� MARVIN A. L�SZT SGOTT A LIFSON DAVID K. NIGMTINGALE� PAUL J. OUAST JESSICA l. ROE BERNICK AND LIFSON A PNOFESS�ONAL ASSOQATION ATTORNEVS AT LAW SUITE �200, THE COIONNADE 5500 W/�YZATA 00ULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS� MINNESOTA 554I6-�Z7 TELEPHONE (>63) 646-�200 FACS�MILE (7631 546-1003 OFGOUNSEL NEAL J. SNAPIRO LEG/�L ASSISTANTS KATHRYN G.MASTERMAN NANCY v WNAVLEN TRESA K. SAUER • �P150 AOMIYlEO IN WISCONSIN 'I�150 CERTIFIED PYBC/C ACCOUNTANT �REqL PROGERTT 4W SPECIALIST C[Mn(D O� TMC M�nnOCTA SiAI[ ��R FS50<nrax February 14, 2001 Latry Soderholm Deparcment of Planning and Economic Devetopment Zonin� Section 1 I00 City Hal[ Annex 25 West Fourth Street St, Paul, MN 55102 I2�: Appeal by �Iler Media Company Zoning File No: 00-150-648 Our Filc No: 5447-1 Bear Larry: REC �N��) ..��• FCB 1 � L �� ZON�� Enclosed for filing ptease find Elier Ntedia Company`s Application for Appeal Yo the Gitv Council From the Planning Commission Resolution in Fite.Nb;QO-I�0-648 and feling fee in the amount of $300. � B�RNICK AND LIFSO jP.A. ..��/�� 1 M:�r��in A. Liszt MAL/at� Enclosure cc: Eller Media Company Peter �Varner • • � al - �a � � ELLER MEDIA COMPANY'S APPEAL TO THE CITY COL3NCIL FRO�S W�� • 7 c.d 6 THE PLANNING COVLVIISSION RESOLUTION IN FILE NO. 00-150-648 U� � � W w � Q � 1. Background This appeal does not involve policy decisions about signs. The outcome shouid not be determined by a predisposition towazd signs. Rather, this appeal concerns the right guaranteed by la�v for a lawful business to maintain and repair legal nonconfomiing uses. That is thz essence of this matter and the appeal must be resolved b}� the legal principies governing nonconforming uses and not the extraneous and, frankly, illegai issues raised b}' the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's resolution denying Eller's appeal from zoning the � administrator's decision to deny Eller's applications to repair three (3) storm damaged si�ns is erroneous since it is based upon (i) the flilure to lpply the blsic leoai princip(es govemin� legal nonconforming uses; (ii) a misinterpretation of Chapter 66 of the Zoning Code; and (iii)1 misunderstandin� of previous City Council and court action in an identical situation. The matter before this Commission is identical to the 1998 proceeding at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle sien at Highland Vi11aQe. In those situations, as well as the ones invol�•ed in this appeal, roof top signs sustained minor replacement cost damaRe as a tesult of poster panels being blown down by a windstorm. In the 1998 proceeding the City Council ultimately determined that §66301, not §66.303, governed the owner's right to repair (See pages 14-15 of the Staff Report). In the 1993 proceedin�, the rzcord `vas ciear that the roof sians �vere not destroyed by more than fifty-onz percent (51 %) of their replacement cost and Eller ��as • permitted to repair the signs by replacing the poster panels. The same is true in the matter now � ot �S� pendin� aad the Planning Commission �vas obli�ated to follow the previous determination made by the City Councit. Simpiy stated, the only issue is whether the signs have been damaged to an extent of more than fifiy-one percent (51 %) of their replacement cost. Since the answer to that question is "No", the Councii must determine that the zonin� administrator had no discretion and �c�as in error in not granting permits to Eller to repair the three sisns involved in this proceeding. 2. Undisputed Facts Each of the outdoor advertising structures (si�ns) involved in this mattzr are leaal, nonconfomiin� uses. There is no dispute that each of these sians sustained minor replacement � cost damape during the May, 1993 �t�indstorm. There is also no dispute that each of the signs � could be repaired for a cost which would be for fess than Tifty-one percent (SI%) oftheir reptacement cost. In fact, the actual percentages of cost to repair versus replacement cost are twenty-two percent (22%) for 1184 �V 7`'`, fourtzen percent (14%) for 1209 R' 7`'', and fifteen percent (15%) for Ford Road and Kenneth. Thz specific minor damaoe to each sign is set forth on paaes 25, 34, 47, and 62 of the Staff Report. In addition, W.T. nfcCaiia, the indeper��ent engineer, retained by Eller, has indicated that there is no discemable deterioration of the signs since the storm damage in iv1ay, 1993. (See paees 29, 42, and 56 of the Staff Report). The Staff Report acknowledges that the City's structurat engineer, Frank Berg. reviewed Mr. McCalla's reports and thouQht they �r�ere satisfactory. 2 • � Gl-� In the same 1998 �vind stortn involved in this proceeding, h� Eiler poster faces at 1820 • C'srand Avenue and Highland Villages were also blo�vn do�rn. By resolution dated 23ovember 10, 1999 this City Council affirmed the determination of the Planning Commission that the sign faces could be replaced. In that proceedin� the Planning Commission rejected the two liurdle test now adopted to deny the permits involved here. 3. Basic Principles Go�•erning Legal Nonconforming uses prohibit the action taken by the Plannina Commission. Eller's si�ns in this proceedin� are legat nonconforniing uses and are, therefore, afford�d significant rights under app(icable la��. In fact, §66.301 of the St. Paul Zoning Code states in • relevant part that "It is fitrther the intznt of this chapter to permit legal nonconforming si�ns existing on the date of this chapter, or amendments thereto, to continue as legal nonconforming signs provided such signs are saFe, maintained so as to not be unsi�htly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the follo�ving provisions..." In addition to'this clear directive in the Zoning Code,-longstandino niles of la�v pro�•ide: `'Existing, non-confomiin� uses must either be petmitted to remain or eliminated b}' use of eminent domain." Countv of Freeborn v. Claussen, 203 N. W.2d 323, 32i (Minn. 1972). The right to continue non-conformins uses necessarily embraces presen•ation of those uses, inc(uding improvements in efficiency and reasonable renovalions to • � v� asb prevent cleter•ioration. Claussen at 326; Marris v. Citv of Cedarbur�, 498 N. W.2d 842, 852 (Wis. 1993}. E�•en if a repair caused an interruption in use, it �vould not cause a loss of the right to reinstate the non-conforming use, since intemzption due to necessary rzpairs is `beyond the owner's control." Countv of Isanti v. Peterson, 469 N.W �d 467, 470 (R4inn. 1991), citing Citv ofMinot v. Fisher, 212 N.�V.2d $37, $40 (N.D. 1973). It appears that the zoning adatinistrator acknocvled�es that the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code are not a model of clarity. Ms, Lane indicated in her denial letter that "As we have previously discussed the Zonin�_* Code does not gi�•e us clear directions in how to process this type of application and we have had difficult reachinR a decision (StaffReport page 89). To tite estent that the ZoninQ Code is unclear or does not proti�ide clear direction to the � zoning administrator, the la�v in Minnesota is cfear. Zonin� ordinances must be construed . stricdy a�ainst the local zonina authority and in favor of die propert}• owner. �erAmerica Grou�. Inc. ti• Citv of Littie Canada, 539 N.W.2d 26�, 266 (Minn ct. App. 199�) citing Frank's Nurserv Sales v Citv of Rosevilie, 39.i N.�ti'.2d 604, 603 (Minn. 1980). Accordingly, an}• ambiguit}• in the Zoning Codz in this proceedine nnist be resolved in favor of Eltar. Simply stated, once it is detemiined that the cost to repair the damaged signs is less than Fifty-one Percent (51 %) of its replacement cost there is no further issue to decide in this case. Since there is no dispute that the cost is less than fifty-onz percent (51%}, the Councit has no discretion. Zonin� Code 566.301(2) mandates the grantin� of the pzrmits. 0 . � D}-3so 4. The Planning Commission's Atfempt To Circumti•ent The law Of • Nonconforming Uses By Concluding That The Zoning Code Prohibits Repair If Either The Sign Face Or Sian Structure Are Damaged In Excess Of Fifty- one Percent (51%) Of Their Replacement Cost Is Legally �ti'ithout Merit. For probabiy the first time in the histor} of nonconformin� uses, the zoning administrator has taken the unsupportable approach that if a component part of a nonconfomiing use is dama�ed in an amount greater than fifty-one percent (51 °10) of its repiacement cost (even though the entire ttse is damaged less than fift}•-one percent (51%)) the use cannot be repaired. This interpretation has no basis in law or fact and cannot be a basis for denying Eller's right to repair. This cunclusion by the Plannin� Conunission is an attempt to circumvent the la�v in this area and should be rejected outright. The Planning Commission's adoption of a rico-hurdle test ��iolates the basic principles � �overning nonconforming uses. As set forth above, the ri_,ht to contimte a nonconformin� use necesslrily embraces preservation of tlte use including improvement in efficiency and reasonabte renovations to prevent deterioration. The absurdity of the Staff Report recommendation in this reaard is illustrlted by a scenario where a legal nonconfomtinQ�gas station has a roof entiret)• destroyed by a�vindstorm. lt would clearly be illegal to require the gas station to cease its existence simply because the roof �cas damaged by an amount in e�cess of fifr}'-one percent (51 %) of its replacement cost. It is improper to break a nonconfom�ing use down to component parts and apply a fifty-one percenf (51%) test fo each sepazate component. The absurdity of treating signs and sign structures as separate componznts for a t�vo- hurdle test is also itlustrated by a review of the terminolosy used in Chapter 66 of the Zoning • � o� asb Code. The following examples clearl�• illeutrate ho�v the terms sign anc3 sign structure are used interchangeably in the Code: Chapter 66 itself is eatitled "Zoning Code - Signs". Cleazly the term Si�ns is not referring to just the panel or si�n face since Chapter 66 is concerned �vith all aspects of the outdoor advertising unit. The term "sign" is, of course, all inclusive and not a term referrinR to oniy a component part. �66:202(a) provides that "Signs in all zonin� distric� shall conform to the structural design standards of the state bui[ding codz". According to the Plannin� Commission interpretation, si�n structures «'ould not need to conform to tlie State Building Code since that term is not specified in this section. Obviousl}•, this � �voutd be an nbsurd resutt and is further iltwtrative of ho�v the term "sig�i' , throughout the Code refers to the entire unit. Article III. 66.300 is entitled "Nonconfomiing Signs ` not "Nonconformin� Signs and Sign Stnictures". The term sign in this heading is used to denote the entire unit. §65.201 provides in retevant part Yhat "No person shall place, erect or maintain a sign, nor shall a iessee or owner permit property under his control to be used for such a sign, which does not conform to the followinQ requirements and �tithout first obtainin� die requisite permit for such sign." {emphasis supplied) Under the Planning Commission s interpreiation, a sian company could erect a sign structure � � e� l � �s� �vithout a pertnit sign there is no such prohibitation a�ainst sion struchxres in � §66.201. This would cleazly lead to an absurd result. Obviously, the term sign in that section refers to the whole unit. T6e above examples aze not meant to be e�austi��e but rather are sho«n to illustrate that the St. Paul Zoning Code does not intend for the temi "sisn" to refer to only the sign panel or face. Again, if there is any ambiguit}� on this issue it must be construed against the Cit}�. Suoer America Group v. Citv of Little Canada. Sunra. It is also clear that the zonin� administrator has never in the past used a two-hurdle test regarding sion permits and has never disected a si�n to look at its component parts. For example. the Biltboard pernlit applications on paaes 16-19 of the Staff Report do not require separate permits for a sign and a sign structure. The Cit}� has al�cays considered a billboard, a si�n 1nd a � sion structure to be the same thin�. These words are used interchan�eably in flie Zonina Code . and in the permit form. To now say they have different meanings in light of storm dama�e defies common sense, tl�e law governin� nonconforming uses, and the City's historical treatment of � storm damaged signs. It is also clear that the Staff Report has i�nored the fact that the signs involved in this proceeding are roof top signs and that the definition in y�66.120 defines roof si�ns as "A sign erected upon or above a roof or parapet of a building or structure." Clearty, this definition does not break a roof si�n into component parts but rather inc]udes �vithin the definition the entire structure includin� the support beams, the paneis, etc... Again, the signs in the 1998 proceeding and the ones involved in this proceedin� are roof top signs and the code cannot be read to • � ot--as� se�reaate each component part of the sign. This fact �vas clearIy understood bq the Cit}• Council in its previous decision to permit repairs to roof top signs ��$ere the panels were blown down. � �. The Planning Commission and staff ha�•e totally misinterpreted the pre��ious storm damage proceedina, the Court decision and the Cit}• Council's final action in that matter. Part of the confusion in the matter notr• pending arises from ihe zonin� administrator and Plannino Commission's confiision concemina the previous storm dama�e proceeding. In the thac proceedina ttivo of Eller's signs were not structurally damaged but panels were blown do�vn. The zonin,ldminisllator determined that the panels could be replaced since Zonin, Code y�6G.405(1) did not require a permit for such replacement. That decision to pemiit repair �vas sustained by � die Planning Commission and City CounciL Unfortunateh�, the Cit}� Council did not make a written Resolution after voting to pemtit repairs to the siQns and ti�•hen the matter reached the District Court there was no record upon �vhich the Court could measure the reasonableness of the Cit}� CounciPs decision. Contrary to the inference in the current StaffReport and Plamling Commission resolution herein, the District Court did not rzverse the City Council's decision. The District Court determined oniy that y66.40� did not obviate the necessit}� for a sign compan}' to obtain a permit for repairs. The District Court niled onl�• that a permit was required prior to repairing storm damaged signs. The Court decision rendzred its decision on October 8, 1999. Subsequent to the Court's decision, the City Council on No��ember 19.1999 did adopt a 4vritten Reso[ution pursuant to tfie direction ofthe District Court. That Resolution affirnted the • � o�-�s� decision of the Planning Commission aliowin� the repairs to the signs and determined that � �66.301 was the applicable section of the Zonin� Code in storm damaged sign situations. In that proceeding, the Planning Commission rejected the two hurdie test argument and so did the Council by �miing the Planning Commissions resolution In short, the final outcome of the prior proceedin� tivas that roof top si;ns, which were damaged by panels blo�ving off, were allotived to be replaced pursuant to §66301. There �vas no rivo-hurdle test created by the City Council. The only real issue was �vhether signs were dama�ed to an extent greater than fifry-one percent (51°l0) of their replacement cost. The 11w in Minnesota regardin� actions of municipalities in these matters is be�•ond dispute. A municipality's action must be reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. The decision must be legally sufficient and with factual basis. Chase v. Citv_ of Minneaaolis. 401 � N.�V. 2d 408 (Minn. App 1987); Northoointe Plaza v Cite• of Rochester, 457 NW 2d 393 (Minn App 1994); Horbal v. Cit�• of Horn Lake, 393 N.�V. 2d 5(Minn App 1986). Eller cannot imagine a more arbitrary or capricious action than creatinQ different standards and results for permit applications for identical sians dama�ed in the same stonu. The Planning Commission action in creating n rivo-hurdle test for the siens involved herein is arbitrary and capricious and «�ithout factual basis. It sitould not be sustained. Conclusion The la�v of nonconforming vses manda[es the grantin� of the permits to Eller. The Planning Commission should not be allotived to circum��ent long standing law by creati�t� a new • L`] �1 ot a.sb ------------ tc�ro-hurdte test c�$ich contradicts pcevious action aird r�ies of�a�:�a�io-so-t�i�arbitrary and capricious. This appeal shoutd be granfed. BERi�1ICK AND LIFSO\r, P.A. � � � Mazc�in A. Liszt, I.D.#63 S43 Suite 1200, The Colonnade 5500 �Vayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Iv�i t 55416-1270 i[i7 � � • \� ��I i'�`v��'� � o�-a-s� • city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number o�-oa date 1-26-oi Eller Media Co. Appeal on Storm-damaged Billboards WHEREAS, Eller Media Co., file #00-150-648, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of Section 66.408(a) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the Zoning Administrator's decision denying building permits for the repair of three rooftop advertising sign structures damaged in a storm on May 30, 1998, and located at 1184 W. Seventh Street, 1209 W. Seventh Street, and 2Q14-2018 Ford Parkway; WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on January 4, 2001, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; • WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the foilowing findings of fact: A major windstorm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to homes and trees and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, City inspectors from LIBP checked the sites of damaged billboards owned by Eller together with Chris McCarver of Eller. Although the public hearing produced some controversy about how much emergency repair work Ellez did without building permits immediately foliowing the storm, there is little disagreement between Eller and the City about the extent of the damage to the signs. Eight sign faces are involved in this appeal: six of the sign faces were completely blown away; one sign face has a small section remaining; one sign face is intact, but slightly bent. The roof-top bed frames or angle-iron upper structures for all eight sign faces received some damage, though only one was damaged so severely that the vertical structure was disassembied and removed. moved by Field seconded by in favor Unanimous (1 abstention - Mardell) • against �� ol �..�'� Zoning File # 00-150-648 January 26, 2Q01 Page 2 2, The billboard structure on top of 1184 W. Seventh ("the Bi1Ps T'V board") was a V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foof sign faces before the storm. In the storm both faces blew off and the upper structute for the west-facing boazd was bent and subsequently removed. Now the bed framing and the angle-iron upper structure for the east-facing board are all that remain. Although the west-facing board has neither a sign face nor an upper structure, Eller applied to rebuild it as well as replacing the east-facing sign face (that is, the interlocking metal "poster panels" upon which outdoor advertising messages can be glued or tied.) 3. The billboard shvcture on top of 1209 W. Seventh ("the Checker Auto Parts boazd") is a V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foot sign faces that face toward the east and one 300-square-foot sign face that faces toward the west. This west-facing struchzre still has it's poster panels, but the angle-iron frame is somewhat bent. The sign face is illnminated at night even though there is no advertising message. One of the east-facing signs has a remnant-about one-fourth of it's poster panels; the other has no poster panels. The angle- iron upper structures remain. � 4. The two W. Seventh locations are neazly across ttie street from one another. They are • wned B-2 and aze on a mixed use arterial street with businesses and housing on both sides of W. Seventh. Most of the honsing on W. Seventh consists of sma11 apazlment buildings. The abutting properties on the neigkborhood streets are predominantly single fanuly, with a scattezing of duplexes. 5. The billboard structure on top of 2014-2018 Ford Parkway ("the Highland Viliage board") is V-shaped with one 300-square-foot sign face that faces towazd the east and two 300- foot sign faces that face toward the west. No poster panels remain. The angle-iron upper structures rernain. In' addition io me vill ;a�:u sL^!a+aue that is the topic of this zoning case, which is towazd the east end of the block, there aze two other billboard stractures on top of the Highland Village Shopping Center. On the west end is a 672-square-foot billboazd and in the center is a wide-angle V-shaped sh with two 300-square-foot boards. 6, The Ford Pazkv✓ay billboazd structure is on the rooftop of the biock-long Highland Village strip commercial building, which is also zoned B-2 and houses several restaurants and retail businesses. The Highland Village Shopping Center is part of a lazge neighborhood shopping district. 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. . C�`/ �l-b � Zoning File # 0�-150-648 3anuary 26, 2001 Page 3 At the time of the building permit application, all of the billboards in quesrion were legal nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Bi1Ps TV board was too high (over 37.5 feet). The Checker Auto Parts boazds were too big (more than 400 sq. ft. on the east-facing side). Both were in a temporary special sign district for the West Seventh neighborhood where a moratorium prohibited new billboazds or modification of existing ones until it expired on January 8, 2001. The Highland Viliage boards were also too big (more than 400 square feet on the west-facing side) and too close to the other biilboards atop the shopping center (less that 660 feet); moreover, they were located in the Highland Village Special Sign district, where billboards have been a prohibited use since 1985. In November 2000 the City adopted a new ordinance prohibiting new billboards anywhere in the city, which made all existing billboards throughout the city into nonconforming uses. 8. On June 22, 2000, two yeazs after the storm, the City received building permit applications from Eller Media Co. to repair the damaged billboards. The City's Zoning Manager asked for and received Eller's cost estunates for repairing the signs. On August • 18, the Zoning Manager wrote to Eller to extend the timeline for action on the application an additional 60 days and to ask them to meet with the City's structural engineer to verify costs and to make sure the proposed work would be acceptable. As a result of the meeting, Eller submitted additional documentation. 9. Eller's cost information was prepared in detail and showed that, although the sign faces were blown away, the cost of repairs would be significantly less than the cost of building new billboards of the same type. For the different signs their repair cost estimates ran from 14 percent to 22 percent of the cost to construct a new identical billboazd. These costs included material, labor, and equipment needed for construction. 10. During the two yeaz period in question, the City was actively developing a new policy and a new ordinance to regulate billboards. Through the work of a Legislative Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and a ballot referendum, the City Council was moving towazd a consensus that the city's 600-plus billboud faces were too many and that reasonable measures should be taken to begin to reduce the number over a period of yeazs. By mid-November of 2000 the Council adopted an ordinance to prohibit any new billboazds in the city. , • f� \• � • Zoning File # 00-150-648 January 26, 2001 Page 4 l i. On October 17, 2000, the Zoning Manager sent a letter to Eller Media Co. denying the building permits. Section 66301(2) of the Saint Panl Zoning Code says: "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any e�ant of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shatl nat be reconstructed except in conformiTy �� • �� ,� . �� with the provisions of this chapter. The terms sLgn and sign structure are separate y defined in the code and have separate meanings; fhe conjunction "or" is explained in the code to mean that the items may apply singly or in combination. The Zoning Manager concluded that for billboazds the sign face is the same as fhe sign itseif. She reasoned that this language creates a two-hurdle test, that if either the sign or the sign s[ructure is damaged beyond 51 percent, then any repairs must conform to alI of chapter 66 and, in particular, to section 66302. The information Eller supplied about the sign faces (that is, the signs) indicated that seven of the eight faces were 100 percent destroyed. 12. The City staff's interpretation of this two-hurdle test draws from a 1999 ruling by ttie Ramsey County District Court in a previous case about some other billboards damaged in the same storm. The judge wrote in his opinion: • "The distinction made by the [zoning] provision is between changing the advertising content to be placed on the panels of a billboazd and changing or • replacing the panels themseives. The first is permitted without a pemut. The second constitutes a renovation of the billboazrl and requires a pernrit." "Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent with the ordinance's underlying policy. That policy unmistakenly contempiates the removal of nonconforn�ing billboards in special sign districts [Grand Avenue and Highland Village] over time. A billboazd without face panels ceases to function as a bitlboard. It tacks a hzilboard's essential functionality. It is nothing more than a collection of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a billboazfl ceases to uucti�"- �� a billboazd, the policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permit before the billboazd's functionality can be restored." 13. On November 15, 2000, the City received the subject appeal by Eller Media Co. azguing that the only relevant question for issuing a pernvt should be whether each billboazd, taken as a whoie with both its sign face and sign structure, was damaged beyond 51 percent of its replacement cost. Ttus is the test for nonconfonning signs found in Section 66301(2) of the Zoning Code. Eller argued that the City Council, subsequent to the district court ruling cited above, determined that Section b6301(2) was the apPlicable provision. Eller claimed, furtllermore, that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Section 66301(2) as setting up two hurdles was a violation of commonly recognized � rights held by nonconforming land uses. `7CJ • Zoning File # 00-I50-648 7anuaxy 26, 2001 Page 5 o�-�Sa 14. After consuitation with the Assistant City Attomey at the Zoning Committee's meetings, the Plauning Commission agreed with Eller's claim that the 51 percent daznage test is the relevant and primary section, but then disagreed with Eller's claim that the terms "sign or sign structure" must be read as a single unit referring to a billboazd face and it's supporting structure together. T7ie Zoning Administrator's interpretation was reasonable: if either the billboard face or the billboard structure is damaged greater the 51 percent, the permit application must meet additional requirements of the code, and specifically, Section 66302. Eller chose not to address not these other provisions. Moreover, the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the code was consonant with City policy on billboards and with the discussion in the district court ruling. NOW, THEREFORE, BE Ifi I2ESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legisiative Code, the appeal by Eller Media Co. of the Zoning Administrator's denial of building permits to repair billboazds at 1184 W. Seventh Street, 1209 W. Seventh Street, and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway is hereby denied. The Zoning Administrator has conectly interpreted Section 66. 301(2) as creating a two-hurdle test for signs and sign • structures. If either is more that 51 percent damaged, the repairs or modifications or renovation must meet all the other regulations in the sign chapter of the code. Except for the west-facing billboard face on top of Checker Auto Parts (1209 W. Seventh Street), the sign panels are gone and the Zoning Administrator properly denied the building permit applications. • K:VShared�Ped�SODERHOL�ZONING\00-I50-648-peres wpd l� bl �5� Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center iS.Kellogg Boulevard West Minutes of January 26, 2001 A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, January 26 , 2001, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Faricy, Zimmer Lonetti, McCall, and Morton Present: and Messrs. Alto�, Anfang, Field, Fotsdi, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Marde[I. Commissioners Mmes. *Engh, *Donnelly-Cohen; and Messrs. *Corbey, �Dandrea, �Gervais, *Kong, *Margulies, and Shakir. Absent: *Excused Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Altan Torstenson, Lucy Thompson, and Mary Bruton, Department of P(anning and Economic Development staff; att@ Wendy Lane, LIEP. I. ApprovalofMinutes Minutes of January 12, 2001 not ready for approval. II. �. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton reported tliat tlie Planning Commission will have a retreat on March 30, 2001, the fifth Friday of the month. Commissioner Anfang will be the Chair of the Committee. The subjects that will be addressed during the retreat will be 1) do�vntown housing; and 2) transit station area planning. Chair Morton stated that there will be a tour of the Minneapolis Riverfront nousing so� ::� i"- February. She stated that Mr. Soderl�olm and Lucy Thompson will be making anangements for the touc • Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Soderholm repoRed that DeLite Outdoor Advertising has filed a lawsuit against the City c(aiming that the moratorium that we had on billboards was illega(. Mr. Soderholm stated that the City Council discussed the Rusfi Line Commuter Rail Conidor and said tUat Councilmember Benanav wanted to be assured that someone in the City is coordinating all of the rail transit initiatives from the inter-ciry rail to Chicago to the hvo or three commuter lines to LR'I'to busway to the normal bns system. � • • � � � � -as� • � Chair Morton stated that she and Commissioners Mardell and Margulies attended the meetings on commuter rail from Hastings to the Union Depot. The Rush Line would go to Rush City and could also come into Union Depot. Mr. Soderholm talked about the Trillium Site. The City Council and the Port Authoriry are tryin� to raise enough funds to buy the site for the Trout Brook Greemvay. Zoning Committee NEW B[3SINESS #�0-153-430 MetzEer Buildine Materials Comnanv - Rezone from RT-1 to I-1 to use for outside storage of inetal framina for drywalL 763 & 765 Bradley, behveen Bush & Minnehaha. (Patricia James, 651/266-6639). Commissioner Field stated that no district council comment was received. No one spoke in support, no one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recommended approval on a vote of 6-0. MOTION: Ca»:missioner Field n:oved tlze Zonina Committee's recomnreiadation to approve the reZOning. Tlee motion carried unaxin:otrsty on a voice vote. • #00-153-513 Semple Enterprises - Special Condition Use Permit to operate a recycling processing center. 91 Ridder Circle, Northeast of Ridder Circle at Fillmore. (Virginia Burke, 651l266-6661}. Commissioner Fiefd stated tttat t(ie app(icant requested a Iay over to February I, 2001. • #00-153-757 - St. Paul Fliaht Center - River Corridor Special Condition Use Permit with modification of River Corridor Standards to demolish 7-8 metal hangers and construct conere"te and masonry replacement hangers. 270 Airport Road; NE of Bancroft and Lafayette. (Martha Faust, 651/266-6572) Commissioner Field stated that the applicant requested a lay over to February i, 2001. OLD BU5INESS #00-150-648 Eller Media Company Apneal - AIVow bil{boards blown down 2 years ago to be put back up, reversing City stafPs denial of permits. S 184 W. 7'" St., 12�9 W. 7'� St., and 2014- 2018 Ford Pkrvy. (Larry Soderholm, 651(266-6575) Commissioner Fie(d stated that the district councils recommended denial of permits. No one spoke in support, two parties spoke in opposition. Tite public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recommended approval on a vote of4-0 with 2 abstentions. �l o�-as� MOTION: Con:missioner Field n:oved the 2'or:ixg Cotnntittee recomn:endation to deny Eller's appea[ and upltold t/ae Zonirig Admi�:istrator, except that one of tlte eigkt sign fnces in quesfion � wns tlamngetl less tltan 51 percent and n:ay be repaired. The »intion carried wifh one abstention (Marrlel!). Commissioner Field announced the a�enda for the Zoning Committee meetin� on February i, 2001. OLD BUSINESS #00-153-513 Semnle Enterprises - Speciat Condition Use Permit to operate a recycling processing center. 91 Ridder Circle, T�tE of Ridder Circle at Fillmore, (Virginia Burke, 651/266-6661) #00-153-757 St. Panl Flioht Center - River Corridor Specia! Condition Use Permit with modifcatioii of dcy flood proofiag requirement to demolish 7-8 metal hanaers and construct concrete and masonry replacement hangers. 270 Airport Road, west side of Holman Field. (Martha Faust, 651/266-6572) NE�V BUSINESS #O1-120-869 Metronolitln Air�orts Commission - River Corridor Special Condition Use Permit with a modificltion of dry flood proofin� requirement to construct 9 hangars. 644 Bayfield Street, NE side of Hoiman Field. (Martha Faust, 651/266-6572) Du�leC-Trinlex Conversion Guidelines - review and recommendation. (Yang Zhang, S 651/266-6659) V. Comprehensive Planning Committee Mr. Soderholm reported that the State of Minnesota is looking for a co-location site for the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Corrections. The State of Minnesota is a[so lookin� for larger sites, for the Department of Human Services, the Department of Heafth, and maybe for the Agricu(ture Departntent's laboratories. He said the Comprehensive Plan for Saint Paul proposes that new state ofT�ces sttot�id'neip tc:.oar.ec*_#!ie Cagitot,areaand the, downtown. Commissioner Gordon stated tliat the Comprehensive Planning Committee looked at atl of the citywide Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan except the River Corridor Chapter, which has not yet been approved by the City Counc9L They went over a[I ofthe amendments to the other chaptecs and they will be coming to the Plannin� Commission at the next meeting. VI. Neiehborhoods and Current Plannind Committee Lo�vertown: The Urban Vil[age Concept and ihe Urban Village Market. Informational presentation by �Veiming Lu, Executive Director, Lowertowa Redevelopment Corporation. Commissioner Faricy infroduced Weimin� Lu as a gttest speaker. • 3 �1 ��l�`�`rW � � � MiNUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE 'Thursday, January 4, 2000 - 3:30 p.m. City Councif Cfiambers, 3" Fioor City kfall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boufevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: OTHERS PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, Mardell and Morton Engh and Gervais Peter Warner Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, and Larry Soderholm of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. E{ler Media Company - 00-150-648 - Ailow biliboards biown down two years ago to be put back up, reversing city staff's denial of permits. 1184 W. 7`" St., 1209 W. 7"' St., and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway. Larry Soderholm showed slides a�d presented the staff report. Mr. Soderholm stated Eller Media Company submitted a letter asking the case be laid over until January 4, 2001 and waved the 60- day deadline for action by the Planning Commission. District 9 and 15 opposed the issuance of building permits to repair the billboard damage and the Zoning Staff recommends denial of the permits and deniai of Eller's appeai. He also stated the city has a policy to reduce the number of billboards through attrition by removing those damaged by wind, wear and tear, loss of leases, and through redevelopment. At the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Soderholm stated the interim special sign district went into effect formally July 8, i998, and the signs were damaged May 30, 1998. There was a moratorium pending the City Council's pubiic fiearing in effect between May 30, and July 8,1998, that prevented LIEP from issuing permits for billboards. In any case, the present appfication was submitted in the summer of 2000. Marvin Liszt, Attorney for Eifer Media Company, appeared and passed out a memorandum, and stated that Ms. Lane and Mr. Soderholm misinterpreted the code and previous actions by the district court. He stated they didn't follow basic legal principais governing nonconforming uses. He also explained the rooftop signs sustained minor damage compared to their replacement cost as a result of poster panels being blown down by the windstorm. Section 66.301 of the Zoning Code states in relevant part that, "It is further the intent of this chapter to permit legal nonconforming signs existing on the date of this chapter, or amendments thereto, to continue as legal nonconfiorming signs provided such signs are safe, maintained so as to not be unsightly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following provisions" ln addition to this clear directive in the Zoning Code, longstanding ruies of iaw provide: • Ex+sting, non-conforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be e{iminated by use of eminent domain. • The right to continue non-conforming uses necessarily embraces preservation of those • uses, inciuding improvements in efficiency and reasonabie renovations to prevent deterioration. • Even if a repair caused an interruption in use, it would not cause a loss of the right to reinstate the non-conforming use, since interruption due to necessary repairs is "beyond �� -as� the owner's control. Z� oi asb Zoning Committee Minutes January 4, 2001 File # 00-150-648 Page 2 W hen a zoning code is unclear or does not provide clear direction to the zoning administrator, the taw in Minnesota is clear. Zoning ordinances musi be consirued strictly against the Iocal zoning authority and in favor of the property owner. Mr. Liszt further submitted that the issues now before this Commission have alt been resotved by the City Council. When a sign is damaged by a panel being biown off and the cost to repair the sign is less than fifty-one percent (51 %) of the replacement cost of the sign, a permit must be issued to make such repair. In the instant situation the record is clear that the cost of these repairs is far less than fifty-one percent (51 %) of the repiacement cost of the sign. Accordingly the zoning administrator had no discretion to deny the permits and this appeal must be granted. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Liszt stated the words "sign" and "sign structure" in Chapter 66 are used interchangeably and when you apply for a permit you are applying to buiid a billboard. Billboards should not be "componentized." He further stated it wou(d be iilegai to start componentizing nonconforming uses and say that if any part is damaged over ftfty-one percent (51 %), that whole nonconforming use must be removed. There also was a discussion concerning tfie outcome of the October 1999 District Court decision on storm-damaged biilboards located at Grand Avenue and Fairview and at Nighiand Village Shopping Center. � Mr. Liszt stated the City Council ailowed the prev+ous storm-damaged signs to be repaired • subsequent to Judge Monahan's order based upon Section 66.301 without any discussion concerning sign faces and sign structures. Ms. Gayle Summer, Highland District Council Community Organizer, appeared and submitted a 1989 log of repair work that she observed being done (without permits) on the damaged Highiand Vi!lage bi!lboard. It happens to be right outside her office window. Therefore, the sign damage cannot be known because of the numerous times they worked on the biliboard before the City Inspector could document the damage. She also stated the Highland District Special Sign District, which is part of the Zoning Code adopted in 1985, said that in 10 years all the biliboards should be down; in fact, oniy two signs have oeen �er ��e� �^ ? 5�ears. She also stated that the storm- damaged signs presented an opportunity to remove two more signs from the neighborhooci. Mr. Brian Bates, representative of Scenic Minnesota, appeared and said that the City staff's two hurdle" interpretation about "sign" and "sign structure" is incomplete because it uses oniy 66.301. More hurdles are set up in 66.302. Section 66.301 deals with a(f types of signs in the City. Section 66.302 contains more specific rules that appiy only to advertising sign and it cannot just be read out of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission have to give it some meaning. The meaning the district court gave it is replacing a biffboard sign face is a"renovation, which is the key to 66.302. You cannot renovate a sign unless the location of the sign meets all of the requirements under Section 66.302. The signs have been no�contorming signs since fhe mid 1980's. He also pointed out that the judge stated, "it is the poiicy of the City to have the signs removed over time ° Mr. Bates said it is past the time that these signs shovld have been removed. The sign strucfures have not been repaired for two yeas and are creating a blight on the � neighborhood and need to be removed. At fhe question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Bates stated the signs are nonconforming because they are rooftop signs and one of the biliboard structures is located in Highland Viltage Special � O 1-b S� Zoning Committee Minutes January 4, 200'I • File #: 00-150-648 Page 3 Sign District. Mr. Soderholm stated the general rule for rooftop signs is "no advertising sign sha11 be permitted to be constructed on a roof top or to overhang a roof [sec.66.2i 4(h)}. Mr. Liszt came forward in rebuttal and stated E{1er Media Company did some clean up work after ihe storm to alleviate a hazardous situation, but no repairs were made to the sign. Upon question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Chris McCarver, Etler Media Company, apQeared and stated they would check their records for documentation, such as time cards or work orders for the ctean up work on the biiiboards after the storm and present them for the record. The public hearing was closed. After further discussion Gommissioner Gordon moved to lay the case over until January 18, 2001, in order to obtain information on the Checker Auto Parts Sign, documentation from Eller on the sign clean up, and claritication from the City Attorney on §66.302. Commissioner Faricy seconded it. u Adopted Yeas - 5 Drafted by: � �,d-� �7Zct,r.�ne� Carol Martineau Recording Secretary Nays - 0 Submitted by: Larry � Zoning Chair / • Abstained - 1 (Commissioner Mardeil) 0 c�� asa EXETER REALTY COMPANY December 1, 2000 ♦ � BROKERHGE CONSULTING MANAGEMEM . Mr. Larry Soderholm Saint Paul DepartmenT of Planning & Economic Development City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Pavl, NIlV 55102 Re: File # 00-150-648 Applicant: Eller Media Dear Mr. Soderholm: 7080 MONTREAL AVENUE $AWT PAUL, MN 55116-2371 PNONE: (657) 690-2007 F(0(: {651) 690-2003 C o 5 �pQ� R�� Our company is the property manager for the Highlanc3 Crossing shopping center located at the southtivest corner of Cleveland Avenue and Ford Pazkway in Saint Paul. One of our affiliates is also the owner of this property whose tenants include Bames & Noble, Old Country Buffet, and other tenants. On bel�alf of this properry, we aze wrering in oppositeon to Eller Media's request for authority to reinstall certain billboards in the area that were blown down rico years ago. Our posiUon is that the roof-top billboards aY Cleveland and Ford Pazkway are a visual bleght that detract from the value of our shopping center and other properties in ihe area. We Yhink a11 roof-top billboazds in the immediate area should be phased out over time. We would therefore urge the City of Saint Paul to stand by its decision to deny permits to reinstali Yhese billboards. Very truly yo,urs, � � ��es��A�to es�� `��"'� � � President a�R�..^- �rsr :c. � E�ETEf� • i MRR-26�1900 16�40 • Janvaxy 3, 2001 , 'Zoning Commiftee Members s 1100 Cify Hall Amnex r `25 West Fourth.�5�reet � St. Pzni, Minnesota 55102 P.02 (31-�f� West �th/Fort Road Federation 974 West 7th Sueet Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55102 (612) 298-5599 � � � i gaz s, � ��/ °�a� t�za `Ilie West Scvench Fedetation is opposed to tlie appeal of Eller Media Company to repair 3he billbQatds ati1184 and 1209 West Seventh Street. These signs were damaged in the storm of May 199$, and are more than 51°lo destroyed. We support the staff's iecommendations, Re d • - , i , � � Cooperating Fund Brive Membar � �rmativeAction/Equal Opportunity Employer TOTRL P.02 SAUL A. BERNICK� MARV�N A. LISZT� SCOTT A. LIFSON DAV1D K. NIGHTINOAI.E pAUL J. QUAST JESSICA L. ROE January 16, 2001 BERNICK AND LIFSON A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIAT�ON ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200� THE COLONNAOE 5500 WAYZATA BOULEVqRD MINNEAPOLIB, MINNESOTA 554i6-1270 TELEPHONE �%63) 546-�200 FACSIMILE V631 646-1003 RECEIVED �� JAN 17 20Q9 �,�NOMICDEYEIAp.h1�L � NEAL J. SHAPIRO LEGAL ASSISTANYS KATHRYN G.MASTERMAN NANCY L WHAYLEN TRESA K. SAUER ipl$O AOMITTEO IN WISCONSIN 'PL50 <ERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNT/�NT �RFAL FROPERTY UW SPECIALIST ccmnm e. mc w�.xcsm• sr�.e e.c.ssocurron ��.��.��if �� Litton Field, Jr. c/o Department of Planning & Economic Development Ci�� of St. Faal 25 W Fourfh Street St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: EAer Media Company Appeal (00-150-648) Dear Mr. Field: �.; i 3 .:af��. ' :.� � i t� � � g _ � • ,� � This is in response to your request at the public hearing on January 4, 2000 where you asked Eller to review its records for the purpose of determining what costs may have been incurred by Eller in cleaning and securing the sign at Ford Road and Kenneth immediately after the storm damage on May 30, 1998. In reviewing its records, Eller has determined that it had several crews workin� on damaged signs throughout the City beginning on Sunday, May 31, 1998 and continuing that week. The crews have time cards indicating beginning and ending times for each day but not itemized for specific locations. In discussing This matter �vith Eller's Director of Operations, it has been determined that on Sunday, May 31, 1998, a crew of three men spent approximately four hours or a totat oi �2 r:.a�. �aw:s sec�-uing and cleaning up the sign and debris at Ford Rd. and Kenneth. This basically involved cleaning the debris resulting from the storm anc[ maicing �urz t::e ssg-"- was safe and not presenting a safety risk. That crew visited other damaged sign Iocations that day but Eller has confirmed based upon its experience and conversations with the crew that this is the amount of time spent at the Ford Rd and Kenneth location. On Tuesday, June 2, 1998, Eller received a call from the owner of the Highland Shopping Center indicating that LeAmi Chin's Restaurant had sustained extensive �vater Iea[cage the previous evening and suspected it may had originated from the roof area. Eller sent a crew to that site on Tuesday and discovered that a piece of angle iron had broken loose from the sign and was embedded in the roof. This was apparently overlooked by the cre�� on Sunday, May 31 �`. This angle iron being embedded in the roof was the cause of the water problem. The crew removed the angle iron and patched the roo£ During the process of removing the angle iron from the roof, the crew also noticed that a weld had failed on one end of a o-channel on the sign. The failed � � � Y�\-JSc • weld was reestablished. Once again, the June 2"d crew did not itemize the number of hours at each location on separate time cazds but Eller has been able to determine that this crew spent approximately one-half day or 12 man hours at this site. The time spent to remove the angle iron and reestablish the weld was nominal. �'he above hours, except for the roof repair, aze indicated in the cost estimates previously submitted to LIEP. The majority of the time spent on 7une 2" was for repair of the roof. Eller did not incur any matetial costs in all the above except for very nominal materials costs which aze always carried by a crew. I am hopeful that this is respansive to your request to clarify any confusion that residents of the uea may have. It is important to note that on Friday, June 5, t998, Elier had another crew on the Highland shopping center roof but that crew was involved with the sign at Ford Pazkway in Cleveland and not the one involved in this proceeding. 5incerely, BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A. �� ;��.---- �°-� Marvin A. Liszt MAL/atg • cc: Eller Media Company • �� oi-as� MINUTES OF'fiiE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:30 p.m. City Couttcil Chambers, 3 Floor C+ty HaII and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: OTHERS PRESENT: Anfang, Alton, Fisid, Gordon, Kramer, and Morton Faricy and MardeU Peter Warner Carol Martineau, Ailan Torstenson, and Larry Soderholm of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. Eller Media Company Appeai - 00-150-648 - Allow biiiboards blown down 2 years ago to be put back up, reversing City staff's denial of permits. 1184 W. 7'" St.,1209 W. 7'" St. and 2014-2018 Ford Pkwy. larrySoderholm statedtherewasaletterreceivedfromElferMediaCompanyconcerningthework that was done on the Highfand Village biftboard after the storm. Peter Warner stated Section 66.30i of the Zoning Code applies because the signs are nonconforming and as a general rule property owners that have a nonconforming structure are allowed to make minor repairs. But in this case the nonconforming signs themselves, if not the supporting struciures, had major damage caused by a storm, and the zoning administrator in LIEP rejected ihe permit under Section 66.301 oi the Zoning Code. It is up to the Commissioners Yo determine if the zoning administrator's interpretation was correct or erroneous. Commissioner Field commented that this case calis for a determination of the meaning of code. The committee needs to look at the facts about the damaged biliboards and decide if the zoning administrator interpreted the code reasonabiy. Upon comments by Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Soderho�m explained that, of the eight sign faces in question, one face remains and one-fourth of anotherface remains, Seven faces were damaged 51 percent or more. He thanked Eller Media for checking backthrough their records but said their letter does nof h'etp much in arriving ai 4ne exie� �s�ve� �ess cf ihe damage to the sign structures. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm stated the West Seventh Street moratorium on billboards has now expired. Commissioner Gordon stated the code is phrased in terms of sign or sign sirucfure and tfiose terms are separately defined in the Code at Section 66.121. No one disputes that seven of the eight faces were damaged 51 percent or more. Commissioner Gordon moved approvat of the staff recommendation number one but not staff recommendations two or three. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. Adopted Yeas - 4 Drafted by: � r ��'A,1-D-C /`��Lt/1/[�y2C�j Carol Martineau Recording Secretary Nays - 0 Submittec! by: Larry Atrstained - 2 (Anfang & Alton) I Approved Litton Field Chair • � • • ► � ► • ZONING COMIVIIT�EE STAFF REPORT FILE # 00-150-648 1. APPLICANT: ELLER MEDIA COMPANY DATE OF HEARING: 12/7/00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. � 9. u CLASSIFTCATION: Administrative Appeal LOCATION: Three locations of storm-damaged billboards (1184 and 1209 W. Seventh St., 2014-2018 Ford Parkway at the Highland Village Shopping Center) PLANNING DISTRICTS: 9 and 15 LEGAL DESCRIPTTONS: On file at PED PRESENT ZONIlVG: All signs aze in B-2 districts ZONING CODE REFERENCES: 66.408, 66301, 66.302, 66.121 STAFF INVESTTGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 11/30/00 BY: Lazry Soderholm DATE RECEIVED: I 1/15/00 AEADLINE FOR ACTION: 1/14/Ol A. PURPOSE: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny building pemuts to replace sign face panels on nonconfornung billboazds that sustained structural damage during a windstorm in May 1998. B. EXISTIlVG LAND USE: The W. Seventh billboard structures are on commercial rooftops along a mixed use commercial strip (commercial-residential). 1184 W. Seventh is a TV repair business; 1209 is an auto parts store. The Ford Parkway billboard structure is on the rooftop of the block-long Highland Viliage strip commerciat building, which houses several restaurants and retail businesses. C. SURROZ3NDING LAND USE: The two W. Seventh locations aze neazly across the street from one another. In this mixed use area, there are businesses and housing on both sides of W. Seventh. Most di the housing on W. Seventh consists of small apartment buildings. The abutting properties on the neighborhood streets aze predominantiy single family, with a scattering of duplexes. On Ford Parkway, the Highland Village Shopping Center is part of a large neighborhood shopping district. The sunounding land uses aze o t -aso �� oras� predominanfly commercial with a church and parochial school on the ne� block to the south and a public playgraund on the block to the east. • D. ZONING COAE CTTA'I'IONS: 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 Yhe ea�tent 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 regularions in 66.302. 2. Section 66301(2) says: "Should a sign or sign stiucture be destroyed by any means to any extent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ckapter." 3. Section 66.302(1) gives conditions for the renovation of advertising signs. It is unnecessary to quote the whole section here because Eller claims they do not apply and made no attempt to meet them. 4. The Zoning Code has definitions only for "sigu' and "sign structure" (66.121), as follows: Sign. "The use of words, numerals, figures, devices, designs, or trademarks the • purpose of which is to show or advertise a person, fitm, 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 structure may be a single pole; it may not be an integral part of a building." 5. �ection 55.4�° Y:c::��s f�r appeals of decisions by the zoning administrator to the Planning Commission. It does not give sfandards or critena that the t Ianning Commission must consider. E. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: All of the billboards in question are owned by Eller Media Company (formerly Naegele and then Universal), which is a nationai billboard company and the one that has the most signs in Minnesota. A major windstorm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to homes and uees and power lines, and aIso to some billboards. On 7une 5, Ciry inspectors from LIEP checked the sites of damaged billboards owned by Eller together with Cluis McCarver of Eller. The LIEP inspectors divided damaged billboazds according to whether they 2 � � o l -asa • sustained damage to: (1) the sign structure, or (2) just the poster panels, which are synonymous with sign faces. The present zoning case is about billboards that had structural damage to both the sign structure and the poster panels.• (1) S o�+zs with structural damage. On 7une 22, 2000, LLEP received Eller's application for building petmits to repair the three billboazds that are the subject of this appeal plus one additional freestanding billboard at 1142 W. Seventh Street. LIEP requested more information to document the eactent of the damage and extended the 60-day time limit for City action to 120 days. In the meantime the freestanding biliboard at 1142 W. Seventh Sueet was removed. On October 17, 2000, Wendy Lane of LIEP sent a letter denying building permits for the repair of the three remaining billboard structures. On November 15 Eller submitted their appeai of LIEP's denial, initiating the present zoning case. (2) Signs with poster panel damage only (background informationJ. There was another, related zoning case in 1948, which was filed by Scenic Minnesota, about the billboards that lost their poster panels in the windstorm but otherwise had no structural damage. That case went to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council, and finally was appeated to district court. On June 10, 1998, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller that, according to the 7une Sth inspection, two of the damaged billboards, at 1820 Grand Ave. and at the southeast corner of Ford Pazkway and S. Cleveland Ave. had not received structural damage; therefore the poster panels (sign faces) that had blown off could be replaced without building permits. (As a matter of standard City � practice, building pernvts were not required for the replacement of poster panels.) Eller proceeded immediately to replace the poster panels on those two signs. When Scenic Minnesota appealed, claiming that LIEP should haue required building pemuts, the Planning Commission upheid the LIEP anterpretation and so did the City Council. But the City's decision was reversed by the Ramsey County District Court. The court said a plain reading of the code provided that repainting of sign faces and reposting of advertising copy were pemutted without a building permit, but that replacemenC of sign face panels would require a buiiding permit. F. DISTRICT COUNCII. RECOMMENDATIONS: The West Seventh Federation is opposed to putting billboards back on top of 1184 and 1209 W. Seventh Street. They are generally opposed to billboards in their district and were one af the first district councils to request protection from advertising signs under the current moratorium on advertising signs. Their request, which was made almost two months before the 1998 storm, included a prohibition against the replacement of damaged advertising signs. The Highland Area Community Council is opposed to putting billboards back on top of the Highland Village Shopping Center. The district councfl has opposed billboards consistently since at least 1985 when the F3ighland Village Special Sign District was written. It prohibited new billboards and set a goal of removing all eacisting advertising signs by 1995. • �` o� as� G. FINDINGS: 1. Existing physical conditions of the billboards. The bitlboards in quesfion were ail � structurally damaged by the windstorm on May 30, 1998, and have been out of service for 29 months. A The billboard structure on top of 1184 W. Seventh ("the Bill's TV board") was a V-shaped structure with two 30Q-square-foot sign faces before the storm. In the storm both faces blew off and the upper structure for the west-facing board was bent and taken down. Now the bed franung and the angle-iron upper struceure for the east-facing boazd are all that remain. Although the west-facing board has neither a sign face nor an upper structure, Eller applied to repair 600 squaze feet of signs. B. The biltboard structure on top of 1209 W. Seventh ("the Checker Auto Parts board") is a V-shaped shucture with two 300-squaze-foot sign faces that face towazd the east and one 300-squaze-foot sign face that faces toward the west. The west-facing structure still has it's poster paneis, but the angle-iron frame is somewhat bent. The sign face is illuminated at night even though there is no advertising message. One of the east-facing signs has a remnant of iY s poster panels; the other has no poster panels. The angle-iron upper structure remains. C. The billboard structure on top of 2014-2018 Ford Parkway ("the Highland Village board") is V-shaped with one 300-square-foot sign face that faces toward tke east and two 300-foot sign Faces that face towud the west. No poster panels remain. � The angle-iron upper structures remain. In addition to the billboazd structure that is the topic of this zoning case, which is towazd the east end of the block, there are two other billboard structures on top of the H'ighland Village Shopping Center. On the west end is a 672-square-Foot billboard and in the center is a wide-angle V- shaped structure with two 300-squaze-foot boards. These three bi�lboard faces are in use. However, the center one was a subject ofthe 1998 zoning case and court ruling. In that case, Eller representatives testified that they did no work on the boazds between the storm on May 30 and the City inspecrion tour on June 5, 1998 except ta c:��= u ��.^:s �� stabilize the structures to eliminate any hazard to the public. Neighborhood representatives, on the other hand, testified that Elier crews spent a quite a lot of time working on the boards between those two dates. A report on 6/19/48 by Blter's shuctural engineer stated that, "One steel channel section resting on the heavy steel fzame was bent and had been replaced." 2. Policy context for administrative decision-making. Over the past two years, City policy has grown increasingly cleaz that the City wants to reduce the number of billboards in the city and that administrafive staff should, to the extent that they have discretion in interpreting regulations, exercise that discretion to curtail billboard construetion activities. A. In February 1998 the City Council initiated a study of advertising signs and � 3v 0 � -3..5 c� • provided that district councils could request temporary special sign districts where new hillboazds and modification of existing ones would be prohibited. The West Seventh Federation requgsted such a district on April 6, 1998 and the City Council approved it on 7uly 8, 1998. The Highland Area Community Council requested a moratorium for another part of their neighborhood, but not for Highiand Village since billboards were already prohibited there by the 1985 special sign district. The district-by-district moratoriums cover about two-thirds of the ciry's neighborhoods and will expire on January 8, 2001. B. In 1998 a Legislative Advisory Committee on Advertising 5igns, appointed by the Ciry Council, recommended a method for reducing the number of billboards in the city because the e�sting 600-plus billboard faces were too many. Then in 1999 and 2000 the Planning Commission developed additional methods for reducing the number of billboards and prepared ordinance drafts for City Council action. In November of this yeaz the City Council passed an ordinance protubiting any new bil]boazds anywhere in the city. The Plamung Conunission and the City Council had estensive discussions that the number of billboards in the city would decline year by year through attrition as existing billboards come down due to wind damage, wear and tear, loss of leases, and redevelopment. C. As mentioned in the zoning history section above, the Ramsey County District Court ruled in October 1999 that the Zoning Administrator erred in permitting poster panel replacement without building permits. The judge wrote: � "The distinction made by the (zoning) provision is between changing the advertising content to be placed on the panels of a billboard and changing or replacing the panels themselves. The first is permitted without a permit. The second constitutes a renovation of the billboard and requires a pemut. There is no ambiguity in the ordinance requiring that it be read in favor of the property owner." (emphasis added) "Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent with the ordinance's underlying policy. That policy unmistakenly contemplates the removal of nonconforming billboards in speciai sign districts over time. A billboard without face panels ceases to function as a blllboard. It lacks a billboazd's essential functionality. It is nothing more than a collection of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a billboard ceases to function as a billboard, the policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permit before the billboard's functionality can be restored." Neither the City nor Eller appealed the district court decision. 3. Applicable zoning regzdations at the time of the application. The City staff believe that the provisions ofboth section 66301, which applies to all types ofnonconfornung signs and contains the 51 percent damage rule, and section 66302, which gives more detailed � L_J �� regulations for the renovation of nonconfornung billboazds aze applicable to Eller Media's building pernut application. Eller contends that 66.302 is not relevant for "minor repairs � of storm damaged signs"; it would apply only if damage exceeded 51 percent of the replacement cost, in which case they would need to renovate the billboards. A. All of the bitlboards in quesrion are legal nonconfomung signs for one reason or another. The Bi1Ps TV boazd is too high (over 37.5 feet}. The Checker Auto Parts boazds are too big (more than 400 sq. ft. on the east-facing side). Both are in the temporary special sign district for the West Seventh neighborhood and subject to the moratorium provisions, which aze discussed in point 3(D) below. The Highland Village boards are too big (more than 400 square feet on the west- facing side) and too close to the other boards atop the shopping center (less that 660 feet) and, of course, are located in the Highland Village Special Sign district, where billboar@s have been a grohibited use since 1985. B. The zoning rules for all types of tegal nonconfornung signs are found in section 66301. The code's intent for all types of nonconforming signs—inciuding identificarion signs, business signs, and advertising signs--is that they shouId not be enlazged or eactended but should be allowed to continue so long as they "...are safe, maintained so as not to be unsighfly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following provisions: ... (2) Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any ea�tent of more than fifty-one {51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in con£omuty with the provisions of this chapter." The 51 percent damage test discussed in points 4(B), 4(C), and 5(A) � betow. C. A special, more detail set of zoning niles for legal nonconfomring advertising signs is found in the neact section, 66302. It provides that nonconfornung billboazds may be replaced, relocated or renovated on the same zoning lot if such activity brings the sign into greater compliance with the regulations and meets a list of sevan standazds, which include: location in a B-2 or higher zoning district or in a special sign district where billboards are pernutted; conformance with size and height standards; exemption from spacing standards; and replacing or rebuiiding within 12 months. D. The W. Seventh St. boards are in the inferim special sign �strict approved' oy tiie Ciry Council on 7uly 8, 1998. The letter of 4/6/98 from the W. Seventh Federation requesting the district and approved by the Council said, "The special sign district would prohibit any additional signs, modification of existing signs, or the replacement of any damaged signs advertising signs (sic), except bus stop signs." However, City Council Resolution 98-733 approving the district councils' special sign district is not cleaz about "replacement of damaged advertising signs." The resolution reverts to the language in the original ordinance providing for interim special sign districts. The "resolved" clause in the resolution has four main points, inciuding: 6 �J � o�-asa . "3. The prohibitions of these special district sign plan moratoriums aze consistem. The council finds that the prohibitions apply only to prohibit the construction of new advertising signs or the modification of existing advertising signs. It is implicit that these prohibitions exclude bus shelter and bus bench advertising.." 4. Documentation submitted by Edler Media Company A. Eller hired W. T. McCalla, a structural engineer, to evaluated damage to the signs structures and determine what repairs would be needed for each sign. The City's stsuctural engineer in LIEP, Frank Berg, reviewed Mr. McCalla's reports and thought they were satisfactory. However, Mr. Berg has not himself examined any of the roof-top signs. (Mr. Berg did examine the ground sign at 1142 W. Seventh, the application that Eller withdrew. Mr. Berg detected greater structural deficiencies in that case than were listed in Mr. McCalla's first report, and ordered corrective action for public safety reasons. Mr. McCalla submitted a revised report for that sign with a more detailed list of repair measures.) B. Eller submitted very thorough and detailed cost estimates for the repairs needed for each sign. Their figures show the repair costs are minor compared to the cost . of constructing identical new signs. The comparisons aze as follows: LOCATION COST TO COST OF REPAIRS PBRCENT CONSTRUCT AN DAMAGE IDENTICAL SIGN Bill's TV board $13,167 $2,844 22% Checker Auto Parts $25,837 $3, 697 14% boards Highland Village $23,661 $3,620 15% boards ( W. Seventh, $8, 032 $1,453 18% for comparison} . The zoning administrator has no basis on which to either confirm or refute these cost estimates. Eller's estimates as shown in the table are for "direct/hard • reproduction costs" covering the materials, labor, and equipment needed to repair � o�-�.�� or construct the si�ns. If they go further and include soft costs for site procurement, overhead/contractor's allowance, and a profit margin, their cost � estimates to build new reproductions of the e�sting signs more than double. Then they subtract a depreciation estimate of 15 to 20 percent and reduce the total reptacement cost to approaimately double the direct/hard reproduction costs. Eller also submitted invoices for face panel lats for 300-squaze-foot signs and for the trim kits (that make the picture frame azound a billboard) to show what Yhese parts cost. In 1998 the face panel kits cost $500 apiece and the trim kits cost $220 apiece. These costs represent a small share of the cost of a billboard structure. C. Marvin Liszt, attorney for Eller, in his 6l16/00 cwer letter for the building permit appiication asserted that the City Council Resolution 99-1091 memorializing the Council's decision on the 1998 case on storm-damaged billboazds renders its determination that Eller's building permit applicarion is subject onZy to the provisions of section b6.301(2), which is the 51 gercent rule. This overstates the Council's meaning. It is also the Council decision that was reversed by the district court. Moreover, the resolution incorporates the findings of the Planning Commission's Resolution 98-45 of 8/14/98. The Planning Commission addressed this yuestion specifically in its point number 4 but said that it was not at that time necessary to decide the matter: "4. The first speci&c appeat by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising signs, the S I percent rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in � section (66302), which is specificaily about advertising signs. The city staff from LIEP, PED, and the City Attorney's Office have conferred and agree that nonconforming billboards are regulated by both sections and by applicable special sign districts; in the event of any apparent inconsistency, whichever contains the most specific provisions controls. Iiowever, the Zoning Administrator's letter contained only a request for information, not a decision about how the renovation cost information wouId be used. Therefore, since no decision has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature." D. Eller's building permit application made no attempt to address the requiremeri�s �f section 66302, which contains regutations specifrcally for the replacement, relocation, or renovation of nonconforming advertising signs. Eller's claim, apparently, is that they are doing minor repairs which do not rise to the level of renovation, thus they aze not subject to 66.302. Nor, apparendy, do they believe their repairs amount to mod�cations of existing advertising signs; thus they are not subject to the moratorium on building permits for billboards. The districY court judge wrote that replacing sign face panels constituted renovation. C. A dictionary definition of renovate is "to restore to an earlier condition, to improve by repairing..." (American Heritage Dictionary). It is reasonable to suppose that there is a lower level of sign repair than renovation--say, minor repairs or routine maintenance--but these terms aze not found explicitly in the Zoning Code on signs. � � U�-dS • � � � C� Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the code and basis for denial of application. A. The Zoning Administrator's letter of 10l17/00 denied the huilding permit after concluding that at least in the case of billboazds the sign face is the same as the sign itself. Section 66301(2) says: "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any estent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." The Zoning Administrator reasoned that this language creates a twa-hurdie test, that if either the sign or the sign structure is damaged beyond 51 percem, then any repairs must conform to all of chapter 66 and, in particular, to section 66302. The information Eller supplied about the sign faces indicated that they were 100 percent destroyed. The Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the two-hurdle test follows from the disuict court's statements about the Zoning Code's underlying policy of removing nonconfornung billboards over time and that a biliboard without a face ceases to function as a billboazd. f] Eller's information did, actually, show that one sign face remained intact. The west-facing panels on the Checker Auto Parts board was not blown down. The vertical angle-iron on the west end has a small bend that curves the face backward, but the panels are probably usable. The Zoning Administrator's letter went on to suggest two altematives to Eller. They could reapply for repair pernuts and indicate how their application met the standards of section 66.302, or they couid appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. C. The Zoning Administrator did not question whether Eller's applications to repair the storm-damage signs on W. Seventh Street violated the temporary moratorium. The letter from the W. Seventh Federation, wtuch was written several weeks before the storm that cause the damage, specifically asked for a moratorium on repairs of damaged signs. Relationship to November 2000 billboard ordinance. Eller's application was made long before the new November 2000 biliboard ordinance was written or adopted and the new ordinance is not relevant to the case. The new ordinance was published on 11/24/00 and becomes effective on 12/24/00. But for the Planning Commission's information, the City Council did not significantly change section 66301 and retained the first couple of paragraphs of the eausting 66302 but cut out all the rest of the section. The new ordinance also added intent statements, both at the beginning of Chapter 66 and in the paragraph prolubiting new billboards, that the number of billboards in the city should be reduced. If the Council had adopted the Planning Commission's recommendation about what parts of billboard structures could and could not be repaired, the repair and replacement of 9 �� oi ��LS structural parts in the present application would be prohibited. But the replacement of sign faces on signs without structurai damage, which was the subject of the 1998 case, would be permitted. . PED STAFF REC011-Il1�NDATIONS: The Zoning Adminisuator has correctly interpreted Section 66301(2) as creating a two- hurdle test for signs and sign structures. If either is more than 51 percent damaged, the repairs or modifications or renovation must meet all the other regulations in the sign chapter of the code. Except for the west-facing board on top of Checker Auto Parts (1209 W. Seventh StreeT), the sign panels aze gone and the Zoning Administrator properly denied the building permit applications. 2. Although the west-facing board on top of Checker Auto Parts meets the test of being less than 51 percent damaged, it is in the W. Seventh interun special sign district. Repair of that sign structure should not be pemritted during the moratorium, particularly when the letter from the West Seventh Federation specifically reqnested that damaged signs should not be repaired during the moratorium. The Planning Commission should again recommend to the City Council that the language in 66.302 needs further work, although it does not need further review by the Planning Commission, which has already submitted it's recommendation for rewriting the section. Attachments: 1. Eller's appeal to the Planning Commission 2. Eller's building pernrit application on 6J16/00 (W�hicn inciudest�e �:�y �cun;,i? Res�!r�±�an 99-1091 on the 1998 storm-damaged billboards case) 3. Eller's supporting documentation 4. Zoning Administrator's eactension of the deadline written on 8/18/00 5. Zoning Adminisuator's letter denying building pernuts written on 10/17/00 6. Piamiing Commission Resolution (98-45) on 1998 storm-damaged billboards case 7. District Court ruIing on the 1998 storm-damaged billboards case 8. W. Seventh letter requesting interun special sign district received 4/6/98 9. City Council Resolution 98-733 approving interim speciai sign districts lO.Location maps • � • K;lSfiared�PedISODERHOLIZONINGl00-I50-648pcspffiepotLWPD 1 � 0 � APPUCAT3pN FO}i APPPAL � DepamnenY of Ylanning oxd Pcnno�nic Developme. • Zoning Settiax I1QQ City FIaII �irsrter �5 West Faurtk Street , Saint Paul, MN SSIQl 166-6589 APPELLANT Name Eller Media Companv AddreSS 3225 Spring Stzeet, N.E. Cj{y Minneapolis $t.MN Zjp 55413 Daytime phone $69-1900 PROPERTY LOCATi013 � Zoning Fiie Name Eller Media Comnanv Add�9sSlLoCatlon 1209 West 7th and 1184 Wese 7th and 2014 - 20 Ford Parkway TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: CJ Board of Zoning Apg�ais ❑ City C nci� under the provisions of Chapter'�; Sectio 66. 4o8�9�Qh of the 2osting Code, ta appeai a decision made by the� Zoning Administrator 0 � October 17,, 2000, copy at F(e numDsr. (date GROUNDS FOR APPEAL; Expiain why you fee! there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refiusaf made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pfanning Commission. See Attached. • Attach additional Sheet if Appiicant's � �-. �Nlarvin A. L3szt�} Bernick and Lifson Suite 1200, The Colonnade 5500 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416-1270 _� as� � City agent J"�tin t-� tc.K L�' ((— (5 �� J._ v� as� Grounds for Appeal: The zoning administrator nnproperly denied Eller Media Company's application to repair storm damaged signs at the above locations. The zoning administrator misinterpreted the St. Paul I,egislative Code in determining that two distinct damage hurdles must be met, one for the sign and one for the sign structure. This is especially true when the determination provided that "the zoning code does not give us clear direction in how to process this type of app2ication and we have had difficulty reaching a decision." The undisputed evidence established that each sign was damaged in an arnount far less than 51% of its replacement cost. � � • a� N�U-3e-1900 18�56 FR�M CITY pF ST PRUL LIEP TO 92283314 P.6be � JVK/ �� BERNICK AND LIF50�' A PRpFE551GNAC ASSOGIATION o •.-� t} /� �_�,�'� '�:'::I•��-�i V ATTORNEYS AT LAW " � ��: � . . .... � NEAL J. SHAP10.0 SAlll A. OERN�CK� MARVIN A. LV52T� THOMAS D. CREIGNTON SCOTt A 1�F50N OAVID K NiOMTNGnLEi PAUL J OUAST� WiLl1AM 5. FORSBERp�� MICHPEI R.BRADLEY STEPMEN J.GU2iETTA� SUITE 1200. TME CO�ONNqOE 5500 WAY2ATA BOU�EVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTq 55416-12'70 TELCPNONE I6�2) 546-1200 FACSiMILE (6121 346-1003 June 16,2000 . Wendy Lane, Zoning Manager City of St. Paul 350 St Peter Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN SS1Q2-I510 RE: 1209 W. 7th Street, 1184 W. 7th Street,1142 W Dear Ms. Lane: � 0 `_ ;,.� rU .,-, 7th Sheet, and Ford Road and Kennetl�r- � _, __-� -:,,-� �,:; Enc►osed please find Billboud Permit Applications for minor repair of storm damaged signs at each of the above locations. It is my understanding that you have already received from Eller the supporting documentation verifying that in each situation, the sign was not destroyed by more than fefty- one (5 t%) percent of its replacement cost. Although Eller does not believe formai Billboard Permit Applications are necessary or required to be submitted in conjunction with the enclosed documentation, Eller has submitted them since you have indicated that LIEP will not process the storttt damage repair requests without the submission of formal pemiit applications. As I am sure you are aware, each of the above signs are legal nonconforming structures. The St. Paul City Councii has aiready determined that in such a situation the applicable ordinance provision is §66.301 (2) and the only determination required of LIEP is whether the sign was destroyed by more than fifty-one (51%) percent of the replacement cost. (See copy of City of St. Paut Council Resolution dated November 10, 1999, attached hereto). Obviously, LIEP is bound by the C'sty Council's determination since this submission and the one before the Councit in the attached Reso]ution aze identical. I fully expect that these applications wiil be processed by your office and determinations made prior to your disseminating any of these materials to other persons or entities. In the event you have any questions regarding any of the above, do not hesitate to contact me. Very tru(y yours, BEAN K & LTFSON .A. ' ,, iy � �-. Marvin A. Liszt • MAL:dI Hnclosures cc: Eller Media Company Petex Warner � I ��:150I�OMITTEO �N WISCONSIN C {+qy�p�CCRRIIEO�Pl3�} ♦ VNTANT �� J.CSOI�OMliikb`�Fl�i .�. �0.FS� PROGERTY tl�W 4GEC�AUST «m..m �...c.�..uo.�ax..[ w �ssen+�w• 'nDM1TiEC �N MASSACMVSETiS ANO OISTR�d OF COWM8IA IEGAL Aa51$TANT9 KAtHRVry Q.MASTCRMAN NANCY l. WHAYLeN TOTAL P.002 . d� as`� Councit File = — '�qt CITY OF Presented B;� Referred To RESOLUTION Green Sheec =_L�j L.��{ T� SY PAUL, MTNNESOTA �S Committee: Date 2 WH�REAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-:54 and pursuznt to Saint Paul :; T egisla.i � e Code j G5.40"o made appiication [o the Saint Paul Planning Conunission 4 (Commission) to appeal the decision of the Saint Paul Zoning Administrator to allow repairs to 5 storm daniaQed advertising signs located at 1820 Grand Avenue and at the southeast comer of 6 Ford Parl.�vay and South Cleveland Avenue; and 7 10 I1 12 13 1-� I� 16 17 1S 19 ?Q 21 •; � 23 24 25 26 27 �s 29 JO JI �? WFIEREAS, on August 6, 1998, the Commission's Zoning Comminee conductzd a public hearing where a11 interested persons were �ivzn an opporhuuty io be heard and subrr.irted its recommendatien to deny the anpeal to the Commission; and i�'FIEREAS, in its R.esohstioa No. 93-T�, datc-d Auaust �4, 1995, the Commissior. decid�d to d�ny ihe appeai based upon the tindin�s ia Resctution 93-43 which is attac'�ed lzeretu an6 incomo,ated herein by reierence; and �� VYfTE rAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zonin� File 98-2�7 and pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paui Legislative Code y� 64.206, fiied an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a hearin� before the Saint Paul City Council (Council} for the purposes of the ac[ions taken by the said Commission; and W$EI2EAS, on October 7, I993 and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Lz�islative Code �y� �"••'�� -�^ ?^R �-�_`_ -os�ce to affected nar[ies, a pubiic,hearing was duly conducted by the Council where aII interested parties were given an oppommity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Council having heazd the statements made and havin� considered rhe application, the report of staff; the record, minutes and resolution of the Zonin� Commitcee and of the Planning Commission, does hereby; T2ESOLVE, t� af�.i�� ine QZCIS;C�R OT the Comnission. The Ccuncil iinds no erro; i:i anc iact, pr�ce�ure OT tiC1�I: �T II1312 b�' iitc' �In;1Il1II!? �pII7IIllSS1QP_ a1R� iI]2L LOII!DH �..4Q2 � 6C.��Ji 3L�PI1�S IO �,ese nui? - :,01?O�!I11R�? 1i�� 2:Llcii;_i :_ni:S : HIIQ DZ IT s e � �� ,: t ? 3 4 • � • :co; 3t q.`� -to q.� FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a cop}' of this resoiution to Brian Bates, Esq. on behalf of the appellant Marvin Liszt, Esq. on behali of the si�n compan}�, thz �1 Zonin� Administrator and the Plannin� Commission. P.equested by Departn_.^.: o°: 2y: °ocra Anp 5y Cic: ?. to-te' >y: �/dWG✓�M�_ �v/27�4'�'7 �p?rcved �y :^a;ror "' S''�a_s�:on to Cnurcl �y: � .,3�cnec. �y Co::aril: �sc.= _1 __. \cl \q��°, .�� _ ""'__'c Sy Cac�tc" s=_cret°r� CITY OF ST. PAUL OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMEN7AL 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 FJSE Number Sireet Name �@$$ '��/ ' L(��C1 �/'d l� r4uld Contractor � )(,z� J�'jzc � �- (!er�FF.�� Addre. /� City :ContactPerson ��:g /ll�t.�r�•- State iess/Owner� Sa Addre Cifir New Bilfboard Billboard Demofition ❑ �, BILLBOARD PERMIT APPLICATION Cross Street Qf Applic (��' nrk i h— �7 (Permitwiil Ee madetl to Ihe Cor '3225 Sp�� • �+a Mr,�nz� �l;s.N'� P.v. E�r lyso ;�.n+ttcP��S � 71J� �+4 rt Date Es[imated Completion o S/ j -/J S S `/13 �� ; - Phone ss4BS ESTtMA7ED VALU $ �' S''bm.IK/� �mpany this permit appiicatior Biilboard Dimensions Length Height(Abc iype of Biilboard (Check appiicabte box.) 7otal Square Feet Width Free Standing ❑ Wall � Roof � /�A� �l d �� `I CJ Fil! out this sec[ion for Illuminated and/or Electrical Billboard. NOTE: A separate Electricai Permit is REQUIRED when the biliboard is illuminated or is an electricai Check box of hpe: EIECt�IC81 - Illuminared � Contractor � y�,��,�,r ��c� � �.. Contractor Eleccrica! ❑ phone Number Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all pertinent state regulations and city ordinances will he complied with_in rform' he 8rk for which this permit is issued. _- - C�C'/2� Gi— l°o� plicanYs Signature Phone Number PAYMENT CAN NOW BE MADE BY CREDIT CARD� ` If paying by credit card, please complete the following information: EXPi'tc� i iv� i,A � E: Master Card � j vi�a n ❑ ❑ ❑❑ u I n!'(`ni TTiT Tii iA�tRFR � ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate App r o vals Structu�al Review FOR ppproved r� -��- Description of Pioject � • {� <f't � • ci.7_ �.� • S , _ / i � �ET�; ;2� I �t � L' OF � PROJEC !�(1c� ^� ance to Nearest � oard on the sam of the street (In Feet) ; � A c S o ��. ��Q � �r, r e �_�� 1 ' fd l�✓✓-�� SUMMARY OF FEES Biltboard Permit Fee $ Plan Check Fee $ Total Permit Fee $ (Make chedc payaE�e m Ne G�ry o� S Pa FAX lT? Would you like YES � your permit � faxed to you? NO if yes, please enter, / � J Z � �/ �` �, your fax number. � 6 L- Remarks • Non-Confarming IPIN � - ) �gy Sign Credits ��/ C1TY OF ST. PAUL OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102-15t0 !rJ Number Street Name St,Blvd„Ave,etc. ��t r— � �ess 1 �• 1 � � ��2� C t t Address NSEW �� . on rac or ) r � yp � - y �I� ° � n CI� �ZZS S�`�"� Indude Contact Person �,� �� Stat8,Z1 +4 �'��n✓l2� o� C! z/�� r� P P i�s, r 3usinesslOwner �;��,,,,. j� 1 Address l I b� w• � cry Sd. P� l, M� include Contact Person Stdt@ Zi +4 L" ^ Esti ate Start Date Estimated Compl New ❑ Ezistin� Biilboard ❑ �� g ) , � v Biilboard Billboard Demolition / BILLBOARD PERMITAPPLICATION �� Cross Street (If Applicable) Date �/,�/ ieCmvattofsACmess) phone ��Z S-1. F1 �. ,nl ss�J3 �'62-1`t�'� SS ICZ $ re_� �. � � � �ype of Biliboard (Check applicable box.) Total Square Feet tllliboartl Dlmensions Free Standing � Wal! � Roof m �� Width Length Height(A �ve Grade) / z-�J. x z, fi�. ys CA�. -:H� Elec�ricai is REQUIRED when h bElboard isBilu o is eleetricel Description of Pcoject g�llb n� to Nh arest Check box of type: E�eGtflCBl - Contractor� r' �� I(tuminated � K� In ��Z t �� C ,� �. Eltctrical � Contractor Phone Number Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all ertinent state regulations and city ordinances will be complied with in � �rfor n� l e work for which this permit is issued. �- �iz��'�9-/`fa D ApplicanYs Signature Phone Number 'AYMENT CAN IVOW BE MADE BY CRED/T CARD� lf paying by credit card, please complete the following information: EXPIRATION DATE: Masfer Card � Visa � ❑ ❑ ) �� _-------- ---- i oar on e sam� side oE the street (In Feet) --------- - ��<�i c�_-'�X iS��n� � -- _'F/�+'1.CCY �.-, j��4c �.�c / rL cr� �,-+: G S�� z { �'S --� I��m, l� —7 -- --- .PnG��t �o-+��t_ _ SUMMARY OF FEES Billboard Permit Fee $ Plan Check Fee � $ Sotai Permit Fee FAX i ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate S (Make Weck payaE�e to t�e Ci:y ct St Pa_ Woufd you tike YES� your permit ❑ faxed to you? NO f yes, please enter, yourfaxnumber: i Approvals ictuFal Review Zoning District Required FOR OFFICE USE Ol Approved Review %Z� �� —70 � G� Sign Credits i� �� ` f 8Y CITY OF ST. PAUL OFFICE OF LICENSE. INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 S7. PE7ER STREET, SUITE 30Q ST. PAUL. MINNES07A 55102-75)D Number Street Name ress ��Z j�_ `��l Contractor�� „{;�� ?�„�P�� a Contact Person �� M�� r""Z� nesstOwner �� /� V ,� Include Contact Person _ ,—�� ❑ 2r<.- L� ❑ New p'�rExistin Biliboard Billboard Billboard Demofition �t Date � Estimated Co�, � q ate �l/06 'ype of 8iilboa d(Check applicabie box.) Total Square Feet Free Standing � Watl � Roof � �� D(!�' W�dth / G "Tj� FiII out this section for Illuminated and/or Electrical Billboard. NOTE: A separate Electricat Permit is REQWRED when the biilboard is itluminated or is an elecYricaf Check bo � of tvpe: EIBCt(iCB� J Illuminared � Contractor � Q�ry� � f- E�L—{ �, � �� Elzccrical � Contractor Phone Number , Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all pertinent state regulations and city ordinances will be complied with in rformin work�or which this permit is issued. � � ( / �z 6 �-l�aa A I' nYs Signature `Phone Number 'AYMENT CAN NOW BE MADE BY CREDIT CARD If paying by credit card, please comptete the following information: EXPITZATiOiv D� i E: Master Card [� ifisa � � ❑ � ❑ �ACCOUNT NUMBER: ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate > ' ' 2 <,� �� .�yi�' �n , L.. a1-- _ P ) — ----- I � , // { �( 1 ;,.," ___�{I..L f.�.r /Y'f''1�� / r nLi� C?o>1 -_��'t m, ��(�_ �' z �d.� L4_�__ __� SUMMARY OF FEES Billboard Permit Fee I $ Ptan Check Fee I $ Total Permit Fee I $ (Make check Dayabia b t�e Cny c` St rau FAX lT? Would you like YES � your permit ❑ faxed fo you? NO If yes, piease enter, ��/ �� ,� `!� „ your fax n�mber: UI.Y_�1 Appr Structural Review District Required i Approved BILLBOARD �� PERMIT APPLtCATfON `---`---- ` St,Bivd„Ave,etc. N S E W Cross Street ��t Address (Permilwlll4emailetlmlhee�clof��ress) '�225 $ %� City �',n�tz. ��'s� �J.1 5 5 y/ 3 c+�+e �t.,+n !' . Address � Z b'8 � �-t �c•�i{ A�-z- - c;�v �-�.. �'�.0, � ✓� ss �d� S Length � 2 �-�J. Description of Project ��/� �/z�� Phone�� z, �6�-lRD� Phone ALUE O PROJEC7 .m.f�C'iil !'71.C«r�t.J' Height(Above Grade) /�wv-rix Z� / Distance to Nearesf � ��Billboard on the sam side of the street � (tn Fee[) -- - -. Remarks . Cretlits �� `�' �8Y C1TY OF ST. PAUL OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAI PROTEC710N 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 Number 5treet Name �ess �Zd� � � �L Contractor r �� ,, K p \ � Contact Person � r� S N<< `d ��r J iesslOwner� � I� a �c� SI,�. ]L-t r Indude Contact New ❑ Biliboard Biliboard Demolition � (Perm4vri6 be maded m the,COnVattMS F;:reszl 3 2 Zs S�r ri� $'�. .a1.C: � / 1 'l , nntGp.,l �s, M� SS�lt3 �300 P"�0� l/•ndb �G�. Nk no�c�� t,�e ��G•l s, M,,t_1 � SS J2.0 )ate Estimated Completion ESTIMA7 �/l $ ��P fype of Billboard (Check applicable box Total Square Feet Biliboard Dimen Free Standing � Wall � Roof� � Width Length �L� O s� -� - /2 4'�. x 2�-�a. Fitl out this section for Iiluminated and/or Electrical Biilboard. NOTE: A separate Description of Project Electrical Permit is REQUIRED when the biliboard is itiuminaied or is an efectrical Check bos of type: EIOCffICB� -- Illuntutared Contractor �„L�K r E�2C_ar1 G �p . (� � 2 �,� !7S �X � � Contractor --� � � Electrical ❑ Phone Number w S��L��'r=�!� licant certifies that all information is correct and that all state re ulations and city ordinances wili be complied with in �i�mi �the work forwhich this permit is issued. -__�"" v�/Z � -l`lC�O plicanYs Signature Phone Number 'AYMENT CAN NOW BE MADE BY CRED/T CARD If paying by credit card, please complete the following information: EXPIRATION DATE: Master Card � Visa ❑ � ❑ � ❑❑ ACCOUNT NUMBER: ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate mce to Nearest � �ard on ifie sam of the street (In Feet) ., G t,- c. S f. �..� / ; �' -l� _C� ��r'� �.,.e. - _- -- - SUMMARY O FEES L Ob°-/ i0�� Phone NM(n Height(Above Grade} . -�..� Billboard Permit Fee I $ Plan Check Fee � $ Totaf Permit Fee I $ (Maka check Paya0la fo ihe Ci�y o' SI Pa� FAX lT? Would you like YES � your permit � faxed to you? Np If yes, piease enter �, -, yourfaxnumber. �� 69- ��6 �" Approvals ictuFal Review oistrict Required � Approved I, BtLLBOARD Dl-3S� PERMIT APP LICATION Street (If Applicable) � Date s-�r��-� Remarks Non-Confortning p�N Ke� Sign Credits � g1' ! �.: �'.� � �� s` ,� • � ��.� � �_a � � --.r: � � 4 < - . ��-:� '� ` �' ` . ,' �`�' 3 ,_ ', i " F .; i y' � � �. �� •� .,.� S r . i . ;F�� y5� @'�. ��, y S . f •' ; } t' , � ; - � �:. �:� b , k. } }.4: , �� 5' f � �} j ! f . .� s C �� '4 fr"_. S�-� �... S '�`4 ' a�: ' , i t � ' 4. �. . . •. ( � S1 F Y . � i ; ; } r �� ' �- i . - , ,-..-: , . ; '._�- . � � ; a .� �. . � e.. `:..:. - F, ? x � � � A� � ., � f�,tic.' ' � : . } �'++�:�1 /'bi�`z_ . .�� a 'b \ E y:� .:. ��:.g�`�,,:� �+. . r,, �,� � � �' y � : �F i:`i ; � 7 `� t �L ri3* l t�:i 1 u � ( � 'i�� th f'-� � � 4' ' 4. ' . �� ti� � . �� I' : . �; �� ' '� , '�,� C � `�' f fst �;`' � ... . . �{ . . t . ._ ' ,; s � �t � � � � , � � + � t � � �� :� / P`K � . . ; � ' - _ �., ..-+�. F.� �s�.., � z •�,#yr a +...'„� . . - _ - . .:. � 'r s . � " L , a � �_ �+ � � ..N t �-` r �x � � ',. . � � T,. . �t � � . 'r t � � r �}'' F '° ._ � r � - ,�i ^ . � _ 3 . � F _ -.""+, y: _' -� �' + f : Y ,rr _ � ti � ;i , 2' � S� x ' f = .-s�a3-.�� 5�_ . r . � _ } �.�_ '" � . . . . _ F t ' . . " � . z 1- , . j 3 � -_ . .' .. _ .. "i �' - '4� r � � ?. .rrR . e� ' . r" 1 � y � . � : �- '} F. ; 3% f y� . � 17r 3�?t`+'Nrril�T��_ �ti-rv } _ .:.1i�3*. - ; ' � - a/} . �-a • � ! ��.f .... ': . .. � � �.�+�¢ �f i�RZ.. �t i � _� 1 J .�+' _� � _� � �i � 1 �` � � .. .. � 4�� -_ . . . .n.�.. � . * Y 4 � _� ��a � -as� � :� Tififin's 24 and 30-Sheet Poster Panels, verticai or horizontal, are made of the finest steel, meeting the highest miil tequirements. Tiffin's speciai engineering and design ofEess speedy assembly and easy erection and �nstai{ations on-sife. Tiffin Posters can 6e compietely assembied on the fioor of }rour shop, or the ground, on-site and quickly and easiiy lifted into place on yourstructure. �� . .. A smooth, continuous surface is formed with Tiffin's Rib-Locking or interlocking sections. Tiffin has always been the fore- runner of new desig�s and innovations in outdooradvertising to improve appearance and life, and make instaliation taster and simpler. RitrLcck Sections fri instantly with Tiffin Sprits. Ti�n sections, parts and hard- ware are interchangeable with your existing inventories. � PiflY 13�20 FR(x�t F�Rr1ETC�,iNC_ n p. Box 1989 � 963 Pleasant Hill Rd. „uluth, Ga 3Q095 ate: 05/21/98 � TO E O R M E T C O, I N C. ORDER ACCLPTANCE 16128697682 P•@1 O� �SV JP OEFICE:� 770-476-7000 800-367-6382 FAX: F300-239-2394 '770-497-901� �� NOTAX Sold to- Ship to: � tLLER MEDIA ELLER MEDIA 3225 SPRING ST NE 3225 SPRING ST NE , MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 MINNEAPOI,IS, MN 55413 � ATTN: Tom Klees ATTN: TOM KLEES + 612-869-19d0 Fax:612-869-7082 612-864-19Q0 Fax:612-869-7082 � Sales Order Order Date Cust No. SLS P.O. Number Shzp Via 86511 OS/21/98 ELL023 1 Ship Via -------------------------------------------------------------^•------------- ��rd Qty Item Number / Description Unit Yrice II/M Ext. Price ------_....---° -� _ -_ _.. _---�-�----------------� °--°°---° °° °--------------- � 5 *90-FXMW **Parent Item in Kit�"* 5145.55 EACH $727•75 FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM WHZTE 10 9Q-FXWV � FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM WH`TE VERTICAL �0 90-FXwH � EORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM WHITE HORIZONTAL 90 *90-FX-TRIM-BKT **Parent Item in Kitx* $1.79 EACH $161.1� FORMA-ELEX 300 TRIM SRACKET � 90 90-fx-trim-bkt FORMA-FLE7C 300 TRIM BRACKET � 360 10-32501 - TRIM SCREWS - #14 2P '� Si l�-°-5ZQ2 SC.26 EACF; $21,06 ROOK BOLTS/NUTS 2 � S 10-21090 $34.55 EACi?. 5172.75 F-109 FORMATIC SPRITS � 5 *10-21092 **Parent Item in Kit*� $3.10 EACH S25_50 F-109 Z HANGER PLATES & BOLTS/NUTS S 10-210921 ��j� � P-I09 Z HANGER PLATES•WITHOUT B/N � YJ � � O � � � �/ � ! Page: 1 �,/ Jl �. 6.1998 1• 41PM 7IFFIN h�fHL PRODt1CTS� � /� � ; �.(. �Q : �� I � � � �b. J/ (04-7 . . . METAL PRODtlCTS 450 W211 SVeek Trffin, Ohio 44883 /(419j 447-8414 May 12, 19�8 ��`�� - • �.�,c,Cx.�.f.j �� Mr. Tom Klees II,LER Iv1�'DTA COMi�ANY 32?S Spring Street, N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 � Dear Tom, N0.176 P.3 a I -3�5� WATS 1-$-'�0-537-0983 FAX 1-419-447-8512 . �� v � �a�� CI'�d �( . Phoae: #bt7r869-1900 Fax: �612-869-7082 't�,�r� v"�'� '�'I` �'��..- :. It was a pleasure speaking with you! Per your request, we aze plsased to provi�e: o�s quotation for the following: ' • :��r.��,_ _:y �� 1 t f �t 3 � � � � � � � (8) Each I8" x 24'S-1/2" Horizontal 5ections (3) Each Sprits � (2� Esch 2" Hook Bolts (4) ,Each Hanger Plates � TOTAL. PFR FEr! ;E �499.25 _ �----- - (4} Each #95-158 Comer S:�pport Brackets for Fiberglasa'frim $2.€,��)/Fach (14) Each #1026 Brackets • $1.�?�ach *F.O.B., Tiffin, Ohio *Tax not included Torn, if you have atry questions, don't hesitate ta contact me �rect �t 1-800-53 ?• 0983 _ We are looking torwazd to worldng with yonr plant again. Sinoerely, 1T�FIN METAL PRODUCTS �� Peg Wennez Sales Manager/Qutdoor F'roducts Division � ::::. CREATIVE DESIGN lN lviETAL FABRICA, �'!ON a I � `�'�`` a (�� # i c�� t'� � n r d r 1 � l� t. d , �'�� ,liNF17-i7�7� '�te •••c ""` W.T.MCCHLLA. P.E. � . . (MliC1 McCa14a. BE. eBW 75YaAvsmis no.tlL9makl�M1PaAC MN 55�7H (fi12) 580-7��G ]Une 29, 1998 Mt Thomas J. Klees D'aeuor of Operasions E11rrMediu, Inc. 3225 Spriag SirxtN. E. i�Tanupplis MN 55413 DearMr. Klees: 1N 11.�UL ��-oC7U r�".�i� 1151't" ��.., � re: Fow storw d�nnaged signs Wc� 7`" Street dt 1 otha location St Paul, Mu�neapolia WTM Job No. 1075. This is to certify that I inspea.ed the above 4 signs on 7une 18, 1998 in your presenee. Each struct�ue wili ix descn'bed in the ocder inspcctaf, as follows: t. 1184 Wat 7' Street is a double faced Vee stntcWre with a heavy steel wide flange beam fiame on the roof. The wesc A frames have be�► removed beca�se they had been bont diuing the stocm. The east tight gage steel sign psnels aze missing_ Ihe major part of the strudtm, the h�avy steei roof frame and t�st A ficames are �lamaged and stcuct�rally satisfactory- \ ,�p� 2. C3211'�West 7'" Stceet is a bi-direetioral3 postec strueture with a heavy structucal stcel wt�e flang� beazn roof frame. All A fraraes are intact, Z signs have the light steel pa�tls missing, and the 3'� has a couple of paneLs bent. The heavy scee[ fraau and A frames arc uadatnaged and ahueturalty adequate. 3. � 1142 Wat 7`" Suea ia a singie poster ground bu�d with the light sieel panels missing. I'he 3 vertiral sapports are fornied from ]0 gago stxl tapered channcls bacl: to baek fosauag 3 I beams. The beams are set ia 3 sted caas that appear to conuun saad, noc conctde. The 3 beams tilc varying amounts but do not appear m be daznsged at sll. �.� Coaection requited is to looxa the sand and stcaightw the vcrtical t�ame �i3 replace the paaeIs. 4. Ford Pukway at Kenneth a� F�illcrest is a bi-directional 3 poster strucwn with a heavy structural steet wide narcge b�,,. -.-:.c: �zexe: 9ae szeel channd, sectinn restin8 oa tbe heavy steel frame was bart aad had been replaced_ Alt li�it steet i r,.ne7s are missing. The hcavY steel frame and A fiames are iatact and scructurelly satisfactory. In my opinioq all four locatioas listed abvve are suucnually adequate and rathu easilY refurtrished Piease f�ed free to catt me should you havc any civations or want fiuther detaila. Struetural Comuiurte Brrdqes - SavcwrN Gbhcroro • Erpen Tisnmorryr �y 6 ��B � P.. /� f G • ' '7 'tn7HL P.82 • � ��, . � .�.- ��.,�.�Y.�� ,..�:>a,� ,�:�.�:.,..� , ..�,.�. ..<� � .,.., 07/02/98 16:04 F.+.S 812 451 5929 . 1 �. �,r, ��es � oy.,►: �o �p {�• South St. Pau4 Stee! Suppty Co., inc. 200 Hardman Avente N. South S't. Paui. MN 55075-2A20 (612) 451-6666 � 'I-800-456-7777 Fau: (612) 451�929 Sfl. ST. PAUL STEp_ $()pp�y - ?i 200 HARDI4AN AVE M. .. S0. ST. PAl1L . MN 556752420 URTE; . 0?/02l5'S QUOT'E '#: 0144Q I5-0166 REQ SHIPe 00/00/C�0 •. 0100539-0142 UNIVERSAL OUTDDOR, INC. UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR, INC. 3225 SPRING STREET N,E, 3225 SPRING S7REET N.E. HINNERFOLIS MN 554I3 MINNEAFOLIS MN 55413 —_--- --- ------------ O1 60223 10 EA ANGLE 2-I/2 X 2-1l2 X 1/4 �� ^ � �� WIDTH LEN6TH 20' 820 35:9SOd CWT 319.34 TERMS: I/2% 10 NET S(� 02 62254 10 EA CHANNEL 5 K 6.?# `^� � w WIO7H LEN6Ty 20' 1340 41.80QQ CWT 560.12 7ERM5: 1/2% 10 NET 3C� 03 Q1263 WIDTH 94 91302 WI�TH ld EA CHANNEL ErX 54.5# t_ENGTF! �20 �_ , - - 14 6A CHANNEL $ X 11.5# LEN6TH 2c7' u � os oiaa� WIDTH 1 EA WF FtEAM 8 X 24# LEN6TH 20` 21�0 ! 34"s9540 CWT 838.95 TEFMSd NE'i' 3G 2300 39.9500 CWT . 918.85 TERMS: 1l2G 10 NE'f 30 ��___/ 50 ST PAUL STEEL ;� '; f�j001/002 e' ' . i a; •. �I—dS� : 2��es �?�1��r'�: �1V�- � �.. k80 59.OQ00 CWT 7ERMS; 1/2'/. 10 NE'T �C n � 254.40 0.'e/02/98 I6:04 F�b 612 451 5929 SO ST PAiJL STEEL South Sf. Paul Steei Suppty Co., inc, 200 Hardman Averate N_ Souih St Paul, A,}�V r,�p7c,�pq� (s� z) as�-ssss • �-soo-ass-m-i Fax_ (672} 451-5g2g OI90530-0102 UNIVERSAL OUTDOOk, INC. 3225 SPRING S7REET N.E, MINNEAFOLIS MN .°,5423 ` ,. .. S0. ST. PAUL STEEL St1PPLY 20p HARDMAPf AVE N� 5�. ST. PAUL MN 5''atl^�ti424 DATE:�07l02/5'9 QUO7E #: 0144915-01h6 FEQ SHIF: QO/0o/i�0 UNIVEkSAL OUTDOOR, INC. 3225 SRRINS STREEf N.E. MINNfiAPOLIS MN 55¢2„ ^- - --------- -------� --------- O6 00716 1 ER WF BFAM 12 X 4U# WIDTH LEtJ6TH 20' 840 ,3.OP00 GWT 424.Oa TERMS: 1/PY. 10 NET �( � � 07 OQBP9 I EA WF BEAP! ib X 45# uIDTH LEN67N 2�' 4R�F.� CQMMENTS 900 53.Q000 CWT 477.00 TEFMS: if2% !0 NET 3(% � TOTAL WEIGHT: 8740 TOTAL: 879E.7! o�-�.'�� 002/OU2 • :�NIVERSAI DUTDOQR INC 312 344 4177; 07/06/98 11:37AM;,j�x #156;Page 2/3 � .. � � - •: UNIvERSAL GUiDGCR � � � E_' _ �' :, � ' 6= �•� .� � +Y :.~ 5.. : 1 . +� '�:.� ��K��i��• � ��ti��n� _�t:.:'_. �.s....s�. _.-.•—.�g i CQNKRAG?ORs AR�B � � � �;�„�...�a ti._...: �r�( �r. is�s �Mr. BilE Hcggatt pt�ANTUM STRUCTfJRE ANC DESIGN 93Q Stf{es Drive Addisott. {t!'snois 60iQ1 — — -, , F T- ` r (76�) 9g6-6E 'S .. . . ...,..__.:.._�.._.:. _•_ .- gpgEA6'S'K£NILWORTNAHEP IE PAOSPECT HE�BHT6, u., SO: '6 �� . • �� N° � � 713� m �gb xu,�h.e._r_ 2Q34 ��, 1�' x 25"Vee" Cent�rrr+ourt Roof BuiIC : 1010 West Lake 6@'aet 8t Dupont Mir�r�paiis, Minnesota Co o1e �on [iai�e: April 1, '1998 Furnish �nd instalt refer�nced strudure in accordancm �+ith P�ane and sp�cif�catlon� P�' DravYinQ Nutnber97QEA'and 874BB. � 8U@TOTAL ��g7�•Q� Sappteme�tal charge tc fumish and instsll.two {2) VSr�� x 55 "spacet" .. bemms tio �tlow Na 20" d�arr�ter main hacizont�l pipe suPP� � .. d� a HYAC ualt on trie ruof. A4so �4uire9 ai thi.? sedon `�s fietd yvork s�ort�nin8 ths main vertic� $�+DPoR ootwmn to mstir�tain ths P�PK ovetali heipht • SUBTOTAL S'�,355.0@ A! the dir�cxian of NTn�saDalis operatiorss..tt�id wotk relocatsn9 � bott+ frant waticwaYs turtl�er aw�Y fiom the Upripltt�. Thls wotk Snclud�d extanding Si�e Srontrvalk gttppert ba8ms, n�vlsing artd ssbricaflrs9 a rtev,r.ccassavet �UBTOTAL d s�fetY rail.: 860.00 �ank ycu� T. E�,s: (J2139) � a�2 aaa ati71; , •: TOTAL A11�0UNT QUE TFi1S iNYGlCE We appreci�ts you� businesst N�t Ten c� a} �ays � adltalae t:z9Ftl;,� �22a;Page � � U :� : �.:. ��.: :... � . r,x. a�t-�.� _ . dlraix� - O�wP. F�ro S S [4eae.��_�_. __ . _ 01 -�`p � ��,i89 OC � � � W.T. (Mec) McCalle. PE. � F `�i � � � � 6SW 75YzArenue Norfh. Brookiyn Aark MN 55428 (612) 560-7446 AUgUSY 2E, 2000 Mr. Thomas J_ Klees Director of Operations Eller Meciia, Inc. 3225 Spring Street N. E. Minneapolis MN 55413 Dear Mr. Klees: re: Storm damaged sign 1184 West 7' Street St. Paui, Minnesota WTMJobNo. t075-A. � This is to certify that I inspected the above in your presence today. We surveyed the structure for d'unensions and section properties. We compared photos from June 18, i 998 to photos taken today. There has been no discernable additional deteriosation over the 2 year period. � Using the dimensions and properties noted above, I calculated dead load resisting moments and ;, obtain 94K'/49.SK' = 1.9 FS> 1.5 required. � In my opinion, this structure will be structurally adequate with the repair or repiacement of I beni 6 inch channel. Please feel free to call me should you have any questions. Very truly yours� //� � � ' j� %��F.E� W. T. McCalia, P. Ettg. Copy: by Fax, Frank Berg, P. �., City of St. Paul. �� Structurai Conwltant Btldges • SLvehus� Conciete - Expert Testimony .� 9bbL 095 Zi9 i n«�yau�h�ma[ ' w'y: Prepared by me or under my dircct supervision aM that 1 am aduly tLegiACred En6�� o^da �he lauspf�heSta�eofMinnesota/� lA/. �f �7�'�_6 �!/ Date Regrsuahon No. 10540 u � • '3'd `ELLQ7�W 1 M d0£=60 00-6Z o�-as � -_...__. -r;.� ,, ,;�.�. � � .. . 0 �1 '� _ a8& zl�,k�2.a�ac�T7�j��1 F�m �3�,Y Yft - . �4.�� .F... f�'.� . .. . + N.�.4 y `31 $ � �� „�, -� �.� . . .�4 ...r�. ',',-, � _ } . ' c � -: r ,, t��'�R� :� r _"bsf) «r.�3� l � � �' ! 1 �� j ..� �� _ � �,� ��i �� :, - f - ,. ��1ax`ar^... ' � � �`�`:..5 . Y... Y �u+fYY_ �+$ ��"�''.�_;:�..� � s '� ��" _ ... �: , .... . ... .uYi'Y{nt"' a`_Vi+.T..+r .. ✓ _ �'��e .... _.. i184 7th 0 b�-�su • � � � r. �- '�"'� : :: rc:�.. .. •' � -.K � �.+w �� , .� �' � 7 �. �� ' �` 3 ►.� � 3� '�"/•` � ' - ::eIM �..# : > � s^" _� p- � ' � A� . ;�, � , � � � � ....�_'�,. •-� "�''--� _�.�. �� v s �'� Y 'cx �`�'-:�--�.----' ��$'�'.�z��s�Cdrv'2 . .... .. . - . . . . ; \ :' - . . ". �.f �� ... � �� ' �. �'>. T��%� ' i��' r ,� ,: � �,', ,y _ ; _� `_ . i !�'�. -� . �►--�' t='� ,�� _ ,.%� �-� � •� -�` +� : , � T . � -. �� _ .'., _. .�_ ra � � �. i " . - " ._ `'\\ ��' �4 . .. � / . . . t-..�R �,� . - .��:' �� '_�"'�� - - - � _ . ,+z> `:: ! �j o�-a�� i '�� • 0 � � �, � } � STORM DAMAGE OVERVIEW . . ELLER MEDIA COMP�IY � LOCATION 1184 W 7 TH C' VIEW DISPLAY 2 POSTER FACES �� o�-as� � Photos one and two describe the pmsent condiuon at the site. Prior the storm this unit had an east and a t�•est face, each �cith a sinale poster panei. The storm damaged the easterly and �yesterly si� faces and bent the verRcal supports for the a�esterly sign face. The damaged sign faces and bent westerly suucture were removed. The hea�ry• steel mof frame was undamaged and is structurally sound (exhibit four, McCalla, 3une 19,1998}. � � � � � Repair at trus site will in�olve fabricating ne�r torvers for the w�est face and a sign face (see photo rit-o) and trim for the east and c�-est faces, and then installing the towers and si� faces on site. On site work will be accomplished in one day by a ciew of tiu�ee «orkers (24 hours). The remainder of the time ��•ill be spent on preparation and fabrication in our shop. The electrical service at this locarion is still in place and the fixNre and platform for the r��est face is in stomge at our shop. C. NOTES / AMENDMENTS At the City's request we have prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPL.ACEMENf COSTS LESS DEPRECIATION" workshee[ and materials list specifically for this site. In that process we discovered rieo changes from our estimates on our original "Stonn Dama�e WorY.sheet". We found the repairs, if identical to ihe preetisting sUvcture would be with a mix �f 2.5" x 2.5" angle and 2" x 2" angle, not solel�° 2.5" x 2.5" angle , and the cast of the identical replacement would be slighdy more than �ve had estimated. Those changes aze reflected in our Storm Damage Worksheetdated 4/4/2000 '"�� .:�J � � „� � � �� E 4s `-f U�-�iiC �!�/�- �t, v t e� � i. : ��►r • _� �:_ �: •_ ��-asa � - ,� faces �s�lface. . Total site procurement - - - ��c� °u : • r: .yt r �� • t : : .�: . .: . . .. ,. . ,.. :,. -Estimatedcoss------------------------ oaS•f'o -Aeliverycherge- ---------------------- S - -$81CSL3Y��--.—�Io_'_�""""'_"'-" f �6i.c1Q ; . ' SUBTOTAL----------------- � `�'a9L•rro '� '�l IN-SHOP FAAtZTCAT[�rI: - Labor to temova basic materiaLa from truck; in-shop fabricatiou,and assembly; in shap P��B . ". I ': -'L- man. crew Q g houzs p. 352. o0 �'. �� ! '� RTOT/�I-----�----^-�---------�-------------- �3SZ,vr7 � '-^ � ,. :��-: . ,�. ' , ii:::::r,x�.,i „•_. � - - -_.._ ...� .�. � ��I C_ .`=: _ p��iur`e,includes (a) erew & equipment necessary to haul suucttiue & material to ', . site and - employ aa auger to dig hoIe and haul dirt: . � =,: � � , � (a) " man crew @ . houzs Q to di hole and haul ! �c1ut�--'�----�----e----------------- (b) use of augar for ,_. hours Q i �_,Jtu -------------------- ,�.�_ ; - Labor to febricate footings at site and pour coiierete �ootings at site. , . - _..' Ataa c�cCw Q _ _ �� {`� ,5�; ..lhr:. ----- -------'------ "3s.�--� ::� ._ y� coacrete Q �_JYd- - - - ^ - - - - - - . N�f --- - EcI!uPment requued:. . • . � : (a) onc ' �ua1c Ca� ` ' � hours S N� ',�; •^---------------- (b) oae trucic @,, hours i. ��ro��--------�----------�------- �-�— � :: �: � ,� , � . . .._tlih .1 _... �� , • �. ;�. • . . . . . - r Pagc 1 of �� -asd � • � Ar�xarsai , s . � LOCATIOrT # . � . � •�flr P ACE"__R�Pi, h:�NT COC� nFp� .LATTOLY (COi�1TIN3£FI21 � i .. � ' Sl ASCF�y'�r e rrovFR C'IgUC7ZTRR 02�7 CTTF.: � � - - Includes assemtbly of fascia, stringets, platfomis, ladders, brackas, etc. flik5ii� _ 3 man crew Q� hours Q. ,_ � �$Jyt--------- -------�l - �4�P�L tequired: :. (a) oae oth w. truck Q � hours - - - - � � cs0 '. . Q. s��u. ------------ �� (b) one��r� tzuck Q �- houcs _ @c sn �hr.--------- - S /��o� i� �,.,,A,,,�c�.� � r�-� . �, 2 � _ . r ' -------- �� zo � vt� c�,7BTOTAL-- � ;` , ::, - '-" .1� • . ,�y.; �` ' `. e . .;,�:;,� •'n t� .� . . .. . ` .. ..... . . . . .. . •.. ., � u .;� � � . Page� � • � �• � AP'PEtAISAL !! � LOCATION �t � O l -2S ° t. : : y ��. ►lt • e • : y ; •. • uru�.� ► � Fi F�IRGAT �'T L�NA`I'IO23: �� `,` -:Purchase of basic elecuical material including li�t fixtures, ballestq, Samps, boxes, <` j haagers, brcakers, ctocks, misceIIaneov.s items such as coaduit and rnnnectozs, clamps � � �, . � and,chps,etc.(a3 �, --------- �/. ; � .. � . f . - Sales fax @ � % for maurials - - - - - - - - 5 85; c�J � � � i � ,- Load and waload equipmeat at site = a 2 man { ccew @ � hours each Qa S ��r• - - - ,�.-�OD •O�O '- Install eiecLcicat panels, run conduit, pul! wire, inscall fixtures and baliasts: � - � maa crew @ � hrs. (a� ��/k�r. ------------------- �aD"�a - Equipsneut requued: (a) one n� 'tcuck Q�� Y hours Qp S��'•---------- S dd� � . a (b) ont truck Q hours �,� /hr. ---------------- S (c) one truck @ hours pa nu.--------.--------- �_.___.__ f . . ' ' ' •: � .., ' � -- `� SUBTOTAL ------------�--- - - ---------------- '� • �� Ps; � 6►-asb n.rrxa�sni. � . . � - � . ,� LOCATION # � .. �'ih' P ACE" $�P�ACF cOSTS LESS DEPRFGiATIQ2V ! O��DI � �q'�g(i �$ aT_ P/�TNi'RRC; - Ctew to paint upzight4 iacluding structucal steel, laddas, sUrinB�. �, etc., alI icems �XC�g2 fascia. - 'L mau crew Qa � houis @ . y�1hr. ------------------------5 3s7�� - �w r«�a (a) one paneI uuck �u�d for �.,_ hours � ��- - - - - - - - - 4 . ofl : 3�JRTOTAL-..-------�------------------------- �SS2�crd . I�1LS�. .i,A�oti�: � ;: Permiccosta--------------------------- �3GZ, c� SoiIstests --------------------------- S �i/!�/ �, �3c�.�- I?IRECT/HA.RA REPRODUCTiO1V COST (ITEMS 2-� ----- l J/ i � , r : ; . �,q�raTTOx: - , ,s � The abpye cosis are for la.�r n�d zavv materigls onlv end do not iaclude "induect costs" inclu3ing such items as ( - staadard overhead sllowaace and (Z) wucpreneuriaUprofit --- as explained in ihe nattative of tfie zeport- �i�� Page � � � 4• AYYiiA1�AL # L:�'�'AZ'I'32`1 # � � � d�_� � 1 �� : �1' : : �J �ar�a/ a y . 1 ' : �l : 11 • � • ��t►t t � lu�ua: • :�I�;�r ylr�� • . . ...�. •r� L ..•. � - ``� � � � � � Ia place nplacement (diiect cost) = S 3/67 a0 (pages i, 2, 3& a) s�tnosai -------------•---------------say, a ao�F . i � Overhead/conhactoz's aliowance @ t S �o - - - - - - - - S �'0 7S, o-U_. Entreprulcu[isl proflt � � °/-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30 2 � v0 REPI.ACEMENTCOST1�iEW---------------SAY, 3�.0� � ': : �s� itu: � � .• . .. ;� � � � TOTAL AEYREC7ATION ESTIMATE - - - �(�.�3 )• *.NOTE: DEPRECIATION IS ZC� % OF DIRECT COST (DEPRECIABLE ASSETS) � oN�j, rc ONc; . . . TO�'AI, REPLACEMENT CO5T 1�iLW ------ 5 32�G 7, oo '' �. ..LESSDEPREC3A�TONALLpWANCES ---- �Yr.3 y , � REPLACEMENT COST LESS DEPRECiATIO1V VALUE - SAy, �� 3 ��. �� . I I � / . `�, /I�/� v� � � �� .�l_. (I) actuaI age of tfie in-place oucdoor advertising structum and - (2) recogniting the sttict maintenaace schedule appIied to outdoor advertising sirucLures and - '(3) the conditioa and quelity of construction and - {bj thc locatiau ead cconomic lifc expectsncy of the outdoor advertising structure ----• We have atlived at the conclusion that the overall depreciation esiisnate oF �� %* should he applied or as follows; �� .. Page 5 of 5 � - `. , f;� ; .. � , . , � ,.; � _ � Vv�.a� � �_Q.a� 7d� 9� V� e,u.� �� ; o� I� �„ � `;, � F -- i ;� :.� I` -<.. � ; ; S �C � $ � � �^ pZ..te�-+.^- �c i Z .-, a' --- ---. 5;.�'�` Uv �- `, F �, � 1 � °' ' ; � G' c'.�.a�c�.-Q w� 't� � -�T ` r S . � - • II' 1sG r z- �/ �- x Z�/Z �-° �ivx,. � 1.eo/a --�—°2 `f �t. 6 O —._.... ,;; . .., , �. `: `' S� Z'� �C a`� S<„ �:vu�C�,� 0 5 7. o(� . ;. ; � �—�----" -- �: �E 1' l�a..� � � e4 � —. + t (� /� � � / �}'�'' � �.I 1 2 �._ � X � �Z'//O�177. w �. �'7 _. _.__ . ..__. — .�s.o �( n cJfl 0 r= � �_..M . _ ,., . . � i i �: jy.c.f�u-� - 13� � � � ' - o� :'��:� ;��--��sa _:� ..�::, ;,�<. :� ; �� .?� �� ° r," � 1 ,Ii�'yS'�,. �.� 1.. � �,;. . � ` '" l -- �,,.. �L �. :�� u.- ; T I °. . � .i.> ; ;� : • J� 7 6uo� + ----- � � � �-� x��. � F.! �Os V�`-yC/��.0 O� �'yQrv� TiZu�-..- c %t � � >� �. � : . � , ��y,� A i, .3al. � _,. _ �� '�-, � �. �U 7 $ . 8C� S S',��c `/77.'07� as-�, z z�. vz� � �ozs, 90 F . � ..—_._.--ii — ...� j� � oi-� � �. � C�l �� 1-�S� C_/v�_� W.7. (Mec) McCalle. PE. 6600 75'/zAvenue North, Brookyn pa(k, MN 55428 (652) S6D-7446 August 28, 2000 Mr. Thomas 3. Klees Director of Operations Elier Media. inc. 3225 Spring Streei N. E. Minneapolis MN 55413 Dear Mr. Klees: re: Storm damaged sign 1211 West 7'� Street St. Paul, Minnesota WTM Job No_ 1075-B. � This is to certify that I inspected the above in your presence today. We surveyed the.Structure for dimensions and section properties. We compared photos from June ] 8, l 998 to photos taken today. There has been no discernable additional deterioration over the 2 year period. � • Using the dimensions and properties noted above, T calculated dead load resisting momenis and obtain 162.9K'/99.K' = 1.64 FS> 1.5 required. Tn my opinion, this structure is structurally adequate as is. Piease feel free to cal! me should you have any questions. - Very truly yours, 1 hueAy certify thal Lhis pian, specifica�ion or mpoA was prepered bq me or under mydirect cu�enision and Ihal 1 am a duly Registered GgiMer ufder Ihe Iqwsyf�leof y)� � � '/ � �� Ll/ '/2'"L`� I��i t ,�� natc Q7�Regishetion No. 10540 W. T. McCalla, P. Eng. Copy_ by Fax, Frank Berg, P. E., City of St. Paul. Shuctura! Consultanc 8ndges • Strucluta/ Concrefe • Fxpert Tes�imony � EO'd 94bL 095 Zt9 '"3"d`QlLBJ�W 1 M di£=60 00-6Z-��H ot -as� PREVIOUS 1209 West 7th i i • � �4�'� :.: li�l �='�'= --- �;�r r, 'I� ,..�:�=��±. k . .. . - . . ,,,s,..- ;• _ : � , ._ _ .,;��, �: - ��;.: . _ „�. _, .° a.r.. `"'m'" _. ` — ' �r � ...� .; . .«. _ ;. ., - �. _' _� r ,,.: ,� �� . � . ,7 .u..s � � . . , , , � ,. . . . . . . . , ., _ � ��' I:�ii�Ii�i��e�ii.r� ..-•�.� --_. l��3:`:`Rb 17M\�s'i��.�'�w•w.r��r�..-. � �l� '7.�!°A�p'"�� : sr, va� . .. -:..r; � :C ' . .,:� . '� , �,— , "�.�..�� :,z.�. .. . . . . .;{�- _.x. �.-.�- . __ant_ _ �_.' _ ":-. �..,. -� -s�+�_ — _ ^ ' � , � .. . .. . _� "_ ` _ _ j.,, _ .. . . � , � . � . _- �� . . ��' �..r.. . _. . � ��.., .GRf. �_ ._ . ,_.. �, , � �''i�t4�y��. . '' ... _ -.: �..;: ,�,.� �-, .,,` �.4� -�`� .. . _ : . . .. , __ . _--°. ... _ , , ._ _ , _�... ,;: . . . . . . .. . -� _:�:; .. .., � -s...�_ . .� ..:. �. . . . . . . � . .. � � - v��:,: :. �., -�.i� � �■iri► _,_.,......�.. _ ■��iI�I� �� /��-" - � r . P. . ; s � : ��.� : � �'. - � - 1 �,, : � ,�� ,�,�3 �- . . ' � � . : �-� �,:rk 9 4 ' <: -� ' x .:.�----= --�'�' _:� �t� ._ - --- . -.. ...� . ._ _. .- _--.—__�_ ___-' __ _- � _ ___ _ . ... ---- -� � `\ _ ="µ � .'_ �„� _ . �y � �� _ .. . �... �i .,_ �- �3'-�-��s' : ,;: � - .=` � � �,�',�� '"� �- __-- "� _'=,—___�----� _ [ �,3?i'�Y �„`;.�«� ' ,+ 1.:.- -'`�' �; >_ -� s �.r�;. ,., : K f, .. T :s' ( 1'< w n - ?- �" .z'-r'+°'�a_ .�`�� L: `F0 (�..� ' J ' i -- . �� ::�: ��.-, ..;._ .._ _ r � ;I � �* _ _��, � � _ �.,,,1�,�',.- ,.,..`_ . `° � _ j, . t � . � -__= !.y '-. �� __�— -__ _ � _ . . .t:z' �.s,; ,\ '� . t . � 4 � � : :t. � �, ` ��" � � � �}�. � ' " � � ka .i�. .�-�� ' � .', ' ;-ss-= . .,�" ._- . _ � _ - -_ ....�. . .3. . �r.r.�.� .,. ...: _ . •> � �` �llltt'A�4Yt.'�ES�-•.. - ._ � } � ; . '�`-- '� ��, '� �' : _ �� ,��'�'�:�:� � _ �_ �z .. _ ._ . ,�.- _ , r � .,. . _ - _ �,. � ... , _ .....��- __. _ +... - _ . , _ ;�,� ' _ � . .� � -- : . � . _. .. y. T " - ,_ ._ ._.._ - �... ..� '~ 'J^*-jfl�l'.� 3' P } Y ." � ,. �:� i l i k , .. . ..:.� f� �Z �..p ';. �l��w k . , '' � - ��-. _ x�. � ` _ ' , � �' / � ° � /�� ; :i�� lt�. � /� I _ J lt � - , �r�.'� �� .- �► � • ,i�'�.i �. - r , �� ,ti� �� - � . � � � � � � . � .. � � � � K r . �.. s..-k s ' �� _ a. . 5� � �: � . . . � y� i = �p 3i.. . � � . . . �.�i _ _... , .�:'n. . ..�.,.,.-.". .....� �^"'�� . , . ��, � �� STC?RM DAMAGE OVERVIEW ELLER MEDIA C4MPANY � LOCATION 1209 West 7th Cd' Vie� A. DAMAGE DISPLAY 3 Poster Faces ot as� � Photos one, two and ttuee describe the present condition of this strucriue: 'Tfie damage was limited to the siLn faces. No stcuc:tmal damage occurred at this Iocation (Exhibit Four, McCalla, June 19, 1938). The electrical fixnuzs and ser�ice remain in pIace. � B. REPAIR � Repair w�ill consist of fabricating three sign faces in dur shop and installing them on site. We estimate this �� ill require tfiree workers on site for a day and a half, 36 houts installing the faces, and the remainder of the rime in the shop fabricating the faces and preparing for the installation. � � L�J C. NOTES / AMENDMENTS At the City's request we have prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPLACEMENT COSTS LESS DEPRECIATION" worksheet and materiais list specifically for tlris site. In that process we disco�-ered the cost of the identical replacement would be higher than we had esflmated our on our original "Storm Damage Worl�heet". This change is reflected in our Storm Damage Warksheet dated 4/4l2000 4f4!2000 • \ I � �� ►�L'� �T�%I�::L. ` . t��i°"TM'��s ►��:�: - : _; . x:. ,� r- �$ : - _ - �� _ ,�_, __ — - - - -' _ .-. � _--- _ .�e.►_ - - _�---"- _ _=,- _ — � . ,_-_ = - � . -- _ ��-�s�-: • °� . "'a� = � . _.� . � _ � ,. —'7r'4:-._ � � � . .. .. . _ ` ^�'.. '.. �.:� �..�� ..�:::... ��I,~t r e, 1 �_ , � i � . e� � � G � 'f S��%.',ki ' , �. �. �V _ �� -. i. � : . k ...✓. . � �• • ' E '� ' . . . ' .. _ � � n � ��. - 1 n {---��. �� — ' �"i' � -•-... !� �! . _- , v�. � _" � , y�,.�.__ '-- — .. 8 . . �.,..,� . ..� c�?_ze� � ; _' �,�� ' ' y . '—% i��tti:�-�..�. ..,," -- ' � §' µ &n��.. ��? . . .. � �� f � �� 'r � w � � . . � � � } � �� . � �<<� • . • . �. e��. . .. .. �':.9 . � . � . } �.��w�y�� . E � v�-as� STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET ELLER MEDIA COMPANY LOCA"fION 12Q9 W 7th Q View DISPLAY 3 Poster Faces A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS 1. STRINGERS AND St1PPORTS (i} ft ang(e iron @_ per ft none ft"C' channei @ per ft none 2. SIGN FACEAND'fRIM (2j 3 sign faces @$499 per face 3 frim kits @$220 per face B. LABOR 70 hours @ $22.00 per hour COST OF REPAIRS Estimafed cost of new identica[ structure (4) Estimated cost of new repiacement sfructure(4} Estimate oi cost of securing, stabilizing and clean up on May 31(3} 18 hrs at $44.00 per hour (i) Ses note 2c (2} See nofes � a & b (3) See note 1 (4} See note 3 Afi costs are direct cos�s a�a�2000 �b $� 497.Od 660.00 $1540.00 $3697.Q0 �1-8;538�$25,837.25 $35,500 $792.00 • � • � " RF, � . p��:� co� „�,.. ,, :: ,5;_ ;�. :- ;� ;; �;,,Laborto �� il � r�AVtl� :��+�p- h, ,,:.. YP �� B .� c �`r _ � ��Si�.,yY'm.c,;��.Y�'J_--ia_ � � Total site procurement - - - /G�� FR�: __�. �n, includin8 �'- �: • • :� _ £.= ---- ---�---------- S9773'cs0 �~-;�' . _ 's';.'_. ------ �r..� --- . .---_ ----------- ��---------- �io�Y.�� .' ''�= ' . - �. - K%z_ � j � .. materiaLa fitOm truck; i aasembly; ia-shop lIIBR_fCiCW (L� ��"O 1108i9 �C13 , � � , .{ro-�"'�1� ... ;; �'•`'�_.--' -,-+:�.' =r^,: - _ _ _ _ _ _ "' ... _ S j3ao.00 • STIBTOTAL� �"'^ - --------------------�------- ��-�.i r�:�,� . . - I�E"� . ?:.'� �=<:- procedure�includes �(a) crew.& eqaipment necessary to haul shvcnu�e 8c material to � s`;=: "-- `site�and;,.(b) empioy aa auger w dig hole and haul d'ut: .� - :�. �vi : ,u� _ �:�.., t�h.�? :?= _' (a) _,.,'� man crew. aQ. houzs Q- � y a_ . S'_Jhx to dig hote aad haul -- ---- �: :�:°�- a�-- .- -== s �� =� - : � (6) ;use af auger for hou:s � �; �; . �;�_, ' ------------------ S.NI� - Labor to �'abricate footings at site and ponr . concxet� footings at site. ' maa czew @ ' hours (a3 . : wS ,Yat3swncre[e,Q�_JY� ------.`_ S �-,-�=�-- ; '� - • - EcIuipmeni r�qaired; __;;; .��,i - �� ;,.. n,. ,. •� � � �"` � -. . }` ;� one �` hvck � ^ hovrs • :� :'^_. � :� ;:r.:`'.CQ3,�.�.__/hi:------------------ � N-�- . ,: . ... .�_ ��•. avckQ :;-=w.= :,. : '� _hours � N: +��= ;>,'. �`:: -..-- .g `S�' =''�jbr:' - --' �---' y � '' 'µ;;_'��;'�C�3;.. . . ,' _ . , .�,L-_ �i �-_ �t �=�� - ---- ------------------------ `_�- � .�- �i. ;x: �� ;x � �- � � �_`+:'� �. _ __�"�:, _�'�'� ' ,,,,.. ..,. ��,,::�..:�r r ;��;. �';,'t.>� �'r= �� " :�:�' ;,:: _ „� . _ �.=.f�°�.•�.. . .;....._ _ ...� bl-�5� � . . ; . .; . � � Page i of _.;�� :,:,_ r=_ ,; .�:�<;�:,_� , .:,�:. ._ . �'°:=;�;:;: �. _ � 'zr:..' ' � - . - � - APPRAISAL # � ' LOCATION !� �. - _ ;- - =.;::.: - - - �'��:-^ :'- s :: � ; :�ti�:V, - =��;i; - �,: �;�;":;�>.;-;.�� 4* � � . : � . S r '� �'Y_ �� - ��;ix s- ..J- bt�a5� � � s�� Platforms, ladders, �;; _ .. � _, ---�--�� , �� -._rA??.F�ea; re4au�: - ., .� .�; a, ;�.., .s. "a �`�=�� .-�:.:`. `�s;:��,u ` �,�'�_:: .� �; :. w � �, ��:��. ,:�� 3 ,�_ °� ;` _=�' (, onc U'^ huck �--hours �� -. :�_ -, :�� 5� , :� -., �� _�----------------- da��o�c� n:;=s-�,;r ..�:_.>,<, ��,�� :<, ... : �;H,;-<. �`�.;_' � _ �'i«`.:-.;.,: `' ��,�}. ::°.��-�.. -- -- -------- _ `` <`�(b) oae:�i��' ttuck @ 3 L hou[s �, . =; K � �-�Qa S�`SO�`/Lr: - - _ _ 600.CTQ � � -� _ ,�.... , ,.. ' � � � -�� .T_ �-. _ �) 1 °"T/t,a�.?f�. �— �G /�•v � ap' ' � - �;..�s�; �.: � ,�..:�=✓.�s� - . ° ...:.j��y �� .�- ./—/��j _ i:_^.`<p:.: ._ ;L:,_ . yN�. Y . �v - � . •':Y,-;...+.3"'.;' .ai. . s,' ��.. �.."stra�roT�r: ---------------------------------- � �� . , _ -._�- .; . �.. - - :. - � . . � . �_ . ;�� _ ' � � . t �•-�. . . _ ..� � . � �. _. . �. . . , _ ::- :.. . . . �•`'`i:��_ �tr . .. , a ; n ... . ��J 3. �. . �, _. . ry J . , `�__/ Fl Page 2 � ., �'> r 'g_i . : . - .%' i APPEiAISAI; # ` �` ' ^' r nn��rmv.� • . . a � -35`� -�i'- -:i=�=�= � � . - i' T-�(4::c: _ _ ' . SS " s :::"•IN-PLACE" RFp A� NT OSTR T�S,S D 'VRF['TA'j'IOj` ( pT , Ii� bl .T. . T T./fT.T i7T�m.r.�-..;� , . 'L . .,_... :r = � : "_ . ..:. - .� � �,, .. , , _ .�r i�-. Purchase af basic eIecaicsI material iacIuding light fixtures, ballast9, lamps, boxea, ��= �S�,.b��s, clocks, miscellsaeous items such as conduit and conuectors, clamps �andclips,`etc:� � /SSv,mO -------- �?�, :Iz� ;,._:�,'.� - - �:`)•',.- . j:;�?)i:;:a ..- ' ^y' . h �. q' " _' .'.....�. � ♦,..� w � �SSiCS Qe`G S IUfOL�fPf �� ,. , � -- �', ��. . _ - ;j`4' ;',f, _ - . - `"i.: - Load and unload equipmeut at site = a 2 maa : .;,. -`c: crew uQ'` 2: '� kours each Q� 'SSr,r� lhr. --- vD:oO . - .`L . ��.iw:�)i� : y�� .`:.' ::�y ' . . ,. - 1"''.. � 'u;z.', . . __. . ..... ,.. ..... C':1t:iG�_:t;.:.. __.:.;x.... . r,•'� � �.li' . anels, run candwt, putl. wire, instatl Sxtures and ballasts: cr�w,�' 2c7 hrs. (a1 �-. -- . --. -------------s3a�.a� 4; �•' - -..:. ... . . �. truck Qo � hours -1br � - ---- r----- S l[9r90 rrfl � ' }: r - �UCIC Q hoUts �r• ----'-'-..�"" �. :=� � `:.. . i :' .,-,�a:�...:- .. _ 4ttck Qa hovts .1�• --------------- ,�.._.,�_ .,:: ti a '' i. . _ �' > -:: r'• ' .`�f�C"'dw—_'.�'1_,'� r . 3'.:...,��Y.:%�+i�.�.�'�'� . �.c.., �s�- ; i; -' ��.:: ��:. _ :s:�: ��a:°:a:<-::c�`� '� �.�>.��:�-: � .. I ..: ' � i. . .�• - , . � ,,:�� ; ��:. .. .. . . . ..� -.. :; : : S/,a�J : , Pat � `fp`Y < _ . ; -�-- hours� -------�_,� � _ - e: - {"� A IC�C LGQlt1I'Cd f07 � �/hc -------SSao�oO �. ; _ �� - - - --- ------------------- � �� . . t; �_ • ti . 'udtng sGhvchctat a, etc.; elI .�.. ., . _-.:: ;<-,: ��..:: - _ . . i�i : �: � F.. :'.eiyY,.?iu . � _ . .�t ' � �p , :i '- ":. „' :'=Permitcosts------� ---- S 3G2•oD . . ;1 _ Soilstests - ---------- -r -----•---- ,�,_'G'� = :_- . - -�• ,> - �` �. :;Si1RTOTrL7•.------------- �. -� -.: "�;;_ '�� v�;��'a�'_ ----------------------- 3G��o0- -;;=- �°} , . �. s;: ; :. � #; �::x. , :=��.. � �; . • :LL�,. ;� : - ��.,. `�-� ; REPRODUCTTOi�' COST (1TEMS 2-7) -- - -- ��-asc� � � fr37. a � . . . ; . M ' . •i nat 'ais o iv and do aot include "indirect costs" iacluding such items as ( auepreneurinllprofit --- as ex,plained in the nacrauve of the report- y4:[ ':;{, ' w� r ?� .'� _ ... �..._ --• '': - . .t�..�"`�..�:. a page 4� Hrrxniaru, rt LOCeS,TIOPI # -��' :3 �� i "'y:_, ^ - � }, Sittproctuement - ---------S o Scn.ot� :5� �S.—;.n_.,414 _-r1`i-- -,;.M-�� ;'�v: ::� ;: / � P� rePl�arc (d'u_+ect cosi} = S�S 2S - v ` --_'—�'-rsv}��i`:: GiLa:. t' .?_.�'._"�Aig ��i_ �^E��=3'�'te-'.' � _ . . � iP� I) (pagts 1, 2, 3 & 4) """"""""'.$ � 3 �O�O �,`�_g'o---------5 1 /'�,S ! 'o 0 . - , - ----- �.__s3 cosTrrEw-------- :..,. -_., . . �a;lY.:.' , ��'O�� .� 8/3 �� c�-c7 :s; . .�.,r.. ::> , _ < aa�ertising stru�mre aaa - �schalule applied to oucdoor advertising struciures aad - of conshvctio�t and - : life expectancy of the outdoor adveztising structure ----' '.'' - . -; w . . . �sion that the overali depteciation estimatc of - or.as follows: . - # �;�s;�? . �TAL DEPRECIAITON ESTII�tATE - . - 9P ��.e0 + . - z : . ". , _ : : . . , t� OF DIRECT CaST (DEPRECIA$LE ASSETS} ; , • b -{ R ��:� pa-�*�vd :i _ 7: - >.,. .:�:=;�:�.�:�:.�:TOxar: x�rr,nc�MEr,rr cosr rrEw - - • -- - i3d.vo .."v>��_ "• '=r�: ..e>;��'��7i_:...: ; it ��",� ,;�� .:� s. . �. _ ``F .-_ . _ :::._ ,�? �` ` ,' LESS v AI:I.OWAIVCE5 - - - - [,� �� 7 �� :;,;:- " �:2,�-�,.' .. �, ~_'• �-� .-_"; REPLACEMENT COST LESS DEPRECIATION VALtJE - Say, �� a�� ' . � �� . ;:?. . , .. ,� � _ .. -. . . <.;. �. �� . . y � r 1 ��'�V Page 5 of 5 '`��.:'� x � _-- - fjl �2.Sc� .�� ,��.-. -�= _.._.__�.�_ - - � :,» _ �} . _ - � �_ :. ..... �:i. _� _ _ __ . . . . ^_�1M � �-2�t-c..a�--�O � f�-a.� � 1�-h9► V� -P��,7 ,. F t fi� � - �=----,,;� `�"''`'�/� � � .�� ,• -� y�.. - _,� :�,�e . � i � i:f.�= �i,: _. ��,r>: . , . �" � t :+:i> .}1 :. "� .x:...« <: � ' _ . n: s.,",�� `:fis�. . �-�� . . . :{. ►'�"`.� 197� P�a �l3ySi� C�--C - _ {� ,'z„ > � �/ � ,} , � .s: �o ��a . �ti `I . : a.�,,o.n�-�..Q rr� , ,,. � C� �r. 4,i9 13'�, G � �' ' .1 ��- �/�+.- ` Z r lZ D,.�ovQL �-o-� St 1� �/ a o sri 4�, ua ip�: : : , .— '}, ` 2- � i X 2-�/L (J?titr4 /ull�`CG*.N-, c.-� l�'� / J G c� a8$'� crD �:; � r iL x Z�Z S t,� � �it�-�.0 o.�t 1 Zo �/ co I s a�rU ,., E'; o .� Yv kS 3Go< u-v ::; . � � 2:�a . cro � 7a o. �rv � � . . i. � '� -- / Z � �—.CrCQ.��uv u.1.. //J 2-d / /�y Lo ; `:r .�; .,:_ � Ui��lTcc � � Z`/o ob d-'lo m� _ �_. . - . . . � �-� . .;:,;,.- .:. �,. , -- ,' `: l� t o-v t4- r+^- t� /��xz..Q /5� t� �c�/, oc� 30/ av ,: . s ? � �. 3;- a- So w o�.� �' � � �t,a/�-P-tL � L�l� ,00 �3P ov ' - �'� :.]' . .�.� �..1,�. � �- � l C�o a-�i �-v j z -_}�: :�_�.� � ''�'- '�e-�-�. a-s nx "� ; �� .o-o a.,:�ro Y; - t - M: s_,-:;;�, ;. �" � . .�. - � �>�i�_, ;;:��-�-:�,� /��+-c.v� . . ~` � `f S4. `f� /7'S8. Zo -".:. .r� : ; � .-::... - :��:,,: :�:�.= - _ �:" .z'i . A��a.: ��: ' = e ,r.`� ,,' A o-r /� _�_'��".3: - .9:'.. �� .i � 4 �;' . �.a: ' � � i� ��6} - , , � /,S �. � � ` "y':'✓�" � - s� :2{��. . S •�°-e=i ' �:i�._. e� / � -I � ! W+� s��l.:;�i: � '1'ir.. �z' i/ e��JICl� �� `.t:�G'' d yT:.. � � ' ` ;f� :��•. „�#.�� i ` _ �"�.4� - - ` •�do- " • • y .�'-.��,.� = 1" �:::. °`:=`� ��., ,,.o .. . , -� _� . 4Se'_ � � t r�`�` ... .' �� .-. ii - • � . . . . �.: ;t =r :T'U`•-"f.".`4�LS' :�� • � :� ,�,,::: .�:: :�=.•�; =:. ,.�- ' = :.`�: . ::>:�Lu..��+�.asso � � C.�,.� �l �-i 3; - �;,;�, <,;.=• � �>.. . . 'v�-' `�'.. �[r' �S.-" I ' 9" ^. { . 1 . ^ .�'i"S ? c ' � s^ _� '�r°-'� -s5€::� . � : - _ ;�`''r'a� ' ;�.� _ �:�.,'.2M+ - _-�' - �. u . - .'Y.: K'=`i�,•, . -}�.' >eMy_��. . . . S � , ifc .�a>alC+:.v^ i�^ ` ..: :..�t,'`'o_'_%i=':'.sritl, . .,y:_s'. . -; � � F ' ' .- - _ _ y 'i�.�' : F�r.j..o.� S„�=�._ _ _ _ ��_�:' ' ' 2 ,... � �y'."^ri,;�:,..5::' _s t�l�':=�T.;; - . . '� ..i,;: '!' :�T; �.,�:.. � // F . ...`; - - , j i � ' '' - a: '<i; : i 1. .� � �i 'r7 � WT (Mac) McCelle, PE. 6600 75'� Aveaue North &ookyn Park MN 55428 �s�z> ssoaaas August 28, 2000 Mr. Thomas J. Klees Director of Operations Elter Media, Inc. 3225 Spring Street N. E. Minneapolis MN 55413 re: Siorm damaged sign Pord Pazkway & Kenneth St. Paul, Minnesota WTM Job No. 1075-D. Dear Mr. Kiees: This is to cerlify that I inspected the above in your presence today. We surveyed ihe structure for dimensions and section properties. We compared photos from June 18, 1998 to photos taken today: There has been no discernable additional deterioration over the 2 year period. --� � Using the dime�sions and properties noted above, I calculated dead load resisting moments and obtain 284.4K'l171_K' = 1.66 FS> 1.5 required. One bent 6 inch channel was previously ✓ replaced. ; In my opinion, this structure is structura!(y adequate as is. � Piease feel free to ca31 me should you have any questions. Very truly yours, �►i ' 6` �%/!i`" Z�G�i� W. T. McCa11a, P. Eng. Copy: by Fax, Frank Berg, P. E., City of St. Paul. Siruciural Conset/tanf Bridges � SVUCfural Concrete • Fxpart Teu;mony i hereby cerlify lFal ihisp�an, speeiirceiion nr rcpnrt xas prcpared by me or undm my dirccl supervision and that I am a duiy Regivtercd Gnginxr undtt Ihe la.� 9 ! �te�o( j M� n� [7/• ner� Regishation No. 10540 C�� o � -�� b0'd 91rbL 09S Zi9 '3'd `E�LE��W 1 M diE=60 00-6Z-6ny ° t� f t - ��$ti '"r'rsg r t` s �"< ��. � ; �r �' £c � . �� .: -^---..�� y, y�r� ��ar'i � �� .6 �`-� 3 ,s . �e� r,�,�n°',� "�'+zt3�� 2vi7 ""� o' x:�.� � � a s - � � "��" �`��i.`�"'f�.3�3,y1}' l � �'}��y,�� y�..�� a ��'-� ! � r`�v' . ..n � 1t�#� i "d �� y r' - u ' �?�'' .F� t 3 r � � 1<n- ! i x �PS'�°�Sq � ; ..x.:; ., ,"? S ) `+Sti�P' � ; . , . � � � . � � 3/ts �� f:.��.ec.. _ _ e ~ � ,�` '""z. Y.,I �'�""4°''` � ��i `•, � . „ � �.I r . . : y'��P ' � ,, � . 1 �:.�i -' ! �f I . _._. " , t �''*'"'. � "` - -„ _,;; .,eR . . . . . . �., .: �"� - . �"t� _ .. � . r'��. � . �:�:, ° .. �:. � ..::a _...r-.,._._.. .. � �' ` � ' i'� ' .F { � 4 � s f� • Y 4, a . .�.: �i••r ) — � rv � 1 �� f w.a� !�" __. . .. ' ' �� „ - r �,.,. ,� �: {, piCj(d�%�j i , f • :4�r ��„ „�.... , .. .. ` k � � �+�1��, � '��.. ��'�»' ` �� : s ' ' ,_. ..'.. z. nz. ,..,::. _ . .. .� . r � _. . A:- - `Ti�.�r-- � . � � : k�y,s�c. . . ._.-� ra�� r . ?a ' -�" t A9 v__ �� _� �� Y ; . C h .n 4y F '�'- 3.♦ i:-, SY I �.� � .-��.. _ . + Y 5 5 t � a+ � f x ' '� �. r ?� � „ �� i�� ni : }�l�', r `i� .� p I� ' �ix ' _ G�� „ rt° .� � 1 7 �9 - i' , :L tp7��" t � �.; �, �. ��, ,� �.: �:�`"t �. _ ; E y� .. . . �S � _:.};\to \p, _ . a� '.3 .. � . , ��4"t :. , _ `� �4.'i xa_ • _ .. I . . . . . . � :A, �. � _ ua . . . yvy��vr!��.�"]"Y'-i`q�ju rccY " 1 .. � .I � - t.w.rp.y^�d ��.� W+w' 3 "�'wxf. C�a.' i n y " �, e :ee r � a '` �.2 �� ' G�-' �`II . M ae.�.p �� 'M [ ; . � -T"�-` 4.,.7�:yx _' ^ �u i9v�`�:'i�-��.ti3.�..�£`. ��'.S��.v� '� � _ i..�,y ��``�`' � � �. ,, , � .,� .�...-�.TM...�..,a .:�, �:: �.� � � ;,,�t ; <�_�- , y _��. _ �....�� l - , : ,r�t ��,Q....:.?��! � `�..--' ..i `� � "s b ; ' � � � � >-`�, _y � ' ; � � , s j , �� E .�. ,.sa.n ',+'� �- � . �. �,' :�`-�� ''.� �' `�'�.:. �.�.. .�� ,..��.�:-._--• t�o "_ ,xm- .- -, � �� t-a�,rV ' ��.v"-r':#� S3 �. r y � ^ �: �� y _s.",^:?�� '.�.' �S� -: � _ }r �7 � : .r.-ea�vVa � �'t . , . . � ,+ � � � � � kp,Dar.� f � ' �� .. �.j� yla ��. . . `.. .. ... �� .. � 1 � . L� � t _ .. , . � ,. x . � - � -, �... _'`�. :.. � .: . . . . . ... . �:. . y � , �._ <. , �_ ._'.r:. �_ v .— . srcv� '� �-"-n � i� G�: . , = ._----- - .. L� �� -._.._._ . .: , . Y , '.:; . � i � � . .. „�- ;� � . r ?- _n n,. :e- . _ F rR . — _�� .,- B -v, .a,c:' ..::g� . .. . . 2�.:�I. � .�-... av P - ` � _ ' �. �._. � �..�_�_ '_ .. .fl ' . . � ' �� ..__...._. . T �' Y � F-��c' r 3 �. y F . .. ;. . r ` „_ v " . : . t ` > r I '" z . .... .. � . .. , �� l��f:•��.� -- - - ,; �` '— . ,� ...:a - � �;C..i:.;.ir-,�G � � , wy��%��..�! � .`�� - �+.r_c-.. .�.- -w: � � ! R � . . .. c s '� f`�.� 'L� � a " ',i r �_ � ' .�„ . t � ��' �y�,,. �.: �,�w��,�� ; / iC �r i lii:�!".1� R��4 . �.. .-. ;_ �� ' � �.., ,_ - ` ,� °: '- - W. � - -_ —�- - = �� xe. �'` .. ., �� Y n.,� �' �:, -�_ _ . .. _ .. ._..,�YGR.u:� ��.�,'. :. — � r : �',t r.r .'.�� ^w S'�' '� '`' i � :'s �w�' � �'�'" t �� i ' �. YC� it�: c-4V.� *�: 'r `� h .. � s • �.: .. �.. ' . . _:.::. :. _�...Y.�._..__.. . .:J ._. v rv _F�e . , � ....a ry -- , a .� \- t'< :�.- .. . , ,_.. ,.a ..'.:..., �.. .'.. • � : .. �..: . + �,. c5 ' .�.-�, �� 5' � -�� .! . �� . .... � . � � ' "0 1p •• _ . `� j. .. � � � t"ZeSYt.� � �`; �� my "�.."`_` _ ' � ._._� ' �-«,.=-_-- � ;�- � � � .>..;� n ;, .v�_.y � _'—�'" O 1-dS�� • �u��t� �6 �lAC�_ VaY !�+„�,'1�� G�t�.�C.Ge�. � � Z` � A � �� a 1-�s� �• � STORM DAMAGE OVERVIEW ELLER MEDIA COMPANY LOCATION Ford Road and Kenneth (Most FasterIy Structure Highland Shopping Center) DISPLAY 3 Poster Paneis A. DAMAGE Photos one, tc�o and three describe the piesent condition of the structure. The heavq suvctural steel wide flange beam roof frame and the upright towers are intact and structurally satisfactory (see exhibit four, McCalla, 3une 19, 1998). The damage �•as the loss of the [hree siga faces. � . .. . The minor reinforcements to the structure, the angle and "C" channel, and han�ng the ttu�ee sign faces 1ki11 require a tluee person creiv on site f'or a day and a half. The remainder of the time will be used in the shop for fabrication and preparation for the on site work. The elechical ser4ice for the shuccure and fixtures for the westerly faces are in place. The fia for the easterly face is in storage at our shop. C, NOTES AND AMEI3DMENTS • At the City's request we ha��e prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPLACEMENT COSTS LESS DEPRECIATION' ��•orksheet and materials list specificaliy for this site. In that process �ve discovered the cost of the idenlical replacement �vould be higher ihan �ve had estimated our on our originai "Storni Damage Worksheet". This change is reflected in our Storm Damage Worksheet dated 4/AJ200() 4l21/2000 � � - .. . . -. ,.:.-- . . __ . I L II . . _ . � .. . .';,.`, ' ' . R D. � - . . ?' �'�1 !' F . -. .. _.. � f �: l t .t . � � � ._ }� - 3. S � i ^ . . �� .W �� '�6� . Y � t � � : ''' .c ��1��•'_�a��1�� x�` y . _ . E f " ` �� r .e�,��G`�s � o' r:{' � � '- i�'-T � � � E�� e.. f 4� �- b� t a'� e � ' �ir _ - � FK �c F� t� - ' � r � . ' - <% E � f � .� e - � �: '9",...": 4 i � � ��v. C . � ► f` i'' r ' - �� ---�_' �. � . e►-li 0��.� _ _- - - �� i�' � . e � � �Y � _ r,.�� ` _ + � �-' °' , .. z `� f� � `t e i. • ` �_ � a � «�_ _ , �, i . a _� ; 3 b _ �' t� `�� ° t ° -' �+�w m "e"'_.. ` '�a- m �—� < ..�+��.. .. « " r-� a �. ; +`s� y .`*f�de� ` � � � �' � � [ � � . . . � - . . �. t : � �. e - t: � :� �. �� t -s t ' t�� - �c� u-.<,_� ��__ �'��`„t �� -^^" ` � � �� +-...,m"� � �-�� c� '�� ' , _ _ � ' � � � la�� ' � ` t� �-��' � . �� r E��, .. a,. � .�..' {6 � cse ��sx�,nsnia.n.�>-�a.�:ii �;`..,'?°i f .. t� . < .' w �.. � u�.� �.�. .��. � i: 8 IC��_:.._ . . ...� — . v.T.,_. ��:�.� - _ . ' ,� � � "° � i: , _ ' _ , ,,:d. = _ , - } � .. ..-_. a. - _ "'_ .. . 11 �� CcF.I �_ �•� m'a:�.i.�l. - - .. ,..... . z ` , ° " `�- 4. .�° . ` .... e ;� . .:. . . . - - �: �.-„n... - . _._ u __ � � -a. : � -- : . r .�.- . .. r , ��.�T—. - iAr°.�c-�.et�►��'�`r°;_.'' :�_. — � -- �- ee��a` ' . . �� .. � � "+f ` �.3_.. �:a � _ � - - . q . '- •. - �.,��,.�� . _ � � :.�:i��.'t_= .na - �, — - � � �� • � � � i i � I • � STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET ELLER MEDIA COMPANY LOCATION Ford Road & KennethDISPLAY 3 Poster Faces A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS 1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS {1) 44 ft 2.5x2.5 angle iron @ 1.6� per ft 8 ft 6 in. °C" channel @ 4.19 per ft Ciips and bolts 2. SIGN FACE AND TR1M (2) 3 sign fiaces C$499 per face 3 trim kits C$220 per face B. LABOR 60 hours @ $22.00 per hour COS7 OF REPAIRS Estimated cost of new identical structure(4) Estimated cost of new replacement structure(4) Estimate of cost of securing, stabilizing and ciean up on May 3i (3), 21 hrs at $44.04 per hour (1) See note 2c (2) See notes 2 a& b (3j See note 1 (4) See note 3 All costs are direct costs 4/4/2000 $70.40 33.55 38.00 $i497.00 $660.00 $1320.OQ $3620.00 $48�,339� $23, 660.68 $35, 000 $924.00 o � - 3�'�i �� .�'u.e i'!� wy f :[�i�r.��.Lli�- � �� -asa ' °IiV-PLACE" I�F.PL.A , . COSi L• .SS D .PFt�'C'IATIQN ,�4iTF,�ROCtTRFMENT: - � faces @ 5�v face. � • Total site procurement - - - ��,� _� ' �1 BA IC �TR 7CTLIRx A. TAT.c - Purchase of basic suvcture, inclvding ugrightS ead fatcia: -Fstiinatedcost------------------------ �°�), 5 7 -Deliverycharge- ---------------------- S �/A -SalestaxQ,�,�%-------------------- $sz3.oq .. SUBTOTAL------------=----------------------- �S7•GG �,l IN-SHOP fi�,BRCATION; - T.aboz to remove bavic materials &om avck; in-shop fabricabion aad aasembly; ia-shap P��B -�. man crew @ 3 c� houzs @ 2z , a,> _ -------------------------- S /32u.vo . $ITBTOTAL----- S /3u.� 4Lxai n� RiLiGA F�071W ,S S'IRt tCT[ TRF TO/ON SITF �Nl� DI�HOLE; - Procedure includes (a) c:ew & equipmentnecessary to haul strvcture & material to ' site aad -(b) employ aa aager to dig hole and haul dirt: (a) _ man ciew Q . hours @ S� -_' /hr _to dig hole and haul � --------------------� N/ (b) use of auger for '__ hours Q . T��• -- --------- ��L - - -- - Labor to febricate �ootings at site and pour concrete footings at site. _ man czew @ hours Qa SJ1u:------------------------- � N/� •.�yazdsconccece��_IYd• ------=--- S �"/19 : - Equipment required: . (a) one truck Q _ hours � ---------- lU s? @ �J1R'- - - - - - - - �—_-� (b) oae truck @ ____ hotus Ca3�_/hr.----------------- S N/� svBrQrar ------------------------------------- �! � Pagc 1 • .'_ . '�!� . � o i -a-� � •APPRAISAL # . • . LOC 4'I?flPT # �� - � "T?�?-PLACE" RFPL•ACEMF'NT A TS L•ESS DEP FCTA'�ON tGONTINL�DI � � � u�: 1' ': �' yl 1: •♦ �t � � - Includes essembly of fasci� suingen, platforms, ladders, brackets, etc. Qn site. -� man cccw � 3 v hours � ;�"'� • ----- ----------------,S�c - Ec�uipment required: (a} one �UO rs� truck (03 3 L hours @ ��.�_hr•----------------- >�..�'� (b) one ��T� ttuck @ � houts @�_�fac. � �Coo�ot� (� pz•L Ti2Al �-!_ /2. � t (e �'^� �t .�r . � � � �S.Pv�N� Si.�TOTAt.-------------------------- S �5�/G•uU � e n z e • . � • '.:iG: . ..^ . `�✓. .... page 2 of ` � • . APPRAISAI, tt � � �.00ATION # _ o�-as� m t • . • : ul �y � e • � __' : __ • � • � 1►lJ � � • i: � tl Jull►: f � ♦ -.Purchase of bagic eiecrdcal matcrial iacluding Iight 8xtures, ballests, lamps, boxes, hangess, bieakers, clocks, miscellaneous items snch as conduit and conaectocs, ctamps and clips, eu. @ S isso • � _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ s o . cp. -SalestaxQ G�� %foraiaterials-------- o-d.�� - Load and unload equipment at site = a 2 man crew @ � houcs each (a3 S 7 � /hr. - - - S �� - Install e(ectrical panels, iun conduit, pu[i wire, instalt 5xcures and batlats: - �' maa cnw (q� � �. � $ �� l�li. "_"'__^""^___"' 70<�O.d� • - Equipment required: (a) one G�a�iu-�. 'truck � a � hours @� so /hr. 9d-a.vz� ' (b) one tzuck @ hours �; n..,----------•----- � (a) onc truck @ hours @�_�------------------ �.____.____. S TU'I' L------------------------------------ SSSS�/�oo � . - -;. . - � .. �� . � . APPRAISAL #1 . . . . b I — �� LOCATTON # �• °IN-P •�tCF" �P .A .FR�T COS7S L.F.SS DEPI�F.GIATIOlY (CONT,[N,�T � 1 II; yl l: :': hli�:�� - Crew to paint uprights inciuding s�uctiusi steel, laddezs, sd�engers, trim, etc., a11 items txC�gt fascia. � - �� man crcw @ � bouis @ S 2-�.rrz� /hr.---------- ---------- a�� - Equipmeai required: � (a) one panel uuck zequirod for ��,'�� / (� hours � �,?? /hr• - - - - - - - - L_L_.=`� O Si1RTOTAL------------------------------------ S�I07�J0 �1 • � : �t� • Permitcosta-------�------------------- S Soilstests ---------------------------- iS v/-1 SI7RTOT�-----------�------------------------ �3b?.o?7 � DIRECT/HARD REPRODUCTION CO5T (1TEMS 2-� - - - - - �� L lo ►� : •► A 2he above costs are for ]abor nd jg�v mate ' Is oniv and do not include "indirect costs" including such items as (I staudard overhead altowaace and (2) entrepreneurial/grofit --- as explained in the nacrative of the report. • �� Page 4 of � �. ir;cnTTOrr �r � � � (1) Site procurement - • - - - - - - - - - - S/�, ��tJ• v0 (page 1J C1) In place rep2acement (dimt wst) = S 60 �G (PeSes 1, Z, 3& 4) � Subtotal --------------- ---- ----------Say, S3 /GO, G-� � OverheadJcon�accoz's allowaace Qa `f� � - - - - - - - - S /537� _J'.o- Entrepreneurialprofit@,f�°/----------- 5)z ' �v-O � REPLACE MEPITCOSTNEW---------------SAY, S� � ': : ��a �lu: �, After corisidering: (1) aetual age oFtfie in place outdoor advertising strueture and - t2) �coSa�zing ttu stcict maintenancc schedule appIied to outdoor advertising struciures and - C3) the condition and quality of consCuc�on end - (4) the Iocation and �conomic life expectancy of the outdoor advertising structure ---= � We have ar�ived at the conclusion that the overall depreciation estituate of ___ �°� ` should be app(ied or as follows: TOTAL DEPRECIATIpN ESTtMATE - - - 3S(�+ * NOTE: DEPRECIATIOAi IS LS�°/. OF DIRECT COST (DEPRECIA$LE ASSETS) S�NC— L— U3ION.�: . . TO�'AL REPI,ACEMEPiT COST NEW - - - - - . ; S G . � � LESS DEPRECIA�'ION ALLpWANCES ---- 3 Sy9 1 REPLACEMENT COST LESS DEPRECIATION V.ALUE - Sny, WAtuwawpd ' �,.,. �� - � �„�.� �-� _ �' . � �� , �-L SG ��.'��' .. �� ' ot a s'� � � . Page 5 0� � , � . . � �- -- -��?�,�..� d ( -a-� � — �/j� �u � � IC�i�� - �-, - �— 2 �. 3 � G " C��-�.c� _ .__y,,g ^ .- _. . _ . . _ � � G' l� f � L/��_rJ�.�. 21 z��7__ - �" _ ! G" lu � �—�_ ------ - -- --- � . Z-�l ». �xi� �,.�_ j�r.� -� Z c� 2�G o�p 7-- _.. �. X Z . `f'� � J, �o . (-------- �. _.._�.--�---- -- .. _ a" Z�C 7i ft/ Cit7.d�0�i�0�Gei- � 9 �� G c� __ —�� , � _.._ - ---- -- • --... �-___.� a � y � � _ - ?�'3�.3.� - s S/. Zp ,_3Y 3- Za �5_ L o _ dt7 3r3.G o __ x z L /�%L �� _� .Piw�--_ 7� /. G o zo . cro -- -------- ---._. . . . . � � _ � . _ ..--�-- -- (u �GaT �-�n.r,_. -- -�'Q,c?o._-- `f `av' °� � �. ___ _ . . ... _... - ---.. . 3 ` a D `� (� �°� —.� �.--- . . 2 SD. � � _ 7Sv . �-t� --- --�--- - - -- �- --- - .—....... -- , _ - - _-- -. _ � ___...__— �- ' L vc1? �aiz-2 �? Yo. v� - � 4/v � u� . �. ----_ - - - --- --.,. _.. . _.. . - _ ___._.. __ -�.l_S ..�� T � ! �oti+� wl �� - �f ,, � ��' ybo , �O 9ov , az? ____ _ _- _�S�%Lyu''`_�%._ . .: . _ . . _ 3 - .�-5 u wcr-� �-� ?C�u�-e-o �;� aYL.a�v � ----- - - -- - - L �?.1.G�J�q �.C(J .—..-- -� /frr�-� � t� _G� _rC1st_'%✓�30_/, or� , � a �v � � � �t.c�- , 3 ._ �mfn,�� .�o ---_..—_ ---- --- ---� = `� -- - -- ---_... _ . --- ----- � i r � �_�� 6'.�-�J. ' o-z �rS 5• ��4 . ..� � , T� ova__ o-c d'�3&', sv �._..-----..._-- ---.- .., ..--- �-- _ I �ti.��,� a�...�.� .� s-.o� ___ `__...__ 'N�.R.c t..�n,c., t1�o,� Lw=Gi wf a�rs,�:� --}— - /---- - --- ---�- - -� - — ----- -.__. __ . .... ��__ 7'c>'�`o�..l� � -- — —• ---- - - - - - - -- __�__ �.(v✓� _ / 5� J -° - ----- - - -- -- - �'`�'�- � a �- : 36.crp .� �' � __z,6/,oa . . / �`S� 2. o `��7�00 as d-v ."� 3 , cl-p. ._ __ _.. _ :;.. _.. _ __ . _. _ �� 7,� .�: 2 --- -- --- �� o�-a� STORM DAMAGE OVERVIEW ELLER MEDIA COMPAIVy LOCATION 1142 W 7th @ Bay DISPLAY i poster Face � A. DAMAGE The damage to the sign face ailotved the three uprights to bend at ihe base, see "Site Visit Report" of Frank Berg, 7une 24, 1998, photos one and tsro indicate rhe i��o verticais have been straightened the third vertical rvas pu(led at the requesT of Mr. $erg so he could inspect it It was not replaced and is stored on site K�ith the platForm that was removed for safety. I: ' •� The repair «-i11 be as recommended bp our consulang en�neer, W. T. McCalla in his letter of September 28, 1998. The Z,S x 2,S angle iron will be used to rebrace the staucture, and the "C" channet tc>i11 pruvide tfie weIded patches over the corrosion and frachu�es noted bp Mr, $erg and Mr. McCatIa. The work �vill be accomplished in one day bp a thrce person crew, w1th most of the day spent on site, The electrical sen-in� the structure is in place, and the fixture is in storage at our shop. C. NOTES / AMENbMENTS At the Ciry's request w�e have prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPT.ACEMENT CpSTS LESS DEPRECIATION" worksheet and materials list specifically for [his site. In that process �c�e disco�•ered the c.ost of the identical replacement c�rouid be]ugher U�an we had estintated our on our originat "5torm Damage WorksheeY'. This change is reflecte.cl in our Storm Damage Wori;sheet dated 4/4/2000 a!arz000 >� • • 1 Y�� _--�� ' ' � r _ . z,.� - -.` _ . w'A`'� �( �,3'my.�r�i`�'�',�S'„_-t � � s-' _ � ��°.�-�s.r . _ ,� .,,. _-� ,� � ►,�� - � _�.� � 6 � .. i ��t.� � . � ,_�._,s� ��-�' �� [t � _ ::;,:� �_ _ wa.ae� i � �-5 � 1� 4 � -,_-wn. ' -. F �'„ . R 5 �.: � � � � „t � �� . . N 54 V,�ay �' � "SK .y M � � W �.. . �; �� ' T JHf 3 �`�f , ��..s.. .i'� �' v ' . 2 ' ,�. . �� . . ..>.. , s .. ,�. `.. �. . . {... . . . � �� ; . � �� , `� . � ', -ce.a' ��..� , ,_cc- _ ,. _ c^ '�".:. "'", . . _ . -..-�. . . � .. .... +s�L �$ �,. � r " , �� _' � � � _ � _ . i � � �:� ; = �... . _ _ _ � �, �� d�-as� SatN7 PAUL � ARAA � OFFICE OF LICENSE. INSPECT[pNS AND ENYIRONMENTALPAOTECT[ON Rabert Kusfer; Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Colemars, Mayor 7u1y 2, 1998 Thomas Klees Director of Operations Elter Media,.Inc. 3225 Spring Street, N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 telephone; 612-266-9001 Facsimife: 612d669099 " RE: Engineering Report by W.T. McCalla, re: four damaged signs, W, 7ih Street, Saint ' Paul, Minnesota, dated 7une 19,1998 - Dear Mr. Klees: I perfo�ed my own observations of the sign at 1142 West 7th Street. Based on the results ,_ of my observations, ihis Office is requiring that your engineer be retained to loolc more closely at ihe condition of the wind damaged sign structares, and that the report be � resubmitted. The engineer's report must indicate his procedures, explicit facts as to his observations, and then his �engineering opinion. A copy of my site visit report pertaining [o the sign shucture a[ 1142 West 7tfi Street is attaclied. i may be reached at 266-9072. SincereIy, �---�--� " �-�-- Frank Herg, P-B- Staff Structural Engineer Acting Building Official Enc1 cc: W.T. McCaIIa (with enclosure) B UlIDING INSPECIION AND DESIGN 350 St Pue� Strnr Suite 310 SaintParaf, M'vu�crata SS702-ISIO � � � • a I -a� � i ,� u BX: DATE: Frank Berg, P.E. City of Saint Paul, June 24, 1998 SI'TE VISIT REPORT F� �� Office of LIEP PBOJECT: Wind damaged sign at 1142 Wesi 7th Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota PUR�OSE OF VISIT: The purpose of my visit was to observe for myself the condition of the sign structure becavse of conflicting reports from 1) this O�ce's own inspectors, Mr. Dave Kenyon and Mr. 7ohn Hazdwick, and 2) Mr. W.T. McCalla, engineering consultant to Eller Media, Inc., report dated Iune 19, 1998. BACKGROUND INFOI2MATION: A suong wind storm occurred during the evening on May 30, 1998, that caused considerable property damage. On or about June 8th the sign suucture was inspected by Mr. Kenyon and Mr. Hardwick and it was detemvned that this sign (along with some other signs they inspected) needed to be observed by an engineer and evaluated for structural integrity. PROCEDURFS: My qisit was performed at about mid-day and was approximately 35 minutes in duration. I took twelve photogtaphs. I did not take any measurements. i OBSERVATIONS: . � . .. . .. The sign structure consists in part of three vertic�lly cantilevered columns each made''up of a double, cold formed, steel channel (channels positioned back-to-back). The base of each column projects up and out of a sand base contained by a steel pipe se[ into the ground. � The column nearest West 7th Street was observed to be signi£cantly bent at the base with the middle column bent slighdy less, and the .column furthest from the street bent hardly at aI3. The steel pipes into the ground appeared to have not ro[ated. Corrosion was obsecved. The corrosion was most severe where the channel shapes penetrate the sand base. l�� a as� The flange of one channet (in the column nearest the street) was observed to be completely � fractured straigh[ across its entire width. This fractuced flange was on the "tension" side of the column considering the direction of the bending. Significant flange buckting and web crippling was obsetved at the base of both channels comprising each of the two columns most bent. Newly chipped paini was observed at these locations. CONCLUSIONS: = The sign must be moce closety observed by ihe engineer, and then re-evaluated. The channel that has fractured has essentially no load carrying capability at aIl. The steet, wheze it has deformed, has exceeded what is called the "elastic limit". Prior to reaching the e[asfic limit steei wilI deform under Ioad, but then retum ro its normal shape when the load is removed. Once the load is enough to result in the steel exceeding its e[as[ic limit, the sieel is permanently deformed. These columns cannot simply be straiahtened out without having lost some load carrying capability. • m � � m i t o� . � W.T. (Mac} McCalta, PE. 6600 75 fiAvenue Nonh, Brookym Park, MN 55428 (672) 560-74-06 September 28, 1998 Mi�. Tfiomas 3� IClees DirectarofOpera6ans - . Eller Media, Inc. ' 322i E. Minneapolis MN"55413 re: Storm damaged Builil sign 1 I42�FVest &trEet St. Paul; Minneapolis W'CM Job No. 1075. Dear Mr. Klees: This is to certify tliat I" inspectied' the atiove June 1 S, 1998 in your presence and' again $y myself 7uly 31, 1998 to establish material in formed channels. • The 1 West• 7-`� &freet structurtis a single� pos4er- grvun�- buHd- with- the-light- steel- panels • missing. The 3'vertical supports are formed from l0 gage gaivanized steel tapered channels back to bacR forming 3" I beams. T;�e beams are set in 3 steel that-contain The�3� beams were tilted varying amounts but were not damaged"by the storm. Correction required is to lift out � the-3 beams, leaving the eacisting cans nrthe-ground: Wel�patehes onto- the�cans where corrosion • has eaten ttirough at the ground� line. .We3d� patcties on the tapered beam tliat has corroded through at grovnd-]ine: Yamt.the welded� areas, replace t�e sigrr beams and replace the paneIs. You may wisfi to replace the top one foot of sand witfi concrete, "doming" to sHed water. Tn my opinioq•this structare-wit� be adequatewith-the abovenominal repairs. Please feel free to call me s}iould you }iave any questions or want furtHer details. Very truly yours, • - � �1��:�.a//`�``�\./.� 1%l � W. T.McGalla,_P..Eng. � I hae6vcatifythatthisplam,spai[icaEimorreport wupcepaedby meor�mdc mydir�svpmision md�thaz t azu�a duly Regsttred Fngci� vadeyffia , lawsofttr of. ' •• . , Date � • Re�c#im No.105<0 Copy. Frank Berg, P. E., St.�PauI City. Structural Engineer Struet�ral Consulfant 8ddgee • SUUCroraf Concrere • Experf Tes7imony � �� R -�$ O � �� STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET ELLER MEDIA COMPANY �OCATiON 1142 W 7t6 @ Bay � DISPLAY 1 Poster Face A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS 1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS (1) 72 ft 2.5x2.5 angie iron @ 7.60 per ft 20 ft 8 in "C" channel @ 4.59 per fi 2. SfGN FACE AND TR�M (2) 1 sign face @$499 per face 1 trim kit @$220 per face B. LABOR 24 hours @ $22.00 per hour COST OF REPAIRS Estimafed cosf 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), 8 hrs at $44.00 per fiour (1) See note 2c (2) See notes 2 a& b ;3; _ Ses_note 7 (4) See note 3 Ali costs are direcf costs Qnr_.. �; $115.Q0 81.00 $498.OQ 220.Od $528.00 $1453.00 �$4�$8032.35 $13,000 $352.OQ � . r L� r� � l��z � r�- w��- .. � � s��s� �e ��-K-�f3�� .. � lS� _aso � � "IN-P ,AGF." IZ�PL.AC�. � COSTS FS D,PRF. rTIQN � � IT .PRO f'iiRFibtENT_ � - � faces p. �l�ce. , • Total site pzocurement - - - � � � . : : s 1!: �t i. �i�1•`��7/_�� ,.- . .: , „ . .. . •, :,. _Fet:mats.iCASi----------'^-'---'---" �� .30 - Delivery chaz e- /� - -------------------- � -Salestax(a(� �S %-------------------- S )39• 1 SUBTOTAL------------------------------------ 6 .o '}� IN-sxop�AA SC�,T[ON: = Labor to zemove basic materials from �uck; in-shop fabrication and assembly; ia-shop P��B - �- man crew @ � hours Q �_/hr• ---------- ---------- �2&8•� $�.,TRTOTAL--^--�--�- ----------- SZ8'8•� _- Procaiuze inclssdes (a) c,�ew �t equiQmeat necesssry to haul struciure & matezial to site and -(b} employ aa auger to dig hole and haul dirt: (a) 3 man crew Qa � hours (a3 a a-ov _ w dig hole and haul dist--------^-----�-------^----- S.2GS��YJ (b) use of auger for � hours Q s�• •------------------- Saad.60 - Labor to fabricate £ootiags at site aud pour coaciete £ootings at site. -,� maa crew @ _� hours Qa �r.____,Jhr: ------------------------ - � Yatds concrete � S._..._JY�1- - - - - - - - - _. - Equipment reqatted: (a) one �T��uck Q � hours Q ��_�- ---^------------- ro� �� ho� a�"o �.vA �dd` �fl c�s^_� ----------------- s � �UBTQTAL--------------------- � • . . � Page 1 of a�-asa APPRALSAL �i . ' � • . LOCATI01+t # . ` . � � 1� ' : �1 ; �1 ul � � � • : �1 : M • ► • ►1�t►1) 1 ut: 1' ' : �• 9l /: • • y� - Iacludes Assembly of faseia, stringers, platforms, ladders, brackcts, eic. p�s�. -� maa cxew �� hours Q-- --- S S` 2-�. U� ��u'.--------- ---� - �cluipmmt required: (a) one govr. truck (a3 � hours @ 5 � — � J�------------------ s yor� (b) oae ��T�" truck Q � fiours @�_�'------------------ 5 S�d't� SiTATOT 1.-------------^-------------^-------- �3�� UY7 -. . . . . . - -- - - - � --- _ �1:. '� ; :k: '�� . :� . :i . k � . . . � . . . . . . .. . . � • Page � nPPxars�u. # . � . o � -�-sa . iocaTTOx� - . :' �'T�* pL,ICF�' R�,p CF14"�NT CQST ES- DFpIZF.�TATiON fCON'[71Vi7Fi)1 . �, : 11 luti► : � � ► - Putchase of basic eleccrical material i.ncluding Jight fixtures, bsliasts, lamps, boxes, 2�aagers, bzealcezs, clocks, miscellaneous items such as conduit and rnnneciocs, clamps and clips, eu. Q S. -- - - - - - - - �� •. � _ G2�?- - Sales.tax @ � • 5 % for materials - - - - - - - �—Z- - Load and unload equipment at site = a 2 mau � �,� ctew @ �._ houts each Q �• � - - � � - Install el� cal panets,� mt, P� wite. install fixtures and ball�cu: �r �� lus. ��/hr. -------------------5 GGY7•v-O _ gquipm.ent required (a) one /.An�.u.. truck Q � houzs v ------ 5 ��.�rZ'? @�__I1�r. ---------� (b) one truck Qa hours @�-____.—�hr. --------------- � (c) otte tru�k (a3 ho� Q$.�,,_/hr. --------------- '�.�-- SL�TOTAi_.- -----�------------ �,.�/?a•y7 � .. . �� .. Par � APPRAiSAL # LOCATIQN # - o�-as� � 1 ► ' : �1._ : ' v� �� • . � • . � .rn.� � � 1 1; bt 1: � ': h/� +- - Czrw to paiat upzi8ht4 including strucriugi steel, laddas, strinBccs. trim, etc., a!i items y� fasci� � men cxew @ O houis @ : �ff �-�.v� /br. �3 sl•�tJ - Equipment required: (a) oite Faaef uvck re4uited foz � hours� 3 �1�- --------S�� S �.� fuif.�� : il � rercnicaosts s 3G2.u� Soilstests ---------------------------- � S L IR TOT� T . ----------- --------------�----------- $ �6� `°a ' • DIRECT/HARD REPRObUCTION COST (ITEMS 2-� ----- S� �� : �� The above costs aze for lahor �„d raw materiale o�iv and do aot iaclude "indirect costs" including such iieau as ( standard ovezhead allowance and (2) entrcprenenrial/profit --- as explained in the narrative of ihe rcpozt_ _., , . _ �� Page 4 � nrrxataAL ii I.00ATION N V � 0 � -�c Il ' : �t : �1 ul�f� • � t ' : �l : r � ► • �MYhI 1 � lvlu : : • : �I' : � � y� 1 � • (1) : Siu proctuement - - - - - - - - - - - - S 3 SoO.c� (p 1) (2) . In ptace neplacemem (direct cost) : S S� 3Z �3� (P88� 1 2, 3& 4) Subtotal -------------- ---------------$ay, S S3 .3S•'� • OverheatVcontractoz's allowance @ � % - - - - - - - - S �/'O; ofl. . Bntrcprcneuiial ptofit Qa /� o�� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,S/�25,� -. , � REPLACF.MEM'COSTNEW---------------SAY,. yS".3� ': : I�♦ tl��: � Rer considering: (1) acival age of the in place outdoor advertising structure and - _( reO°E�°8 �° �� tnaintenauce schedule applied to outdoor adveztising s4ruct�ues and - (3) the condition atid quslity of construction and - (4) the location aad oconomic life expectancy of the outdoor adveztising stxucture ---- • We have atrived at t}ie conclusion that the overail dc estimate of �v %* s}iould be applied or as follaws: TOTAL DEPRECIATLON ESTTMA2E --- d oG. + * NOT'E: DEPRECIAT1pN IS Z� % OF D7RECT COST (DEPRECIABLE ASSETS) !�� ox.ni, x�rrac�l►�ivz� cosr �w - - - - - - ,�ys/ , 3 � LESS BEPREC7ATION ALLOWANCE5 - - - - (,� �.� ) REPLACEMEPiT COST LESS DEPRECIATION VALUE - 5ay, 'PVao.rawpd � (� 1 /� C //� , L / y � ( l � . �� f1Y3�3� Page 5 of 5 � � � � c�[—a5� ; _---- l.t'`—''-,Q,--7�f --2 i5`� . . � ��--Q -- -- --��.e-�`.cQ� • . • - - -- -- _ � _ - ---- -- --- /� / � I � G-��s .. � r ��..�L__ �_ _._Tou...��. a�_� a- �y��.. =_�63.? � � _— � _.__ � _�f8� ---= - -- � � • � �� .� %L k Z� � _�1.bo �,% .-.r-- �---. .� /4�� 2 /y_ �?--� J n.� _'c�'J ;:_. �– ) _ � � , r n �'.e7�� c � - --�1c1S0, OJ �Sa,SrU_ _. (__ a o-�" ?�G..�a _ . ...a..y � 1 cro v4 t��. /�v>�.e.E' i5G'� w �� . ..._ ,..- --._._...__� . _- --. .. - _.. _ .�.�- �t�-c, -� � �� - �----..-_ ------.. �� _, __ -�;--- - �- -- - -- -- �„V,.,.�. . ,,� — .�. - ��r _ . I o-r G L ---xa `—�---------- - � - -� °-7° '- �� ,. 1 �� S�-c.t- �'/'cX - ��.'•. St�....--- - _ r z fzE ,� s. �.�`.. � a � 4, s � _ ----- --... . _ �� _ _ � � �,<,c -� �-z�t i 3 ? o — — _. � —__. .. ---, _. _�.��-- -- T 3 7. �j O ,_ .. . ��a y��3d . ,_._. . --- -- _.. _. __ - - ..._ .. , - M�� - - - �-- -� ------ �u� ,�� , - - _ --- ____�",.t.,�'�i5 �,_�_-_�r__—_---- , .— -------- -- - _ I • --- -.. __ _ — ----�— — — / j . _. .. �� I � �— . � � � CITY UF � _. Refernd To �so�.t�orr PAUL, MlNNESUTA .....� i. O � -�-5 � � i � 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lI 12 13 i5 I6 ? 19 2U 2] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 • WHEREAS, Scenie Mumesota, in Zoning File 98-154 and pmsuant m Saint Paui Legislative Code § 66.408 made application to the Saint Paul plaaniag Commissipn (Comrnissionj to appeal ihe decisicra of the Saim Pavl ZoniaB Adminis�atar to allow repairs #o storm damaged adverEising signs located at ! 820 Grand Aveaue and at the southeast comer of Ford Fm'kway and Sovth Cleveland Avrnue; and ub&c �� on August 6, 2998, the Commission's Zoning Cuauaittee conducced a P hearia8 where all intetested persons were given an oPP�ty to be heazd and submitted its recommec�dation to deny the appeal to the Commission; azsd WHERF 48. in its Resolurion No. 98-45, dated August 14,1948, the Commission decided to deny the appeal based upoa the findings in Resolution 9&-45 which is attached hereto and incmpomted hezein by zefereuca; and R'AEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-241 and ptusvant to the prm of Saint Paul Legislative Code §(q.206, f�ed an app�� e by the Commission and requesced a hearing before the Saini Paul Ciry Councp (Council) for the Purposes of considering the aerions takea by thc said Commission; and WFIEREAS, on October 7, ] g98 aad acring pursvant to Saint Paul Leg�siative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.20& with notice to affected parties, a public hearing w� dyiy �o�s�d�� by the , Counci] whore all imecested parties were given an opporhmity to be heard; and WI�REAS, rhe Council having heard the statemrnts macic and tiaving cottsidered the application, the reporc of staff, the reconi, minutes and resalution of t6e Zoning Committee and of the Planning Cummission, does hereby; RESOLVE, to affirtn the dc�ision of the Cominissioa. The Council {�ds no etro�. in at�y PPU�� noa-� �'amede by the Planning Commission aad that Zoning Code § 66.3QT rming advertising si�s : and be it _ _ l�i bVY!(Y13 GllG M _\� � ,� —��_Z Grear Sheet # ��L�� l� ��--- �� ?. FIIVALLY ItE50LVED, tkat the City C2ak shaiI mait a capy of this resotution to Brian p(-c�S � 3 Beces. Esq. oa behatf of the appetiaat, Marvin Liszt, Esq, on Behalf of tfic sign comPanY, the 4 Zoning Administratvr and the Ptanning Cvmmission. • � � � � Aequested by neyartaaeat oE: A60pked by Cauncil: Dnle xdoyti4n cezcilied 6y Colmeii SeczeLary �= Apysoved by Mayor: pste 8Y: u Sy: —_ Fesm d by clLy Ateetney e �'!' l✓c�'wrNC.—., ��/zT/9S Appzwed by Haym toz Sabm3ssioa to [rnmcil By: u � �� r . .. _. .. ... .. .._- . .,: ... -,aa ��N�� T OTFICEOFLi , _ , q�p EIVIRONMI:NTALPR07ECT70\ � Robe�t Aessleq Director • CITY OF SAINT PAUL Non�e Coleman, Aluyor August 18, 2000 Chris McCarver V.P./Real Estate Ivlanager Eller Media Company 3225 Spring St. N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 Re: 1209 W. 7"' St. 1184 W. 7` St. 1142 W. 7` $t. I.OLIRY PROFESSIOd'A7.6UILDhCG Telephonee 6�1-266-969p 3SOS1.PeterSfreer,Smitc300 F¢csimile: 6.i1-366-9G99 SnintPnrrl,A4innesataS51G3-7510 651-?GG.g!?J 2014 - 2018 Ford Parkti��ay • . Dear Mr. McCarver: In response to your_appiications for building permits received June 22, 2000, to repair the advertising sign structures that sustained storm damage in1998 at the referenced sites, I am extending the deadline for response an additional 60 days. In reviewing the costs of repairing these signs, it appears tl�at the figures are based on proposed structural repairs that �i�ere never approved by LIEP's structural engineer, Frank Berg. Before we can verify the exact costs we need to make sure ali proposed work is acceptable to Mr. Berg. He needs to meet with you and Mr. McCalla to discuss Mr. McCalla's recommendations for each site. Please contact Mr. Berg directly at 651- 266-9D72 to arrange the meeting. Sincerely, "l�r��. :�a�� Wendy Lane Zoning Manager c: Frank Berg l'� CITX OF SA1NT PAUL Norm Co7emart, Mayor October 17, 2000 Chris McCarver V.P./Reai Estate Manager Elier Media Company 3225 Spring St. N.E. Minneapotis, MN 55413 Re: 1209 W. 7"' St. I1S4 W.7i°St. 1142 W. 7`" St. 2014 - 2018 Ford Pazk�vay Telephone: 65l-2G Fauimife: 651-26 651-266-9�2q Dear Mr. McCarver: We have reviewed your applications, received June 22, 2000, for pezmits Yo repair the advertising sign structures at the referenced locations that sustained storm damage on May 30, 1998. On August I8, 2000, the deadline for the City to respond was extended for an additiona160 days. As we previously discussed, the zoning code does not give us clear direction in how to process this type of application and we ha��e had difficultly reaching a decision. The sign at 1142 W. 7"' St. is no longer there and you indicated ihat you did not want Yo pursue fhis'permit appiication. Tne otner signs arz a�:-i�ga1 ner_�enfoa�?�ing ___ advertising signs, Iocated in areas where new advertising signs aze ciurently prohibited. Section 66.301(2) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code zegulatas nonconforming signs and sfates thaY "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any extent ofmore than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." There aze riro distinet damage hurdles that must be met, one for the sign and one for the sign structure. A sign structure is de�ned as"Any structure �i$ich supports or is capable of supportin� any sign as defined in this chapter. A sign structure may be a single pole; it may not be an integral part of a building." The information you supplied indicates that the si� structures had damage of less than 51 % of their replacement cost. A sign is defined as "The use of words, nurnerals, �gures, devices, desigas or trademazks the purpose of which is to show or advertise a person, firm, profession, � �`!. �� o� �� - E, INSPECTTONS AND ENVIRONMENTAI, pROTECT[ON Robert Kessler, Direcm. LOWRY PROFESSIO�`ALEUILDING 350 St, Peter Saee{ Suitz 300 SairtlPaul,Mirsnesom 5�/02-ISlO • . a � -�-s� Chris McCarver � October 17, 2000 Page 2 business, product or message." In this case we can only conclude that a sign refers to a sign face. No information was supplied regarding the sign face. It appeazs that 100% of the sign faces were destroyed for each of fhese sites. Section 66.301(2) spzcifies that if the nonconforming sign is destroped to more than 51 % of 9ts replacement cost, it may oniy be reconstructed in conforn�ity with the rest of the chapter, which, in the case of nonconforming advertising signs, �vould mean Section 66302. None of these signs couid be renovated under Section 6b302(a)(5) because all of the signs are roof top signs of more that 400 squaze feet. If you want to bring the signs into compliance with 66.302(a)(5) by reducing the size to less than 400 squaze feet, you may reapply for repair permits, indicating how each of these signs would meet the other provisions of 66.302(a). We are hereby denying your applications for permits to repair these signs: If you disagree with this interpretation, you may file for an administrative review before the Planning Commission within 30 days. If you choose not to appeal this decision, these signs and sign stnictures, must be removed w�ithin 60 days. � Sincerely, �� a� Wendy Lane Zoning Manager � �� i ' ` • , ,, - .� ._.� of saint pau! �ninq commission resolut+on file number 98-45 �te August 14, 1998 �;IHEREAS, SCENIC MIItiTNESOTA, file � 98-154, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of Section 66300(j) of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code, of the Zonino Administrator's decision regarding adveRising si�ns damaged in a storm on May 30, 1948, Iocated at 1820 Grand Avenue, the Highland Village Shopping Center, which is on the soutb side of Ford Park�vay bet�veen Kenneth Street and Cleveland Avenue, and at 1142, 1184, and 1209 N. Seventh Street (lzgal descriptions on file); and WHEREAS, the Zoning Commitcee of the Planning Commissioa on August 6, 1998, held a public heazing at �vhich all persons present �sere given an opportunity to be heard pursuant Yo said application in accordance witfi the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and , � �VHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zonin� Committee at the public hearin� as substaniialty reflected in the minutes, made the followinQ findin�s of fact: A maj or wind storm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, I998, causing a great deal of damage to homes, trees, and po�ver 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 Jane 10, �Veady Lane of LIEP �vrote to Eller Media that, as a result of the inspection, rir�o of the dama�ed biiiboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the middle billboazd structure at Highland Vilta�e had not received s[ructural dama�e; just the si?ns and poster panels, �vhich provided ihe baekin� f::he signs,_had blown down. Replacin� poster panels c3oes not, as a matter of standard City practice dating back many years, require a buiiding permit. Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to replace the poster panels on those I��'O S1pR5. �Ss. Lane's letter said that the other four billboard locations--one at Highland Village Shopping Center and three on VJ. Seventh Street--were found to have structural dama�e. 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 damaged is that the renovation costs aze less than 51 � moved by Field seconded by in favor 10 (Field abstained) against i�� j � • ❑ � ��. dt-d ♦ � • percent of the replacement cost. � 2. Ail of the biilboards in question are owned by Eller Media, Inc. (formerly Naegele and then Universal), tivhich is a national billboard company. All of the bi1(boazds are in B-2 (Cotnmunity Business) zoning districts, �vheie ad� signs aze permitted if they meet certain size and spacing requirements unless an overlay spzcial sign district imposes stricter regulations. None of the billboards in question are conformin�; they are all legal nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Grand Avenue and Highland Village signs are in Speciai Sign Districts adoQted in the 1980s where billboards aze prohibited. The W. Seventh Street bi116oazds are in an interim Special Si�n District approved by the City Councii earlier this year, tivhere ne�v construction and modification of billboards are prohibited until ne��• advertising sign regulations aze adopted by the City Council. 3. Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16, 1998, appealed Ms. Lane's decision to ailoFV reglacement of the poster panels at t«�o locations (1820 Grand Avenue and the middle billboazds on the Highland Village Shopping 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 bilfboards �vill 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 (66.301)(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 are regulated by both sections and by appticable special si�n 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 ho�v the renovation cost information �vould be used. Therefore, since no decision has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature. 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 sion 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 paragraph on exemptions from getting building permits (66_405), tivhich refers to "display surface" and "poster replacemenY'. The latter terms are not defined in the code and, being subject to interpretation, are a responsibiliTy of the Zoning Administrator. The City Council is expected to amendment advertising sign regulations later this year and �vilt receive comments from the Planning Commission before doing so. Code amendments «�ould be a better way to clarify how sign faces should be considered than trying to reach a decision throu�h an appeals process. 6. Scenic Vlinnesota's third and fourth specific appzals ar�ue that the installation or • replacement of sign faces shotild require a sign (building) permit. On replacement of the sien face (poster panels), LIEP treated Eller Media the same as they have ireated al1 biltboard companies. For many years the Zoning Administrator has interpreted 66.405 to l�� `°" . �� .e��y - :A � allow poster panel replacement without a sign pemut. Poster panels come in kits of interlocking 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 Yhe set of billboards ai 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboacds on Highland Village Shoppina Center, LIEP inspectors determined that no structural damage had occurred. Ms. Lane's lztter of June 10, 1998, is clearly consistent �vith established practice; any other decision �vould have been discriminatory. The fifth specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that the �6'. Sevenfh bitlboazds cannot be replaced or renovated at this time because of the interim 3pecial Sign District for the �V. Seventh neighborhood. In February 1948, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that created an Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to inake recommendations to the Councii. Dnring the study period, the ordinance provides that district councits may appiy for a special sign district by ��ziting a Ietter. In eariy 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 not rendered a decision about whether or not the �V. Seventh billboards can be renovated, and an appeal is premature. THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, that under tfie authority of the City's Legisiative Code, the appeal of the Zonin� Administrator's decision to a?!�sL ±he tepi_acement of the sign faces without sign permits for the billboards at 1820 Grand A�'enue and for the middle set of biilboards at Highlanc! Viliage Shopping C:enteris nere�y denied; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission renders no decision on this appeal as regards the eastern set of billboards at Highland Villaoe Shopping Center or the bitlboazds on W. Seventh Street; since LIEP has only asked for information from Eller Media on these storm-damaged billboards and fias not yet made decisions on �vhether the}• can be renovated, appeals about them are ptemature. �+ � l ��' � ol a � � • STATE OF b2IN1hESOTA • "`l� COLNTY OF RAbqSEX ` r--- SCENIC MMNESOTA INC., et el., . PLAI\'TIFFS, DEFENDA\TS. 1��I�Y�P�'� - D t-aS^ � DISTRICT COURT SECO\73 JUDICIAL DISTRICT Cn�n. Dn�s�o� - nio� u�.�, J. FILED COUrt Administrator OCT 1 I. 7999 ORllER FOR SUb�I Cot�xr FicE �o: C4-98-10951 This matfer was heard on 18 August 1999 by the Honorabfe M. Michaei Monahan, � CITY OF SAtNT PAUL, et al., District Court Judge, on cross motions for summary judgment pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.P. 56. Court Docket Nos. 1 S& 22. Richard B. Bates appeared for Plainfiffs. Peter W. Warner, Assistant City Attomey, appeared for Defendants City of 5aint Paul a�d City Council of the City of Saint Paul (the "City Council")(defendants collectively "the City"). Marvin A. Liszt of Diamond, Liszt & Grady, P.A. appeared for Defendant Eller Media, inc. ("Eller"). Based on the arguments o# counsel and the entire record in this matter: IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' mofion for summaryjudgment is GRANTED. 2. Defendanfs' motion for summary judgment is DENIEd. 3. Judgment is granted to Plaintiffs and against Defendanfs: (a) declaring that the resolution by the Saint Paui City Planning Commission No. 98-45 was arbifrary and �pricious because it misapplied the provision of Sainf Paui Legislative Code § 66.405(1); and (b) declaring � I 1�J o�-asc� that the action of the City Council of the City o( Saint Paul in refusing to sustain Plaintiff's appeai from the decision of the P(anning Commission was arbitrary and capricious because the City Counci( fai(ed to set forth the basis for the deniai; an@ (c) awarding Plaintiffs their sfatutory costs and disbursements. 4. The following memorandum is a part of this order and constitutes the court's findings of fact and conclusions of Iaw to the extent required by AAinn.R.Civ.P. 52.09. 5. The automatic stay of Minn.G.R.Prac. 125 is vacated. 6. The maiting of this order by the court to counsel is notice of its entry for ail purposes. LET JUDG�SENT BE En'TERED ACCORDINGLY �VITHOUT STAY. � Dated: � Oh3o6 ct gg. ' ��.� �� The forago+ng shail corstitute the judgment of the Ce�rt. Mich el tvfonatian �`� / En � tered: �� (;�iC�?i;El 6. (:iQ° District Court Judge )q � ��• � �n �/�� FN� C iIL Yt�iilli�{ISlidiJ( - !i / �` . " [ ,� / `` • �� f �,�., D�b40RAI�DLJIi �,usiL ��..F/L 6y ��L'�-' �, ' FACTS. De�i:�� Cie;:t ��lf(1�G2'yf :�`.�` In this action Plainfiffs seekjudicial review of the City Councif's decision denying their appeal from the Saint Pauf P(anning Commission's decision' permitting Eller to replace the face panels on two of its outdoor advertising signs located within a spec+al sign d'tsfrict without a permit. !t is another case arising as a resuit of the wind sform of 30 May 1998. See Scenic Mrnnesota, Inc, v. Cify of Saint Paul, Second Jud. Dist. Court File No. C5-99-1900, It is also evidence of the decades long struggle between the City, its residents, and the outdoor ' P(anning Commission Resolution 98-45. 2 The signs are located at � 820 Grand Ave�ue and on the Highland Village Shopping Center at Cfevetand and Ford Parkway. -2' 1� u • l J � i -J-S� • adveRising industry over the proper place of biAboards within the City. In a series of enactments in 1984, 1986, and 1988, the Cify adopfed various measures that made virtualiy afi biliboards within the Cify a legal, non-conforming use. In so doing, the Cify articuiated a variefy of pubiic hea)th and safefy concerns supporking fhe notion it woufd nof permit fhe repiacement, relocation or renovation of billboards. SPLC §66.302. The specific biilboards at issue here are legal, non-conforming uses because they are roof top advertising signs. SPLC § 66.214(h). During the May 30`" storm, these billboards and ' several others were damaged. The City's zoning administrator determined that the biliboard at issue here had not susiained structurai damages. The administrator informed their owner, Eller, that it could repiace the bifiboards' face paneis without obtaining a permit. In reaching this decision, the administrator relied on § 66.405(1) of the City's Legislative Code (the "SPLC"), That provision provides, in part: The foilowing signs shall not require a permit. These exemptions shall not be • construed as relieving the owner of the signs from the responsibility of its erection and maintenance, and its compliance with the provisions of this chapter or any other law or ordinance regulating the same. 1) The changing of the display surface on a painted or printed sign only. However, this exemption shall apply to poster replacement and/or on-site changes involving sign painting elsewhere than directly on a building. ' Plainfiff appealed this determination to the Planning Commission pursuant to SPLC § 66.408(a) and § 66.300{j), The Planning Commission denied the appeai and uphe{d the Zoning Administrator's decision to permit the replacement of the face panels without the necessity of a permit. Planning Commission Resolufion 98-45. The seasons for the P{anning Commission decision were documented. /d. Among those reasons was the Planning Commission's finding 3 The special sign districts involved here wera crea:ed in 1P84 and 1986. SPLC §§ 66.2161 & 60".2763. u -3- �� o c �S � that the City had consistently not required that a permit be obtained in order to repiace the face paneis of billboards. Plaintiffs appealed the Pfanning Commission's decision to fhe Cify Council pursuant to SPLC § 64,20&(a). The record before me consisfs of fhe zoning appeal packet and the transcript of the hearing before the Cify Council. The City Council denied the appeal in a four to three vote on 7 October 1998. Tr. at 55-56. The City Council did not make �vritten findings expiaining the basis for its decision. The Plaintiffs argue that this failure is itself enough to reverse the City ' Council's decision. The City argues that the Council adopted fhe report of its Planning Commission as the explanation for its decision. The transcript reflects that the motion before the City Council was to susfain the appeal. Tr. at 47-48. That was defeafed. Tr. 55-56. There was no motion to adopt the Planning Commission's resolution. B. LA\Y. i. Rule 56. Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings and any other evidentiary submissions show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that fhe moving parfy is entitied to judgment as a matter of law. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988)(citing Celofex Corp. v. Catretf, 477 U.S. 397 (1986)). The facts presented on a motion for summaryjudgment musf be viewed in the lighf most favorable to the non-rrioving party. Id. But, the non-moving party musf provide speci5c facts indicating that fhere is a genuine issue of facf. Hunt v. 1BM MidAmerica Employee's Federation, 384 N.W.2d 853, 855 (Minn. 1986}. 2. Standard for Review. The standard of review is whether the [council's] decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, with review focused on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for fhe reasons given. Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307, 313 {Minn.1988). Absent indication of arbitrary and capricious conduct or manifest injustice, a court can, but does not readily, substitute its judgmenf for that of a city counci!'s. 7he subjective balancing of factors -4- I �� u � • o I -�-5 d � in granting or denying variances, for exampie, is a c{assic area where judicial deference is extended fo the executive branch. See Sagsteffer v_ City of Sf. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488 (Minn.App.1995) G DECISLO\'. 1. Summarv Judament. The parfies agree on the factual record. There are no genuine • issues of materia{ fact. The only questions presented are le�ai. 2. Record on Review. The City Councii issued no findings or conclusions supporting or � setting out the basis for ifs decision in this matter. Accordingly, I have no way of ineasuring the reasonableness of its decision. This is particularly disturbing given the nature of the City Council's delibarations as evidenced in the transcript of the public hearing. At one point, one City Counci{ member went so far as to suggest that the Council had no idea what the issues were. In the face of the lack of a specificafiy articulated basis for the City Council's decision, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment must be granted. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N. W.2d 409, 416 (Minn.1981). This appeal was filed within 30 days of the City Council vote, one presumes in order to avoid the argument that the time for appeal had otherwise expired. The City has not argued that the appeaf was premature but rather only that its pendency precluded the making of the appropriate findings. lt cites no law in supporf of this notion, The idea that the commencement of this appeal inhibited the City Council from making the appropriafe findings is without merit. 3. lnter�retation of Ordinance. Assuming that Planning Commission Reso(ution No. 9&- • 45 fulfilis ihe requirements of Honn, the question becomes whether the City has properly interpreted the ordinances at issue. The sfandard for review is de novo. State ofMin�esota by Minneapofis Park Lovers v. City of Minneapolis, 468 N.W.2d 566, 569 (Minn.App.1991). A zoning ordinance must be given its plain and ordinary meanings, it must be construed in favor of -5- �� bl the property owner, and it must be considered in lighf of its underlying policy. SuperAmerica Group, inc. v. City ofLittle Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Minn.App.1995) (citing Frank's Nursery Sales v. City of Roseville, 395 N.W.2d &04, 608-09 (Minn.1980)). The zoning administrator's interpretation of SPLC §66.405(1) is du6ious af besf. The plain and ordinary meaning of the provision is fhaf fhe replacement, relocation, or renovation of the adverfising matter placed on a biflboard may be done without a permit. 7his is clear from tne reference to "cfianging ffie display surFace on a painted or printed sign"(emphasis added) and � the reference fo "poster replacemenY' and "sign painting". The distinction made by the provision is befween changing the advertising content to be placed on the panels of a billboard and changing or replacing the panels themselves. The first is permitted without a permit. The second constitutes a renovaiion of the billboard and requires a permit. There is no ambiguity in the ordinance requiring that it be read in favor of fhe property owner. Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent Svith the ordinance's �nderlying policy. That policy unmistakenly contempiates the removal of nonconforming billboards in special sign districts over time. A billboard withovt face panels ceases to Function as a biliboard. tt tacks a biUboard's essentia! functionality. !t is nothing more than a colfecfion of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a biliboard ceases to function as a biliboard, fhe policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permif before the bilfboard's funcfionality can be restored. M.M.M. -6- �� t . • • / � Pam Wheelock City Planning & Economic Development 25W 4�` Sffeet Saint Paui, MN 55102 Dear Ms.Wheelock, �i�u1��e�' b o, �� o West 7th/Fort Road Federation 974 West 7th Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 56102 (612)298-6599 RECEIVED APR 61998 ZONING Tf�e West Seventh Federation request that a special sign dish be created for the �Vest Seventh Street Area. The boundaries shouid include all of district 9. The special sign dish would prohibit any additional s atrns, modification af existing signs, or the replacement of any damaged signs advertising signs, except bus stop signs. If you have any questions please contact Betty Moran at 298-5599. Sincerely, • � . Richazd Mi er. � c.c. Roger Ryan Chris Coleman John Hazdwick U _- � ` : • �t( - , �� . . u.. _ .-.. - .. !� :��:�_r. .. �-::_; - : . _ ` ~ -. ;v. � fF ?:r `..r,� ' - � a• `• � � M1 �'. a - � . � . .�. . . Y �•%^}� � �� .- .. `° _ .i ■� � � .z =y��t:•.,.� ' w�i� �r �i` .x�o�Y�t4:' r • —i^ '. " - us3�"�m loyer:. ��<�t:��, '-:�%' '"�-;. - �Y'c�:E'Si�l Presented By ./�'/y1�7717�t� �//2��/� p, o�-a5'c5 Council fiile # � 3 3 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet# /�� Referred To _� � Coznmittee: Date � , ) 2 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, in Council File 97-1568, as amended, �� 3 adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the establishment of new advertising signs and the 4 modification of e�sting advertising signs, pending the City's study of the need to establish 5 special district sign plans pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.216; and 7 9 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 WHEREAS, Couucil File 97-1568 provided tliat applications for special disiriot sign plan applications may be initiated by filing an application with tke director of the Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development; and WHEREAS, Councii File 97-2568 furtherprovided that only duly recognized neighborhood disirict councils may apply for a special district sign plan; and WF�REAS, the following neighborhood district councils: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,10, l I, 12, I3 (Memam Park and Snelling-Haznline azeas only), I S and 17, submitted appIications for special district sign pians pursuant to Council File 97-15�8; and � WHEREAS, Councii File 97-1568 further provided that any objection to the filing of a speciai sign dish application must be written and would require a public hearing. The pubiic hearing would allow the Council to determine whether an application was reasonable, not over inclusive, not discriminatory, and would further assist the planning and legislative process necessatiy for the adoption ot speciai districi sign piazts forincu��sa4:a:. i��tc th� Sai: ::?aul Zoning Code; and 'WHEREAS, in a letter to Councilmember Dan Bostrom dated May 21, 1998, DeLite Outdoor Advertising Inc. (DeLite) specifically objected to the special sign district application from District 4 Community Council and generally objected to all other special sign district applications. Delite requested that the matters be schedaled for public hearings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to DeLite's request, the Council of the City of Saint Paut duty scheduled a public hearing for July 8, 1998 with notice ta affected parties; and 33 WHEREAS, on July 8. 2998, a public heazing on special sign district application as 34 provided pursuant to Council Pile 97-1568 was duiy conducted by the City CounciI where all 35 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 36 37 38 �i i � �� ( �}-�� 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 � 7 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 • WEiEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made and having cansidered the applications, the report of staff and the testimony produced during the public hearing, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: That all the special district sign plan appiications aze reasonable. Although each application is geographically broad in that it encompasses the area of the enrire district council boundary (except for the District 15 applicarion that includes only the boundaries of the Shepard -Davem Forty Acre Study Area which is presently undenvay) the applications aze nevertheless narrow in scope in that they address only advertising signs which aze those signs located off premises as opposed to business signs which are on premise signs. 2. The prohibitions against the construction of new advertising signs or the modification of existing advertising signs aze also reasonable in that the special district sign plans aze designed to prevent consttuction of advertising signs under today's regulations which might not tie allowed if advertising sign regulations are amended. 3. The prohibitions of these special district sign plan moratoriums aze consistent. The council finds that the prohibitions apply only to prohibit the construction of new advertising signs or the modification of exiting advertising signs. It is implicit that these prohibitions exclude bus shelter and bus bench advertising devices as well public skyway advertising devices allowed under franchise agreements pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Appendices I and J; and 4. Implementation of these special distract sign plan moratoriums wili further assist the planning and legislative process. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the interim regulations in effect by virtue of this resolution and as required under Council File 97-1568 shall be deemed to expire at such time as either new regulations aze enacted by the council, or on December 31, 1949, whichever may come fust; and Z� Page 2 of 3 � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9� - �}�3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the above-stated zeasons, the specific and pL � general objections to the said applications by DeLite aze not supported; and BE IT FINALLX RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be delivered to the Saint • Paul Planning Commission, the Legislative Advisory Committee reviewing current advertising sign regvlations, the Zoning Admicristrator and DeLite Outdoor Advertising, Inc. � � i�'� Adop[ed by Certified BY= � / V Approved by ty yor: Date Requested by Department of: By: Form Approv by City Attorney By , ��✓�✓�vrc—� P/�7`�� Approved by Mayor for SuLmission to Council BY: By: n � ��.J�� <�� -tr-.�. Y • S �,ti�.,��L �� 0 � -3�� ATTACHNIENTS A. Appeai form and explanatory brief by Marvin Liszt !�, '`\ 1/ B. Planning Commission Resolution and Planning Commission�minutes for 1/26/Ol � t�7 �� C. Zoning Comtnittee minutes for 1/4101 (pubtic hearing and letters of testimony) and 1J18/Ol (recommendation) �.� `� D. Staff Report of 7l25l98 with many attachments sent to the Zoning Committee including e�ctensive documentation by Eller of their estimated repair costs �.- }� f.2-, }�. � � � t/ ` � �� E. Location and zoning maps ��J�} �- _ � \_ J • K:�Shazed�Ped�SODERFIOL�ZONING\O1-180.504CCL1R.wpd ` (' o � -�s� ` ��.�I�Cl� ! _a� l -� _" `. `"�� a o .� � : Iu � � \ ,� ��` �� '� � C O � O O O'O.O�O'O O�O � O p� .j I O O�O O'O � O C O -p- 6 � �c+� �. . . . a :�,U:O�O O� a a, i,_00 •�.�� 000� 'tS�p'O.¢ O Q ` 'S� �1f • . p � : — � — y 1 ♦ �+ �`� � � 1 0�� .�J . ' t � '� . �•�1 .7 � ¢ � l��Ji O j . Q . C+ O G• . � I i i �: G? P � � F-32 z?- , ' [� � . "� I . � • " � . O � p\� t . ; .: � • .` � . 000 0,0'OSO00�0,0_ �.�LQ-0 p �p � 9► `� ` . - _� ° Q : ; � • - � . � �': ; ; . — 1 �.. -• � cio� 1 i --� v �R'1 00 0�000�00 O Q '� � O�O � ¢ �¢ O� i0:0'�.J�.'� O D--� tr, . O ' • ' ' p� ' . . _ _ '_`_' - � -- O tTl • ; � � ; , , ; ..: . : . — Q . i . r . p _ . , ' `�"�.__ -� : ti cn .00OU00�?�� ' �r� � °,C`�'nt�i �Q: ��+ � r 'o j0� �'��I v . � , �.�nS{*o :4� �'Q Q t � p �' 4 � 1 i.: ze 3 1� 1� t�� v ��' � � i � . ' : �/ ~ ~ . � � ; ; ° : ; : : ; , t� ''• " : ; � 1 i f { j � � ' � , � � 4,000yo� �� i: fi' ' � , �"',�� i ��av „ p �c i ¢ � '' r vOC'.�C��'J��7 � (; "J�i� • �i /� �^D ' 'J! � `� ' ' '?J' `� �IIO��O�O�C1 f � 7; i: w7 O � U� Y{Yl � �� . __._ + � � `, 1 I � a � : v T : ; � I I E � ; .'9 �� ' � i�� l, , .' I ! . s - ��.¢��U.•�0.� .3� Qfl .ti Ip i i j f f i a .� � �o� y �� a o �°�i � f 4 . :e - - � o M�� •�, •�:�b• o l�.� ta ii� ,. r \o F��.� Na. 2. ,. : o � > �� ' � • _� � o� �'., o o , � ' � .. . . . . . � �. o , � � j�I�'�' �'1'� �� . ' �, b �o �a,a.v�i3�^?Lo.o, � � P � BAYaRO ' �. - � °. � � �./�� i�� i�i' � S- :-�i.��. `�` /'�� -- ---•-�—} �PLICANT �I j�R. � G�� nwP�rt� LEGENO 1 OSE �'��1�-" �� zoning district boundary - V� �� DATE � subj=d properiy n� onh'� NG. DIST�__ MAP ��/ V�� o one tzmily •�^ ccmrr.>.:;�;'. � �=� � n �,.i�„� � hvofamily 1 r., ir,dus!:ia! � �� 1, Q multipW_ (amity V vzczr.; f � e�°�:::.-.. � , � ��2tOSt��O��O�0i0 t3�� a� oto 9 a� , ;o!o�o�o o�o�oio ��fl ��TF � ► : ii ( -- ,P _ 9�� q �E s � � . . , : f�% j d OO�L3:3; � ': : ' '�s_�' � � � . '� i� ° e , ; o�', i, �' > > 1 p �O�;t)dfl'• .L� ;L) � .fil+!1:•i � r�;oio?o o�o o} o o�o�o�o�o�o � " � + ! � z � � i , . . • � � � � � ' ; ' � O JI ; 1 � � i I t � � 1 ' �� PKWY � ♦ ' l'�- � � � [� � � �t- , � .. i'� ' 0 � . � � r7' � �� Q� . 1� , �' •� •� � � ..� �� _ .� F a. �: �lKt � j: . . . . , �!1 �,.� ___�- O � o � « t6 I6O .d� O 2B � � r 2�8 V O16 i4 O � �� _ �- - otas�� _ `---_ o i �_ � � o '' 0 6 - � ��O�O O.O � O O� O'ic , , �) ' � �, .� a � ,oO O�o;o O jO�p'�O ,�� NOTE �� , � I . . o �: � � ,! �.r �� . � P � � • . �� I 4 .` w � r�HILLCREST f � f �w 1 --Ba��.arvD t \ � �� \ � �� 4PPLiCAM � �� '�"•-'�� LEGEND � 'URPOSE �� zoning Bistrict boundary =1LE � �` �� 6 `�g DATE � subjzd property ?LNG. DIS7�� MAP # � � o one family ��,,� � c.vo family "�� G�-"-�: .:.�.� j�, muttipte family � -.. � Q ��_ - '-\ .: . , ,. . -....: r�,orth�• • • ^ comrr.>_cci;! � ,..., indus::ial V vaczr., � v �... . . ... , _ .. !-, `�_ � � � �'. : �.� � i � (;. i ;tr�� ( 7. f-' '•i �l�� w ��_�a Z � �:; �: Y �: : �j, f- ' �.. /: f": ' 'I � di-�S� � i � DISTRICT 9 � °°° . • �� o�- ZO�� F�L� — � t�� y ��ti -- v �-�s�� , ! Z��'��,� �-��.� � ! - /�� o/ . • �� : � HIGHLAN� DIS7RICT 15 O .., _ ,a. �� -a sa �TIZEN PARTICIPATIO DIS RICTS � � . • 1.SUPJRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGH' 2.GREATER EAST SIDE 3.WEST SIDE 4.DAYTON'S BLUFF 5.PAYNE-PNALEN 6.NORTH END 7.THOMAS-DALE SUMMIT-UNIVERSITY ES7 SEVENTH .COMO 11.HAMLINE-MID4IAY 12.ST. ANTHONY 13.htERRIR�M PK.-LEXINGTON HAMLIP�E I�.GROVELA4D-MACALESTER (TS�H I GNLA!(D T.SUt1t1IT HILL 17. DO'rtPlTO'.1�1 y �" �a• t�� -6� � - 50� D� �� Ss� CITIZEP� PARTICIPATION PLAN�YING DIS7RICTS _ _ �_ _ _ _ __ _. Nancy_Anderson-01-180-504mar7-01cchn�wQd _ _ .. . _, _ ._,. . __ __ _ _. Page 1 STPAiII.QTYCOTJNCII, clrroesnu+rewtn, DcpcafPl�agmd Ecwo�cDCVdopmmt Phavr. (fi51J 266di89 Fax: (65t)22&32IA PnbGc aearing xo8ce FII.E # O1d8a504 PURPOSE: Appeal of Planning Commission°s decision to deny buildiug permi7s for t6e repair of seven bil@oard faces da in a storm in 1998. PROPERIY ADDRES5=1184 W. 7 SL,1209 W. 7" St, and 20142015 Ford Pazkway. APPLICnNT: Eller Media Compauy HEARINGDATE: Wednesdav azch7 2U01 at530 .m. All public heazings are held in City Council Chambe�s, 3 f7oor City Hall - Cmvt House, 15 �'. Kellogg Boulevard You may send written comments m the Zoning OfLce at die add*ess listed on iherevene side oftivs cud Please call Latcy Sodefidm , PED, az (651)26b66554, or your District Cwmcil Representative W.7 Fedeation at (651) 298-5599 or Highland Area Community Council at (651) 695-4005 at ( ifyou have auy questions. w:ua:zavao STPAULCITYCOUNCII. CITYOPSAWTPAUL Oepc ofPlamwg md EconomicDCVdopmev[ P6on¢(651)266d569 Paz (651)2283220 Public Hearing Notice FII,E # Ol-1S0.504 PURPOSE: Appeal of Planning Commissian's decisiou to deny buiiding permits For tLe reptir of seven biliboard faces damaged'm•a storm m 1998. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1184 W. 7'" St.,1209 W. 7t St.� and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway. ° APPLICANT: Elfer Media Company , � HEARING DATE: Wednesdav March 7.2001, at 5:30 o.m. - All public heazings aze held in Ciry Council Chambers, 3'� Floor Ciry Hall - Court House, 15 W. Kellogg Boulevazd. You may se¢d wtitten comments to the Zoning Office at ffie address listed on the reverse side of tttis cazd. Please calt Lazry Sodarholm , PED, at (651)266-66554, or your Disaict Comcil Representative W. 7'" Federndon at (651) 298-5599 or Higiiland Area�Communiry Council at (651) 695-4005 at ( ifyou have any ques[ions. Ma1IM :22N00 �a: K.,.,. ear1� ��`��.'-'.if'�, . ... �.. �,G p g��$ � � � i�ci i3`Y �v� � 6.�J f CouncII File #(;�— 0`1 S C'� � Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 2 Whereas, Eller Media Company [Eller] submitted applications to the City's Office of 3 License, Inspections and Environmental Protection for building permits to repair seven storm 4 damaged advertising signs on three sepazate shuctures: the first site is located on the rooftop of 5 Bill's TV, 1184 West Seventh Street; the second site is on the rooftop of Checkers Auto Parts, 6 1209 West Seventh Street; and the third site is located at the east end of the rooftop of the 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Highland Village Shopping Center, 2014-2018 Ford Parkway; and Whereas, by letter dated October 17, 2000 the city's Zoning Manager denied Eller's applications; and Whereas, pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.408(a), Eller duly filed an appeal of the Zoning Manager s decisions to the Saint Paul Planning Commission [Connmission]; and VJhereas, the Coxnmission's Zoning Committee conducted a public hearing on January 4, 2001 where all interested persons were given an opporiunity to be heazd and, at the close of the heazing, moved to lay the matter over to January 18, 2001 in order to obtain additional information about the damage to the signs on the Checkers Autopart site, information on the Highland Village signs and information from Eller on its clean up activities; and Whereas, the Zoning Committee reconvened on January 18, 2001 to consider Eller's application with the aid of the information requested and thereafter moved to recommend that Eller's appeal be denied; and Whereas, the Zoning Committee's recommendation was presented to the Commission on January 26, 2001 and the Commission decided to deny Eller's appeal based on the foilowing findings and conclusions as set forth in its Resolution O1-08, adopted January 26, 2001: "1. A major windstorm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to homes and trees and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, City inspectors from LIEP checked the sites of damaged billboards owned by Eller together with Chris McCarver of Eller. Although the public hearing produced some controversy about how much emergency repair work Eller did without building permits vsunediately following the storm, there is little disagreement between Eller and the City about the extent of the damage to the signs. Eaght sign faces are involved in this appeal: six of the sign faces were completely blown away; one sign face has a small section remaining; one sign face is intact, but slightly bent. The roof-top bed frames or angle-iron upper O�-a.5o 2 � 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 shuctures for all eight sign faces received some damage, though only one was damaged so severely that the vertical structure was disassembled and removed. 2. The billboard structure on top of 1184 W. Seventh ("the Bill's TV boazd") was a V-shaped structure with rivo 300-square-foot sign faces before the storm. In the storm both faces blew off and the upper structure for the west-facing boazd was bent and subsequently removed. Now the bed framiug and the angle-iron upper structure for the east-facing boazd aze all that remain. Aithough the west- facing board has neither a sign face nor an upper structure, Eller applied to rebuild it as well as replacing the east-facing si� face (that is, the interlocking metal "poster panels" upon which outdoor advertising messages can be glued or tied.) 3. The billboard structure on top of 1209 W. Seventh ("the Checker Auto Parts board") is a V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foot sign faces that face toward the east and one 300-squaze-foot sign face that faces toward the west. This west-facing structure still has iYs poster panels, but the angle-iron frame is somewhat bent. The sign face is illuminated at night even though there is no advertising message. One of the east-facing signs has a remnant-about one-fourth of iYs poster panels; the other has no poster panels. The angle-iron upper shuctures remain. 4. The two W. Seventh locations are nearly across the street from one another. They are zoned B-2 and are on a mixed use arterial street with businesses and housing on both sides of W. Seventh. Most of the housing on W. Seventh consists of small apartment buildings. The abutting properties on the neighborhood streets are predominantly single family, with a scattering of duplexes. 5. The billboard structure on top of 2014-2018 Ford Parkway ("the Highland Village boazd") is V-shaped with one 300-square-foot sign face that faces toward the east and two 300-foot sign faces that face towazd the west. No poster panels remain. The angle-iron upper structures remain. In addition to the billboard structure that is the topic of this zoning case, which is toward the east end of the block, there are two other biliboazd structures on top of the Highland Village Shopping Center. On the west end is a 672-square-foot billboard and in the center is a wide-angle V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foot boazds. 6. The Ford Pazkway billboard stnxcture is on the rooftop of the block-long Highland Village strip commercial building, which is also zoned B-2 and houses several restaurants and retail businesses. The Highland Village Shopping Center is part of a large neighborhood shopping district. The surrounding land uses are predominantly commercial with a church and parochial school on the next block to the south and a public playground on the block to the east. 45 46 7. At the time of the building permit application, all of the billboards in question 47 were legal nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Bill's TV board 48 was too high (over 37.5 feet). The Checker Auto Parts boards were too big (more 49 Page 2 of 5 i d�_asa 2 than 400 sq. ft. on the east-facing side). Both were in a temporary special sign 3 district for the West Seventh neighborhood where a moratorium prohibited new 4 billboazds or modification of existing ones until it expired on January 8, 2001. 5 The Highland Village boards were also too big (more than 400 square feet on the 6 west-facing side) and too close to the other billboards atop the shopping center 7 (less that 660 feet); moreover, they were located in the Highland Village Special 8 Sign district, where billboazds have been a prohibited use since 1985. In 9 November 2000 the City adopted a new ozdinance prohibiting new billboazds 10 anywhere in the city, which made all e�cisting billboards throughout the city into 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 nonconfomiing uses. 8. On June 22, 2000, two years after the storm, the City received building pernut applications from Eller Media Co. to repair the damaged billboards. The City's Zoning Manager asked for and received Eller's cost esrimates for repairing the signs. On August 18, the Zoning Manager wrote to Eller to extend the timeline for action on the applicarion an addirional 60 days and to ask them to meet with the City's struchual engineer to verify costs and to make sure the proposed work would be acceptable. As a result of the meeting, Eller submitted additional documentation. 9. Eller's cost information was prepared in detail and showed that, although the sign faces were blown away, the cost of repairs would be sigrvficantly less than the cost of building new billboards of the same type. For the different signs their repair cost estimates ran from 14 percent to 22 percent of the cost to construct a new identical billboard. These costs included material, labor, and equipment needed for construction. 10. During the two yeaz period in question, the City was actively developing a new policy and a new ordinance to regulate billboards. Through the wark of a Legislative Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and a ballot referendum, the City Council was moving toward a consensus that the city's 600- plus billboazd faces were too many and that reasonable measures should be taken to begin to reduce the number over a period of yeazs. By mid-November of 2000 the Council adopted an ordinance to prohibit any new billboards in the city. 11. On October 17, 2000, the Zoning Manager sent a letter to Eller Media Co. denying the building permits. Section 66.301(2) of the Saint Paul Zoning Code says: "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any extent of more than fifly-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." The terms "sign" and "sign structure" are separately defined in the code and have sepazate meanings; the conjunction "or" is explained in the code to mean that the items may apply singly or in combination. The Zoning Manager concluded that for billboards the sign face is the same as the sign itself. She reasoned that this language creates a two-hurdle test, that if either the sign or the sign structure is damaged beyond 51 percent, then any repairs must conform to all of chapter 66 and, in particular, to section 66.302. The information Eller supplied about the Page 3 of 2 sign faces (that is, the signs) indicated that seven of the eight faces were 100 a\-aS O 3 percent destroyed. 4 5 12. The City staff's interpretation of this two-hurdle test draws from a 1999 6 ruling by the Rauisey County District Court in a previous case about some other 7 billboards damaged in the same storm. The judge wrote in his opinion: 9 "The distinction made by the [zoning] provision is between changing the 10 advertising content to be placed on the panels of a biilboazd and changing or 11 replacing the panels themseives. The first is pemutted without a pernut. The 12 second constitutes a renovation of the billboard and requires a permit." 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 "Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent with the ordinance's underlying policy. That policy umnistakenly contemplates the removal of nonconforming biilboards in special sign districts [Grand Avenue and Highland Village] over time. A billboazd without face panels ceases to function as a billboard. It lacks a billboazd's essential functionality. It is nothing more than a collection of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a billboard ceases to function as a billboard, the policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permit before the billboard's functionality can be restored." 13. On November 15, 2000, the City received the subject appeal by Eller Media Co. arguing that the only relevant question for issuing a permit should be whether each billboard, taken as a whole with both its sign face and sign structure, was damaged beyond 51 percent of its replacement cost. This is the test for nonconforming signs found in Section 66.301(2) of the Zoning Code. Eller azgued that the City Council, subsequent to the district court ruling cited above, determined that Sectaon 66.301(2) was the applicable provision. Eller claimed, fiu•thermore, that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Section 66301(2) as setting up rivo hurdles was a violation of commonly recognized rights held by nonconforming land uses_ 14. After consultation with the Assistant City Attorney at the Zoning Committee's meetings, the Planning Commission agreed with Eller's claim that the 51 percent damage test is the relevant and primary section, but then disagreed with Eller's claim that the terms "si� or sign shucture" must be read as a single unit referring to a billboard face and iYs supporting shucture together. The Zoning Administrator's interpretation was reasonable: if either the billboard face ar the billboazd structure is damaged greater the 51 percent, the pernut application must meet additional requirements of the code, and specifically, Section 66302. Eller chose not to address not these other provisions. Moreover, the Zoning Adniinistrator's interpretation of the code was consonant with City policy on billboards and with the discussion in the district court ruling." Page 4 of 5 1 Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paul Legislative Code § 64300(k), Eller O�-2-5� 2 duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Coxnmission and requesting a hearing 3 before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said Commission; 4 and 6 Whereas, Acting pursuant to Saint Paul Legislauve Code §§ 64.206 - 64208a public 7 hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on Wednesday, Mazch 7, 2001 where all 8 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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 Conunittee and of the Commission, does hereby Resolve, to affum the decision of the Commission in this matter having found no error in the Commission's facts, findings or procedures and to adopt the findings and conclusions of Commission as contained in Commission resolution O1-08, dated 7anuary 26, 2001; and be it Further Resolved, that the Eller's appeal is hereby denied; and, be it Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Eller, the zoning manager and the Commission. Requested by Department of: sy: Form Approved by City Attorney 8,.: -�.�.� �✓G�w�,..�- 3-� y-o t Apprwed by Mayor £or Submission to Council By: By: by Mayor: Date ` \ ` oNy� S 4 . ` Adopted by Council: Date �\� 3pfy � Adoption Cextified by Council Secretary BY� �� - . T��r-�-� �s � � � � �� 6L� � �� ,� � I � D�ARTM6V�lOFPICFJCOUNCIL � � � � DnrEU��MrEO, '�. ' � , , , , , T D, ,�, .��Y�.e��i � _ � � ,z��a �4 zow� G�2EE1�'�HEE �T 'Ndr 1 � O� $ � .. �. �. � 0 ' COMACTP62SON,8�PHONE r mrmr�-a�e R.�k�u�-w'. �� i,�'an,�4�p�+i �,., �� W eA�s'�� rFl ,dq� wi rs:i_i�JiJOiii�a.�smo� '�; �ii , , , , � „ i.�„ 4 , ��Conncilmewlier, Cble�m2n� 2'66�=8620ti � " oaM,�rowccraR� �� 'crcccucz, ,' ' ' " �� MUSlBEON�COUNCILAGENDA�BVN?tA . � ; .r ,� ��, � ,. , , � i � ' � ' � �March�`14,��200i�(Suspeneion} � � � �� .' r �' , �� ' �rnv.,,oaEV i ,�,ucruaa� � � , , , , � � , � , , , , � ' , � � ROUIING , ' � ' � � � ' ' � ' , , , , ��' '�NeIICILLSErtVICFSOYt ��N/Y1C1111.�W�LGf6 N 1C • ' � � r�`mltl4rtASMiMrt1 � �� ' � � � , , � � TOTAf � # OF S1GIrYATURE PAGES' �� '' � � (GLJP ArL LOCA�ONS FQF� SIGNATUREy�, � � , �oa a�uFSrm � MemoxiaTiz3ng City,Council,action taken,on March 7, Z001, denying the','appeal o� $ller. Media C'ompan� fxom 'a ,decision of tfie Planning Co�ission �pholding,'the Zon3ng Administratox` ' � decisiou�to��'de�y tfie 6uilding p'ermits,fo��,repair �o� s,torm damaged�a3vertis"ixcg'�signe.�,,' �� „ � „ " � � � 1� J' , � RECAMMENDATIONApProve',CA or ,ejectfR) „ . , [usoxa�sertvteECOx[awe,�sKUSi�wgw,tten�wiYUw�neQU¢aqxs: , � '� � ��.��kiasL,�P�tmarec'rqdaed�maeracanqactr°rm�ga�rnren�� ''� � u �� . '� PLANNINGCAMMISSION �. � ' � � `!�S `��,' t�o `' '� , � �.� ` , O i - ' 'Cl8COk4A1fTTEE� ' ' � � � � ��F1estMCpn�idfirme�ertieenaaly� �. , ' ��'�GMLS � ECAM ' ER'�IC M�53lON , � ' ' vES ".,, No � '� : '; ' � �' . � �� " � � 3:�DOestlnapei,sdJRmP�asfdlnotndmal�YO��M'�YarteMa2YemWuYee?,� � ' YES, ," NO , ' . , , , � � � . � ' , , . �. 4 �Islltispered4frma , . � . ' � � r' k , � , � � �� , � � 'YES , � NO ` +,' � � � ' � i � � � . � � � � F�IamaYYe&�al5xefsoies�arahesheetaal �attachto9re�n�slicet � � � , i BLEMISSUE.OPP012TUNittI�^��.�f.When.Whe�e:'WhY1 " , �� ' ' �� ;, � � „� � .. � NITUQING PRO . , , _ , ' ' � � � ' � ' , � � , � , ' , � �� . � .. „� � „ � , ^ �, , � �, „�,, �, ,, ,,, .,,�,�,� - , , , ' -�', � � , � � , . , � , , , � � � , , � i �ri„ „ � ' , i ' ' , ' ' ' ' ' i � � � , � � , . , , � , ' , ' ,. ' , ' �� ADVHNTAGES IFAPPROI�� , ' , � �' , , - � , ., � � i , „ . , „ '�""" , �."'�.y"`i'� S ""— �. ..�'::b�.'�:'�,,,,,.,.•°'�' ' , , �....w�...�. � , � � � . ""�-, ". �• �,�;, � ; � , � , �, ,� W... � ,u � , � „, . _a. ,,:, .', , ' � � � ' :, .r;., ,.�°'�� "'�. . .Sx'�""'�'i�x",y" ��-.�...! . �`'„�- , . . ., , ... . � �� ' � , , , <�r �,,�� i I,..��, i �.' , , i �, , �,' � � , ' v :,.�� , � : . � �,; , ,,.. �„ , ., _ ,�t .�.. � � � � I ..J � � �� ,�� . ,� ,..i � �, . , � , � � � � , � , ' DtSA�VAfItAGE I�APPROVED � r � ' i � � � � � , , ' _ � , ,. � � . , . ' � �. ' � , i � , , , , � � , � � � � � . �� ' � � � � i �, � � . , „ , � .'� , ' ,�,,' ' ,. � s � OIS4�YANTNGE9,IFNO7APPRpVEO , � � , � � „ . , , � ' , . , , � � � „ � , . � �, � B�'tlN�ry{LI�I�IT� 1�7",''6d"�I,ix i W�: '{d '' �w u, ' r ,�, ' . , ,� q Y rM ,_'W ..q'tls�YP . ,. . . . �,' � , � , I � I,kl N�`�t'pdC'Y�,IN'M�2'NYMI� V^'�'s+�ntirnd i�u�I�m�maHan�,'urmmne�rl� w�ciini�w«.�w� rr �u i,u. a��,a,� . �� , �, , , .. ..vmnwwNp p,'rl�eiuNNiM'iWYeIY�MI�'I(�IAM'�iINP19E151PY�Nl�p1�9$�I�I��'�'Im��^�fp��fN'�ilvb°�or � � ALAMO[INrOFTRANSACTIONS � , . '� �COSTRtEVFNGE81106ETID(�dRf�ONE) ' ' � " '' " .Nd, , � � , , � , . I ! r � ' , '. „ '�" ,' �� , , � � � , f �„ d . WNDItl650URC� , . � � � ,ACTNITYNIiI�'�R � r� � � . FlNNJCWLWFORMnTON(oWWN) � � . � �' :��„ ti I Il�ly �y �fy„I,'�, I t ItI I [17�d,' IGlttk^ m� 'yT1{ I',4 I�p'1` I'b711 , Y'a::�b I-�I I4,nT 1'. � Y i� �� '', � � �� ' ' '0 .S.'�J�I�Wta.�rVd"M.�"dv�RYl'�Y}�Ir�+�'�i�Gfl4'C7MM1�IqtlI�f�Mlltl�l'JItl81i'el@,�Io-ILiLTY.61'E54�%�'.IDroCIY��1,IalGId9�I�l,dIl�ulk�IC�w"�"Y.fiIL)�'14%Y�F .Id„ihV'+k,�,� ' , ' � , . , � , , , � , � , � � ; � � , ... � � , � , , . , , , � � . � , � ' ' , � � , � � � �' � ' ' � � � � . I . ,, � � ', � � i. � � . . �, . .�, ... . � �,,, , � i ... �, i . ��{�'i� � .: i i ._ I,.. a � �.� . _. � �-asL� Interdepartmental Memorandum CITY OF SAINT PAUL DATE: Mazch 14, 2001 TO: Council Member Coleman FROM: Peter Warner, CAO RE: Resolution memorializing decision of the City Council to deny the appeal by Eller Outdoor Advertising, Inc. from a decision of the Planning Commission upholdiag the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny Eller's building permit request to repair storm damaged advertising signs. City Council Public Hearing Date: March 7, 2001 Attached is the resolution memorialiZing the Councii's decision in the Eller Media appeal matter. At its March 7, 2001 session, the Councii moved to deny Eller's appeal as it could fmd no error in the Plamiiug Commission's review of the matter. The Council also moved to adopt as its own the Planning Commission's resolution and the findings and conclusions contained therein. Please introduce this resolution under suspension today if at all possible. Thanks. PW W 1��► 3-1`c-a � DEPARTMENT OF PLANI�'ING & ECOI�*OMIC DEVEL(IPMENT Brtan Sweemey, Director �l—aso � C:TTY OF SAII�IT PAUL Norm Co1eman, Mayor Febrnary 26, 2001 ' Ms. Nancy Anderson Ciry Council Reseazch Office 310 Ciry Ha11 Saint Paul, MN 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: 23 WestFourth Sb'eet Sa�ni Pau1, MN 55102 Telephone: 612-266-6565 Facsimile: 612-228-3314 T would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday, Mazchx2001, on the follocving zoning case: 7 Appellant: Eller Media Company Zoning File: 01-180-504 Purpose: Appeal of Plamiiiig Commission decision regazding storm-damaged billboards. (Planning Commission upheld action of LIEP to deny building permits for repair of seven bIllboazd faces on West Seventh Street and in the Highland Special Sign Aistrict where the sign face panels were blown down. Plamiiug Comnussion approved repair of one billboazd where the sign £ace was bent but not blown down.) Locations: 1184 W. Seventh Street (two sign faces); 1209 W. Seventla Street (three faces, one permitted to be repaired); 2014-2018 Ford Parkway (three faces). My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda of the City Council on Mazch 7, 2001. Please call me at 266-6575 if you have any questions. Sincerely, I�w 1 ` Larry So rholm Planning Adiiiinishator cc: Councilmember Coleman Councilmember ITarris Maivin Liszt, Atty. for Eller Media Co. Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota K:\Shaced�PedVSODERHOUZONINGWl-180-504-EJ1erMediz.HI2G.wpd DEPART�IE�+T OF PLA.V�°I�G & ECO\OJIIC DEVELOP\I8�7 BrianSweeney, Director CITY OF SAII�TT PAUL Norm Coleman, Mayor r.�rr February 28, 2001 Ms. Nancy Anderson � Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paui, MN 55102 RE: Zoning File # 01-180-504: City Council Hearing: 25 WutFourtH Street Saint Pau{ MN55102 C7\'c� Telephonc 651-1666655 Facsimile: 651-12&337 S ELLER MEDIA COMPANY March 7, 2001 at 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeal of a Pianning Commission decision that upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny building permits for the repair of three roof-top billboard structures with seven sign faces. The Planning Commission pernutted repair of an eighth bi(iboard face, which was only bent in the wind, not blown to the ground. LOCATIONS: The billboards in question are at: 1184 W. Seventh Street (2 sign faces on top of Bill's TV) 1209 W. Seventh Street (3 faces, including the one that can be repaired, on top of Checker Auto Parts) and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway (3 faces near the east end of the Highland Villa�e Shopping Center.) ZOI�iING ADMII3ISTRATOR' S ACTION: Deny building permits for repair/renovation of the storm-damaged billboards PLANNING CONIMISSION ACTION: Deny appeal by Eller Media Company on a unanimous voice vote with 1 abstention ZONIIVG CONIMITTEE RECO1bIIVIENDATION: Deny appeal, 4-0 (with 2 abstentions by new members appointed to the committee after the public hearing was held) PED STAF�' RECONID�NDATION Deny appeal, uphold Zoning Administrator in LIEP SUPPORT FOR APPEAL BY ELLER MEAIA CO.: No one spoke except Eller representatives OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY ELLER MEDIA CO.: Two people spoke, representing Highland Area Community Council and Scenic MN. Two people sent letters representing the West Seventh Federation and Exeter Realty Co. • or-as� Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Secretary Febnzary 28, 2001 Page 2 Deaz Ms. Anderson: ELLER MEDIA COMPANY has appealed a decision by the Saint Paul Planning Commission that upheld a previous decision by the Zoning Administrator to deny building permits requested by Eller to repair seven billboards. The seven sign faces aze located on three different rooSops located on W. Seventh Street and at Hightand ViIlage. The seven billboard faces btew to the ground during the storm on May 30, 1998--the storm that wiped out lots of trees in the Hightand and W. Seventh neighborhoods. The sign structures supporting the biliboards were also damaged. (Eller's appeai to the Plam�ing Commission involved eight billboard faces; the Planning Commission granted approval for the repair of one sign, on which the sign face panels were bent but were not blown down.) � The Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter on January 4, 2001. Marvin Liszt, attomey for Eller Media Co., presented azguments supporting the appeal. Representatives of the Highland Area Community Council and Scenic Minnesota spoke in support of the Zoning Administrator's action. Letters supporting the Zoning Administrator's � action were received from the W. Seventh Federation and Exeter Reaity Co., which manages the newer commercial properties at the southwest coruer of Ford Pazkway and Cleveland Avenue. On January 18, 2001, the Zoning Committee voted 4-0 to deny the appeal. (Two new committee members, who were not present for the public hearing two weeks eazlier, abstained.) On January 26, 2001, the Ptanning Commission accepted the Zoning Committee's recommendation and denied Eller's appeal on a unanimous voice vote with one abstention. The Zoning Administrator's decision is based on the Zoning Code language that if a nonconforming sign or sign structure is clamaged more i ��in �_� °-^.^.� rPrcent, it cannot be repaired or replaced without meeting a11 of the code requirements. The Zoning Administrator concluded that, as applied to a billboard, the sign is the sign face and the sign structure is the footings and framing. The sign faces were totally destroyed. Therefore, the billboard faces cannot be replaced without meeting alI of the conditions of the code. The Planning Administrator indicated that Elier could either appeal the interpretation to the Planning Commission or subrrut material to show how they could meet all of the condirions ofthe code (before last Navember, when billboards were prohibited citywide). Eller Media Company contends that separating the sign and sign structure is a novel and illegal "componentization" of a nonconfornung use. They maintain that a billboard sign is one structural and economic unit. They submitted detailed repair costs demonstrating that none of the damaged signs--taken as a whole unit--was damaged anywhere close to fifty-one percent its replacement • cost. o� -d-Sa � Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Secretary Februazy 28, 2001 Page 3 The Planning Commission's resolution lays out the essentiai facts in the case and gives the Commission's reasons for deciding that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the code is reasonable. The Commission found that the "two-hurdle test" for damage to the sign or sign structure is a straight-fonvard reading of the code and is consistent with the opinion written by the Ramsey County Court in a previous case about billboards damaged in the same storm. Nonconforming billboards are different from nonconforming business signs in that billboards typically last much longer. When the business in a building changes, new signs are put up--even if the sign structure can be reused--and the new signs must meet current regulations. But if there's a billboard on the roof, the message can change every month, while the structure and the sign face endure for decades and decades. As with business signs, it is reasonable to treat the sign and the sign strzictzrre separately. These aze components that have distinct definitions in the code and practical applications for many types of signs. The City has not carried "componentization" to some irrational degree that discriminates against billboards. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on Mazch 7, 2001. Please call me (266- � 6575) if you have questions and please notify me if any member of the Caty Council wishes to have slides of the sites presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, Larry derholm Planning Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members Susan Kimberly, Deputy Mayor Chris McCarver, Eller Media Co. Marvin Liszt, Atty. for Eller Media Co. Peter Wamer, Asst. City Attorney Wendy Lane, LIEP Tom Riddering, LIEP Betty Moran, W. Seventh Federation Gayle Summers, HACC • Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota e -�� s��xT . . � ��VL '�j Department oJPlanning and Economic Develnpment � �r� Zoxing Section II DO Cit}• Hall Annex 15 l�"esi Fourth Slreet � Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION • Name Eller r:edia Coaozn� � AddresS_3225 S?r_rQ Street NE City_ Ninneavolis StIL�i Zip 55413 Daytime � � l�V Zoning File Name o0-150-648 AddresslLoCation 1184 k� 7th : 1209 W. 7ch: 2014-2018 Ford Perkwzv TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: Q Board of Zoning Appeais C�J C+ty Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 64 . 20 Eparagraph (a) of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Planr.in� commissior. on January 26 ,;�ooi File number; oi-o8 (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusaf mada by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. See Attached. �? � l.. 33�� .� � -! � Attach additiona! sheet if ApplicanYs � Date ',� /7 City agent � �, �r 6� 0 ar-�!� �5 SAVL q. BERN�CK� MARVIN A. L�SZT SGOTT A LIFSON DAVID K. NIGMTINGALE� PAUL J. OUAST JESSICA l. ROE BERNICK AND LIFSON A PNOFESS�ONAL ASSOQATION ATTORNEVS AT LAW SUITE �200, THE COIONNADE 5500 W/�YZATA 00ULEVARD MINNEAPOLIS� MINNESOTA 554I6-�Z7 TELEPHONE (>63) 646-�200 FACS�MILE (7631 546-1003 OFGOUNSEL NEAL J. SNAPIRO LEG/�L ASSISTANTS KATHRYN G.MASTERMAN NANCY v WNAVLEN TRESA K. SAUER • �P150 AOMIYlEO IN WISCONSIN 'I�150 CERTIFIED PYBC/C ACCOUNTANT �REqL PROGERTT 4W SPECIALIST C[Mn(D O� TMC M�nnOCTA SiAI[ ��R FS50<nrax February 14, 2001 Latry Soderholm Deparcment of Planning and Economic Devetopment Zonin� Section 1 I00 City Hal[ Annex 25 West Fourth Street St, Paul, MN 55102 I2�: Appeal by �Iler Media Company Zoning File No: 00-150-648 Our Filc No: 5447-1 Bear Larry: REC �N��) ..��• FCB 1 � L �� ZON�� Enclosed for filing ptease find Elier Ntedia Company`s Application for Appeal Yo the Gitv Council From the Planning Commission Resolution in Fite.Nb;QO-I�0-648 and feling fee in the amount of $300. � B�RNICK AND LIFSO jP.A. ..��/�� 1 M:�r��in A. Liszt MAL/at� Enclosure cc: Eller Media Company Peter �Varner • • � al - �a � � ELLER MEDIA COMPANY'S APPEAL TO THE CITY COL3NCIL FRO�S W�� • 7 c.d 6 THE PLANNING COVLVIISSION RESOLUTION IN FILE NO. 00-150-648 U� � � W w � Q � 1. Background This appeal does not involve policy decisions about signs. The outcome shouid not be determined by a predisposition towazd signs. Rather, this appeal concerns the right guaranteed by la�v for a lawful business to maintain and repair legal nonconfomiing uses. That is thz essence of this matter and the appeal must be resolved b}� the legal principies governing nonconforming uses and not the extraneous and, frankly, illegai issues raised b}' the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's resolution denying Eller's appeal from zoning the � administrator's decision to deny Eller's applications to repair three (3) storm damaged si�ns is erroneous since it is based upon (i) the flilure to lpply the blsic leoai princip(es govemin� legal nonconforming uses; (ii) a misinterpretation of Chapter 66 of the Zoning Code; and (iii)1 misunderstandin� of previous City Council and court action in an identical situation. The matter before this Commission is identical to the 1998 proceeding at 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle sien at Highland Vi11aQe. In those situations, as well as the ones invol�•ed in this appeal, roof top signs sustained minor replacement cost damaRe as a tesult of poster panels being blown down by a windstorm. In the 1998 proceeding the City Council ultimately determined that §66301, not §66.303, governed the owner's right to repair (See pages 14-15 of the Staff Report). In the 1993 proceedin�, the rzcord `vas ciear that the roof sians �vere not destroyed by more than fifty-onz percent (51 %) of their replacement cost and Eller ��as • permitted to repair the signs by replacing the poster panels. The same is true in the matter now � ot �S� pendin� aad the Planning Commission �vas obli�ated to follow the previous determination made by the City Councit. Simpiy stated, the only issue is whether the signs have been damaged to an extent of more than fifiy-one percent (51 %) of their replacement cost. Since the answer to that question is "No", the Councii must determine that the zonin� administrator had no discretion and �c�as in error in not granting permits to Eller to repair the three sisns involved in this proceeding. 2. Undisputed Facts Each of the outdoor advertising structures (si�ns) involved in this mattzr are leaal, nonconfomiin� uses. There is no dispute that each of these sians sustained minor replacement � cost damape during the May, 1993 �t�indstorm. There is also no dispute that each of the signs � could be repaired for a cost which would be for fess than Tifty-one percent (SI%) oftheir reptacement cost. In fact, the actual percentages of cost to repair versus replacement cost are twenty-two percent (22%) for 1184 �V 7`'`, fourtzen percent (14%) for 1209 R' 7`'', and fifteen percent (15%) for Ford Road and Kenneth. Thz specific minor damaoe to each sign is set forth on paaes 25, 34, 47, and 62 of the Staff Report. In addition, W.T. nfcCaiia, the indeper��ent engineer, retained by Eller, has indicated that there is no discemable deterioration of the signs since the storm damage in iv1ay, 1993. (See paees 29, 42, and 56 of the Staff Report). The Staff Report acknowledges that the City's structurat engineer, Frank Berg. reviewed Mr. McCalla's reports and thouQht they �r�ere satisfactory. 2 • � Gl-� In the same 1998 �vind stortn involved in this proceeding, h� Eiler poster faces at 1820 • C'srand Avenue and Highland Villages were also blo�vn do�rn. By resolution dated 23ovember 10, 1999 this City Council affirmed the determination of the Planning Commission that the sign faces could be replaced. In that proceedin� the Planning Commission rejected the two liurdle test now adopted to deny the permits involved here. 3. Basic Principles Go�•erning Legal Nonconforming uses prohibit the action taken by the Plannina Commission. Eller's si�ns in this proceedin� are legat nonconforniing uses and are, therefore, afford�d significant rights under app(icable la��. In fact, §66.301 of the St. Paul Zoning Code states in • relevant part that "It is fitrther the intznt of this chapter to permit legal nonconforming si�ns existing on the date of this chapter, or amendments thereto, to continue as legal nonconforming signs provided such signs are saFe, maintained so as to not be unsi�htly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the follo�ving provisions..." In addition to'this clear directive in the Zoning Code,-longstandino niles of la�v pro�•ide: `'Existing, non-confomiin� uses must either be petmitted to remain or eliminated b}' use of eminent domain." Countv of Freeborn v. Claussen, 203 N. W.2d 323, 32i (Minn. 1972). The right to continue non-conformins uses necessarily embraces presen•ation of those uses, inc(uding improvements in efficiency and reasonable renovalions to • � v� asb prevent cleter•ioration. Claussen at 326; Marris v. Citv of Cedarbur�, 498 N. W.2d 842, 852 (Wis. 1993}. E�•en if a repair caused an interruption in use, it �vould not cause a loss of the right to reinstate the non-conforming use, since intemzption due to necessary rzpairs is `beyond the owner's control." Countv of Isanti v. Peterson, 469 N.W �d 467, 470 (R4inn. 1991), citing Citv ofMinot v. Fisher, 212 N.�V.2d $37, $40 (N.D. 1973). It appears that the zoning adatinistrator acknocvled�es that the applicable provisions of the Zoning Code are not a model of clarity. Ms, Lane indicated in her denial letter that "As we have previously discussed the Zonin�_* Code does not gi�•e us clear directions in how to process this type of application and we have had difficult reachinR a decision (StaffReport page 89). To tite estent that the ZoninQ Code is unclear or does not proti�ide clear direction to the � zoning administrator, the la�v in Minnesota is cfear. Zonin� ordinances must be construed . stricdy a�ainst the local zonina authority and in favor of die propert}• owner. �erAmerica Grou�. Inc. ti• Citv of Littie Canada, 539 N.W.2d 26�, 266 (Minn ct. App. 199�) citing Frank's Nurserv Sales v Citv of Rosevilie, 39.i N.�ti'.2d 604, 603 (Minn. 1980). Accordingly, an}• ambiguit}• in the Zoning Codz in this proceedine nnist be resolved in favor of Eltar. Simply stated, once it is detemiined that the cost to repair the damaged signs is less than Fifty-one Percent (51 %) of its replacement cost there is no further issue to decide in this case. Since there is no dispute that the cost is less than fifty-onz percent (51%}, the Councit has no discretion. Zonin� Code 566.301(2) mandates the grantin� of the pzrmits. 0 . � D}-3so 4. The Planning Commission's Atfempt To Circumti•ent The law Of • Nonconforming Uses By Concluding That The Zoning Code Prohibits Repair If Either The Sign Face Or Sian Structure Are Damaged In Excess Of Fifty- one Percent (51%) Of Their Replacement Cost Is Legally �ti'ithout Merit. For probabiy the first time in the histor} of nonconformin� uses, the zoning administrator has taken the unsupportable approach that if a component part of a nonconfomiing use is dama�ed in an amount greater than fifty-one percent (51 °10) of its repiacement cost (even though the entire ttse is damaged less than fift}•-one percent (51%)) the use cannot be repaired. This interpretation has no basis in law or fact and cannot be a basis for denying Eller's right to repair. This cunclusion by the Plannin� Conunission is an attempt to circumvent the la�v in this area and should be rejected outright. The Planning Commission's adoption of a rico-hurdle test ��iolates the basic principles � �overning nonconforming uses. As set forth above, the ri_,ht to contimte a nonconformin� use necesslrily embraces preservation of tlte use including improvement in efficiency and reasonabte renovations to prevent deterioration. The absurdity of the Staff Report recommendation in this reaard is illustrlted by a scenario where a legal nonconfomtinQ�gas station has a roof entiret)• destroyed by a�vindstorm. lt would clearly be illegal to require the gas station to cease its existence simply because the roof �cas damaged by an amount in e�cess of fifr}'-one percent (51 %) of its replacement cost. It is improper to break a nonconfom�ing use down to component parts and apply a fifty-one percenf (51%) test fo each sepazate component. The absurdity of treating signs and sign structures as separate componznts for a t�vo- hurdle test is also itlustrated by a review of the terminolosy used in Chapter 66 of the Zoning • � o� asb Code. The following examples clearl�• illeutrate ho�v the terms sign anc3 sign structure are used interchangeably in the Code: Chapter 66 itself is eatitled "Zoning Code - Signs". Cleazly the term Si�ns is not referring to just the panel or si�n face since Chapter 66 is concerned �vith all aspects of the outdoor advertising unit. The term "sign" is, of course, all inclusive and not a term referrinR to oniy a component part. �66:202(a) provides that "Signs in all zonin� distric� shall conform to the structural design standards of the state bui[ding codz". According to the Plannin� Commission interpretation, si�n structures «'ould not need to conform to tlie State Building Code since that term is not specified in this section. Obviousl}•, this � �voutd be an nbsurd resutt and is further iltwtrative of ho�v the term "sig�i' , throughout the Code refers to the entire unit. Article III. 66.300 is entitled "Nonconfomiing Signs ` not "Nonconformin� Signs and Sign Stnictures". The term sign in this heading is used to denote the entire unit. §65.201 provides in retevant part Yhat "No person shall place, erect or maintain a sign, nor shall a iessee or owner permit property under his control to be used for such a sign, which does not conform to the followinQ requirements and �tithout first obtainin� die requisite permit for such sign." {emphasis supplied) Under the Planning Commission s interpreiation, a sian company could erect a sign structure � � e� l � �s� �vithout a pertnit sign there is no such prohibitation a�ainst sion struchxres in � §66.201. This would cleazly lead to an absurd result. Obviously, the term sign in that section refers to the whole unit. T6e above examples aze not meant to be e�austi��e but rather are sho«n to illustrate that the St. Paul Zoning Code does not intend for the temi "sisn" to refer to only the sign panel or face. Again, if there is any ambiguit}� on this issue it must be construed against the Cit}�. Suoer America Group v. Citv of Little Canada. Sunra. It is also clear that the zonin� administrator has never in the past used a two-hurdle test regarding sion permits and has never disected a si�n to look at its component parts. For example. the Biltboard pernlit applications on paaes 16-19 of the Staff Report do not require separate permits for a sign and a sign structure. The Cit}� has al�cays considered a billboard, a si�n 1nd a � sion structure to be the same thin�. These words are used interchan�eably in flie Zonina Code . and in the permit form. To now say they have different meanings in light of storm dama�e defies common sense, tl�e law governin� nonconforming uses, and the City's historical treatment of � storm damaged signs. It is also clear that the Staff Report has i�nored the fact that the signs involved in this proceeding are roof top signs and that the definition in y�66.120 defines roof si�ns as "A sign erected upon or above a roof or parapet of a building or structure." Clearty, this definition does not break a roof si�n into component parts but rather inc]udes �vithin the definition the entire structure includin� the support beams, the paneis, etc... Again, the signs in the 1998 proceeding and the ones involved in this proceedin� are roof top signs and the code cannot be read to • � ot--as� se�reaate each component part of the sign. This fact �vas clearIy understood bq the Cit}• Council in its previous decision to permit repairs to roof top signs ��$ere the panels were blown down. � �. The Planning Commission and staff ha�•e totally misinterpreted the pre��ious storm damage proceedina, the Court decision and the Cit}• Council's final action in that matter. Part of the confusion in the matter notr• pending arises from ihe zonin� administrator and Plannino Commission's confiision concemina the previous storm dama�e proceeding. In the thac proceedina ttivo of Eller's signs were not structurally damaged but panels were blown do�vn. The zonin,ldminisllator determined that the panels could be replaced since Zonin, Code y�6G.405(1) did not require a permit for such replacement. That decision to pemiit repair �vas sustained by � die Planning Commission and City CounciL Unfortunateh�, the Cit}� Council did not make a written Resolution after voting to pemtit repairs to the siQns and ti�•hen the matter reached the District Court there was no record upon �vhich the Court could measure the reasonableness of the Cit}� CounciPs decision. Contrary to the inference in the current StaffReport and Plamling Commission resolution herein, the District Court did not rzverse the City Council's decision. The District Court determined oniy that y66.40� did not obviate the necessit}� for a sign compan}' to obtain a permit for repairs. The District Court niled onl�• that a permit was required prior to repairing storm damaged signs. The Court decision rendzred its decision on October 8, 1999. Subsequent to the Court's decision, the City Council on No��ember 19.1999 did adopt a 4vritten Reso[ution pursuant to tfie direction ofthe District Court. That Resolution affirnted the • � o�-�s� decision of the Planning Commission aliowin� the repairs to the signs and determined that � �66.301 was the applicable section of the Zonin� Code in storm damaged sign situations. In that proceeding, the Planning Commission rejected the two hurdie test argument and so did the Council by �miing the Planning Commissions resolution In short, the final outcome of the prior proceedin� tivas that roof top si;ns, which were damaged by panels blo�ving off, were allotived to be replaced pursuant to §66301. There �vas no rivo-hurdle test created by the City Council. The only real issue was �vhether signs were dama�ed to an extent greater than fifry-one percent (51°l0) of their replacement cost. The 11w in Minnesota regardin� actions of municipalities in these matters is be�•ond dispute. A municipality's action must be reasonable and not arbitrary or capricious. The decision must be legally sufficient and with factual basis. Chase v. Citv_ of Minneaaolis. 401 � N.�V. 2d 408 (Minn. App 1987); Northoointe Plaza v Cite• of Rochester, 457 NW 2d 393 (Minn App 1994); Horbal v. Cit�• of Horn Lake, 393 N.�V. 2d 5(Minn App 1986). Eller cannot imagine a more arbitrary or capricious action than creatinQ different standards and results for permit applications for identical sians dama�ed in the same stonu. The Planning Commission action in creating n rivo-hurdle test for the siens involved herein is arbitrary and capricious and «�ithout factual basis. It sitould not be sustained. Conclusion The la�v of nonconforming vses manda[es the grantin� of the permits to Eller. The Planning Commission should not be allotived to circum��ent long standing law by creati�t� a new • L`] �1 ot a.sb ------------ tc�ro-hurdte test c�$ich contradicts pcevious action aird r�ies of�a�:�a�io-so-t�i�arbitrary and capricious. This appeal shoutd be granfed. BERi�1ICK AND LIFSO\r, P.A. � � � Mazc�in A. Liszt, I.D.#63 S43 Suite 1200, The Colonnade 5500 �Vayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, Iv�i t 55416-1270 i[i7 � � • \� ��I i'�`v��'� � o�-a-s� • city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number o�-oa date 1-26-oi Eller Media Co. Appeal on Storm-damaged Billboards WHEREAS, Eller Media Co., file #00-150-648, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of Section 66.408(a) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, of the Zoning Administrator's decision denying building permits for the repair of three rooftop advertising sign structures damaged in a storm on May 30, 1998, and located at 1184 W. Seventh Street, 1209 W. Seventh Street, and 2Q14-2018 Ford Parkway; WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission on January 4, 2001, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appeal in accordance with the requirements of Section 64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; • WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the foilowing findings of fact: A major windstorm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to homes and trees and power lines, and also to some billboards. On June 5, City inspectors from LIBP checked the sites of damaged billboards owned by Eller together with Chris McCarver of Eller. Although the public hearing produced some controversy about how much emergency repair work Ellez did without building permits immediately foliowing the storm, there is little disagreement between Eller and the City about the extent of the damage to the signs. Eight sign faces are involved in this appeal: six of the sign faces were completely blown away; one sign face has a small section remaining; one sign face is intact, but slightly bent. The roof-top bed frames or angle-iron upper structures for all eight sign faces received some damage, though only one was damaged so severely that the vertical structure was disassembied and removed. moved by Field seconded by in favor Unanimous (1 abstention - Mardell) • against �� ol �..�'� Zoning File # 00-150-648 January 26, 2Q01 Page 2 2, The billboard structure on top of 1184 W. Seventh ("the Bi1Ps T'V board") was a V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foof sign faces before the storm. In the storm both faces blew off and the upper structute for the west-facing boazd was bent and subsequently removed. Now the bed framing and the angle-iron upper structure for the east-facing board are all that remain. Although the west-facing board has neither a sign face nor an upper structure, Eller applied to rebuild it as well as replacing the east-facing sign face (that is, the interlocking metal "poster panels" upon which outdoor advertising messages can be glued or tied.) 3. The billboard shvcture on top of 1209 W. Seventh ("the Checker Auto Parts boazd") is a V-shaped structure with two 300-square-foot sign faces that face toward the east and one 300-square-foot sign face that faces toward the west. This west-facing struchzre still has it's poster panels, but the angle-iron frame is somewhat bent. The sign face is illnminated at night even though there is no advertising message. One of the east-facing signs has a remnant-about one-fourth of it's poster panels; the other has no poster panels. The angle- iron upper structures remain. � 4. The two W. Seventh locations are neazly across ttie street from one another. They are • wned B-2 and aze on a mixed use arterial street with businesses and housing on both sides of W. Seventh. Most of the honsing on W. Seventh consists of sma11 apazlment buildings. The abutting properties on the neigkborhood streets are predominantly single fanuly, with a scattezing of duplexes. 5. The billboard structure on top of 2014-2018 Ford Parkway ("the Highland Viliage board") is V-shaped with one 300-square-foot sign face that faces towazd the east and two 300- foot sign faces that face toward the west. No poster panels remain. The angle-iron upper structures rernain. In' addition io me vill ;a�:u sL^!a+aue that is the topic of this zoning case, which is towazd the east end of the block, there aze two other billboard stractures on top of the Highland Village Shopping Center. On the west end is a 672-square-foot billboazd and in the center is a wide-angle V-shaped sh with two 300-square-foot boards. 6, The Ford Pazkv✓ay billboazd structure is on the rooftop of the biock-long Highland Village strip commercial building, which is also zoned B-2 and houses several restaurants and retail businesses. The Highland Village Shopping Center is part of a lazge neighborhood shopping district. 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. . C�`/ �l-b � Zoning File # 0�-150-648 3anuary 26, 2001 Page 3 At the time of the building permit application, all of the billboards in quesrion were legal nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Bi1Ps TV board was too high (over 37.5 feet). The Checker Auto Parts boazds were too big (more than 400 sq. ft. on the east-facing side). Both were in a temporary special sign district for the West Seventh neighborhood where a moratorium prohibited new billboazds or modification of existing ones until it expired on January 8, 2001. The Highland Viliage boards were also too big (more than 400 square feet on the west-facing side) and too close to the other biilboards atop the shopping center (less that 660 feet); moreover, they were located in the Highland Village Special Sign district, where billboards have been a prohibited use since 1985. In November 2000 the City adopted a new ordinance prohibiting new billboards anywhere in the city, which made all existing billboards throughout the city into nonconforming uses. 8. On June 22, 2000, two yeazs after the storm, the City received building permit applications from Eller Media Co. to repair the damaged billboards. The City's Zoning Manager asked for and received Eller's cost estunates for repairing the signs. On August • 18, the Zoning Manager wrote to Eller to extend the timeline for action on the application an additional 60 days and to ask them to meet with the City's structural engineer to verify costs and to make sure the proposed work would be acceptable. As a result of the meeting, Eller submitted additional documentation. 9. Eller's cost information was prepared in detail and showed that, although the sign faces were blown away, the cost of repairs would be significantly less than the cost of building new billboards of the same type. For the different signs their repair cost estimates ran from 14 percent to 22 percent of the cost to construct a new identical billboazd. These costs included material, labor, and equipment needed for construction. 10. During the two yeaz period in question, the City was actively developing a new policy and a new ordinance to regulate billboards. Through the work of a Legislative Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and a ballot referendum, the City Council was moving towazd a consensus that the city's 600-plus billboud faces were too many and that reasonable measures should be taken to begin to reduce the number over a period of yeazs. By mid-November of 2000 the Council adopted an ordinance to prohibit any new billboazds in the city. , • f� \• � • Zoning File # 00-150-648 January 26, 2001 Page 4 l i. On October 17, 2000, the Zoning Manager sent a letter to Eller Media Co. denying the building permits. Section 66301(2) of the Saint Panl Zoning Code says: "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any e�ant of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shatl nat be reconstructed except in conformiTy �� • �� ,� . �� with the provisions of this chapter. The terms sLgn and sign structure are separate y defined in the code and have separate meanings; fhe conjunction "or" is explained in the code to mean that the items may apply singly or in combination. The Zoning Manager concluded that for billboazds the sign face is the same as fhe sign itseif. She reasoned that this language creates a two-hurdle test, that if either the sign or the sign s[ructure is damaged beyond 51 percent, then any repairs must conform to alI of chapter 66 and, in particular, to section 66302. The information Eller supplied about the sign faces (that is, the signs) indicated that seven of the eight faces were 100 percent destroyed. 12. The City staff's interpretation of this two-hurdle test draws from a 1999 ruling by ttie Ramsey County District Court in a previous case about some other billboards damaged in the same storm. The judge wrote in his opinion: • "The distinction made by the [zoning] provision is between changing the advertising content to be placed on the panels of a billboazd and changing or • replacing the panels themseives. The first is permitted without a pemut. The second constitutes a renovation of the billboazrl and requires a pernrit." "Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent with the ordinance's underlying policy. That policy unmistakenly contempiates the removal of nonconforn�ing billboards in special sign districts [Grand Avenue and Highland Village] over time. A billboazd without face panels ceases to function as a bitlboard. It tacks a hzilboard's essential functionality. It is nothing more than a collection of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a billboazfl ceases to uucti�"- �� a billboazd, the policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permit before the billboazd's functionality can be restored." 13. On November 15, 2000, the City received the subject appeal by Eller Media Co. azguing that the only relevant question for issuing a pernvt should be whether each billboazd, taken as a whoie with both its sign face and sign structure, was damaged beyond 51 percent of its replacement cost. Ttus is the test for nonconfonning signs found in Section 66301(2) of the Zoning Code. Eller argued that the City Council, subsequent to the district court ruling cited above, determined that Section b6301(2) was the apPlicable provision. Eller claimed, furtllermore, that the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the Section 66301(2) as setting up two hurdles was a violation of commonly recognized � rights held by nonconforming land uses. `7CJ • Zoning File # 00-I50-648 7anuaxy 26, 2001 Page 5 o�-�Sa 14. After consuitation with the Assistant City Attomey at the Zoning Committee's meetings, the Plauning Commission agreed with Eller's claim that the 51 percent daznage test is the relevant and primary section, but then disagreed with Eller's claim that the terms "sign or sign structure" must be read as a single unit referring to a billboazd face and it's supporting structure together. T7ie Zoning Administrator's interpretation was reasonable: if either the billboard face or the billboard structure is damaged greater the 51 percent, the permit application must meet additional requirements of the code, and specifically, Section 66302. Eller chose not to address not these other provisions. Moreover, the Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the code was consonant with City policy on billboards and with the discussion in the district court ruling. NOW, THEREFORE, BE Ifi I2ESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, that under the authority of the City's Legisiative Code, the appeal by Eller Media Co. of the Zoning Administrator's denial of building permits to repair billboazds at 1184 W. Seventh Street, 1209 W. Seventh Street, and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway is hereby denied. The Zoning Administrator has conectly interpreted Section 66. 301(2) as creating a two-hurdle test for signs and sign • structures. If either is more that 51 percent damaged, the repairs or modifications or renovation must meet all the other regulations in the sign chapter of the code. Except for the west-facing billboard face on top of Checker Auto Parts (1209 W. Seventh Street), the sign panels are gone and the Zoning Administrator properly denied the building permit applications. • K:VShared�Ped�SODERHOL�ZONING\00-I50-648-peres wpd l� bl �5� Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center iS.Kellogg Boulevard West Minutes of January 26, 2001 A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, January 26 , 2001, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Duarte, Faricy, Zimmer Lonetti, McCall, and Morton Present: and Messrs. Alto�, Anfang, Field, Fotsdi, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer, Marde[I. Commissioners Mmes. *Engh, *Donnelly-Cohen; and Messrs. *Corbey, �Dandrea, �Gervais, *Kong, *Margulies, and Shakir. Absent: *Excused Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Altan Torstenson, Lucy Thompson, and Mary Bruton, Department of P(anning and Economic Development staff; att@ Wendy Lane, LIEP. I. ApprovalofMinutes Minutes of January 12, 2001 not ready for approval. II. �. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton reported tliat tlie Planning Commission will have a retreat on March 30, 2001, the fifth Friday of the month. Commissioner Anfang will be the Chair of the Committee. The subjects that will be addressed during the retreat will be 1) do�vntown housing; and 2) transit station area planning. Chair Morton stated that there will be a tour of the Minneapolis Riverfront nousing so� ::� i"- February. She stated that Mr. Soderl�olm and Lucy Thompson will be making anangements for the touc • Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Soderholm repoRed that DeLite Outdoor Advertising has filed a lawsuit against the City c(aiming that the moratorium that we had on billboards was illega(. Mr. Soderholm stated that the City Council discussed the Rusfi Line Commuter Rail Conidor and said tUat Councilmember Benanav wanted to be assured that someone in the City is coordinating all of the rail transit initiatives from the inter-ciry rail to Chicago to the hvo or three commuter lines to LR'I'to busway to the normal bns system. � • • � � � � -as� • � Chair Morton stated that she and Commissioners Mardell and Margulies attended the meetings on commuter rail from Hastings to the Union Depot. The Rush Line would go to Rush City and could also come into Union Depot. Mr. Soderholm talked about the Trillium Site. The City Council and the Port Authoriry are tryin� to raise enough funds to buy the site for the Trout Brook Greemvay. Zoning Committee NEW B[3SINESS #�0-153-430 MetzEer Buildine Materials Comnanv - Rezone from RT-1 to I-1 to use for outside storage of inetal framina for drywalL 763 & 765 Bradley, behveen Bush & Minnehaha. (Patricia James, 651/266-6639). Commissioner Field stated that no district council comment was received. No one spoke in support, no one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recommended approval on a vote of 6-0. MOTION: Ca»:missioner Field n:oved tlze Zonina Committee's recomnreiadation to approve the reZOning. Tlee motion carried unaxin:otrsty on a voice vote. • #00-153-513 Semple Enterprises - Special Condition Use Permit to operate a recycling processing center. 91 Ridder Circle, Northeast of Ridder Circle at Fillmore. (Virginia Burke, 651l266-6661}. Commissioner Fiefd stated tttat t(ie app(icant requested a Iay over to February I, 2001. • #00-153-757 - St. Paul Fliaht Center - River Corridor Special Condition Use Permit with modification of River Corridor Standards to demolish 7-8 metal hangers and construct conere"te and masonry replacement hangers. 270 Airport Road; NE of Bancroft and Lafayette. (Martha Faust, 651/266-6572) Commissioner Field stated that the applicant requested a lay over to February i, 2001. OLD BU5INESS #00-150-648 Eller Media Company Apneal - AIVow bil{boards blown down 2 years ago to be put back up, reversing City stafPs denial of permits. S 184 W. 7'" St., 12�9 W. 7'� St., and 2014- 2018 Ford Pkrvy. (Larry Soderholm, 651(266-6575) Commissioner Fie(d stated that the district councils recommended denial of permits. No one spoke in support, two parties spoke in opposition. Tite public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recommended approval on a vote of4-0 with 2 abstentions. �l o�-as� MOTION: Con:missioner Field n:oved the 2'or:ixg Cotnntittee recomn:endation to deny Eller's appea[ and upltold t/ae Zonirig Admi�:istrator, except that one of tlte eigkt sign fnces in quesfion � wns tlamngetl less tltan 51 percent and n:ay be repaired. The »intion carried wifh one abstention (Marrlel!). Commissioner Field announced the a�enda for the Zoning Committee meetin� on February i, 2001. OLD BUSINESS #00-153-513 Semnle Enterprises - Speciat Condition Use Permit to operate a recycling processing center. 91 Ridder Circle, T�tE of Ridder Circle at Fillmore, (Virginia Burke, 651/266-6661) #00-153-757 St. Panl Flioht Center - River Corridor Specia! Condition Use Permit with modifcatioii of dcy flood proofiag requirement to demolish 7-8 metal hanaers and construct concrete and masonry replacement hangers. 270 Airport Road, west side of Holman Field. (Martha Faust, 651/266-6572) NE�V BUSINESS #O1-120-869 Metronolitln Air�orts Commission - River Corridor Special Condition Use Permit with a modificltion of dry flood proofin� requirement to construct 9 hangars. 644 Bayfield Street, NE side of Hoiman Field. (Martha Faust, 651/266-6572) Du�leC-Trinlex Conversion Guidelines - review and recommendation. (Yang Zhang, S 651/266-6659) V. Comprehensive Planning Committee Mr. Soderholm reported that the State of Minnesota is looking for a co-location site for the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Corrections. The State of Minnesota is a[so lookin� for larger sites, for the Department of Human Services, the Department of Heafth, and maybe for the Agricu(ture Departntent's laboratories. He said the Comprehensive Plan for Saint Paul proposes that new state ofT�ces sttot�id'neip tc:.oar.ec*_#!ie Cagitot,areaand the, downtown. Commissioner Gordon stated tliat the Comprehensive Planning Committee looked at atl of the citywide Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan except the River Corridor Chapter, which has not yet been approved by the City Counc9L They went over a[I ofthe amendments to the other chaptecs and they will be coming to the Plannin� Commission at the next meeting. VI. Neiehborhoods and Current Plannind Committee Lo�vertown: The Urban Vil[age Concept and ihe Urban Village Market. Informational presentation by �Veiming Lu, Executive Director, Lowertowa Redevelopment Corporation. Commissioner Faricy infroduced Weimin� Lu as a gttest speaker. • 3 �1 ��l�`�`rW � � � MiNUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE 'Thursday, January 4, 2000 - 3:30 p.m. City Councif Cfiambers, 3" Fioor City kfall and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boufevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: OTHERS PRESENT: Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, Mardell and Morton Engh and Gervais Peter Warner Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, and Larry Soderholm of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. E{ler Media Company - 00-150-648 - Ailow biliboards biown down two years ago to be put back up, reversing city staff's denial of permits. 1184 W. 7`" St., 1209 W. 7"' St., and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway. Larry Soderholm showed slides a�d presented the staff report. Mr. Soderholm stated Eller Media Company submitted a letter asking the case be laid over until January 4, 2001 and waved the 60- day deadline for action by the Planning Commission. District 9 and 15 opposed the issuance of building permits to repair the billboard damage and the Zoning Staff recommends denial of the permits and deniai of Eller's appeai. He also stated the city has a policy to reduce the number of billboards through attrition by removing those damaged by wind, wear and tear, loss of leases, and through redevelopment. At the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Soderholm stated the interim special sign district went into effect formally July 8, i998, and the signs were damaged May 30, 1998. There was a moratorium pending the City Council's pubiic fiearing in effect between May 30, and July 8,1998, that prevented LIEP from issuing permits for billboards. In any case, the present appfication was submitted in the summer of 2000. Marvin Liszt, Attorney for Eifer Media Company, appeared and passed out a memorandum, and stated that Ms. Lane and Mr. Soderholm misinterpreted the code and previous actions by the district court. He stated they didn't follow basic legal principais governing nonconforming uses. He also explained the rooftop signs sustained minor damage compared to their replacement cost as a result of poster panels being blown down by the windstorm. Section 66.301 of the Zoning Code states in relevant part that, "It is further the intent of this chapter to permit legal nonconforming signs existing on the date of this chapter, or amendments thereto, to continue as legal nonconfiorming signs provided such signs are safe, maintained so as to not be unsightly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following provisions" ln addition to this clear directive in the Zoning Code, longstanding ruies of iaw provide: • Ex+sting, non-conforming uses must either be permitted to remain or be e{iminated by use of eminent domain. • The right to continue non-conforming uses necessarily embraces preservation of those • uses, inciuding improvements in efficiency and reasonabie renovations to prevent deterioration. • Even if a repair caused an interruption in use, it would not cause a loss of the right to reinstate the non-conforming use, since interruption due to necessary repairs is "beyond �� -as� the owner's control. Z� oi asb Zoning Committee Minutes January 4, 2001 File # 00-150-648 Page 2 W hen a zoning code is unclear or does not provide clear direction to the zoning administrator, the taw in Minnesota is clear. Zoning ordinances musi be consirued strictly against the Iocal zoning authority and in favor of the property owner. Mr. Liszt further submitted that the issues now before this Commission have alt been resotved by the City Council. When a sign is damaged by a panel being biown off and the cost to repair the sign is less than fifty-one percent (51 %) of the replacement cost of the sign, a permit must be issued to make such repair. In the instant situation the record is clear that the cost of these repairs is far less than fifty-one percent (51 %) of the repiacement cost of the sign. Accordingly the zoning administrator had no discretion to deny the permits and this appeal must be granted. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Liszt stated the words "sign" and "sign structure" in Chapter 66 are used interchangeably and when you apply for a permit you are applying to buiid a billboard. Billboards should not be "componentized." He further stated it wou(d be iilegai to start componentizing nonconforming uses and say that if any part is damaged over ftfty-one percent (51 %), that whole nonconforming use must be removed. There also was a discussion concerning tfie outcome of the October 1999 District Court decision on storm-damaged biilboards located at Grand Avenue and Fairview and at Nighiand Village Shopping Center. � Mr. Liszt stated the City Council ailowed the prev+ous storm-damaged signs to be repaired • subsequent to Judge Monahan's order based upon Section 66.301 without any discussion concerning sign faces and sign structures. Ms. Gayle Summer, Highland District Council Community Organizer, appeared and submitted a 1989 log of repair work that she observed being done (without permits) on the damaged Highiand Vi!lage bi!lboard. It happens to be right outside her office window. Therefore, the sign damage cannot be known because of the numerous times they worked on the biliboard before the City Inspector could document the damage. She also stated the Highland District Special Sign District, which is part of the Zoning Code adopted in 1985, said that in 10 years all the biliboards should be down; in fact, oniy two signs have oeen �er ��e� �^ ? 5�ears. She also stated that the storm- damaged signs presented an opportunity to remove two more signs from the neighborhooci. Mr. Brian Bates, representative of Scenic Minnesota, appeared and said that the City staff's two hurdle" interpretation about "sign" and "sign structure" is incomplete because it uses oniy 66.301. More hurdles are set up in 66.302. Section 66.301 deals with a(f types of signs in the City. Section 66.302 contains more specific rules that appiy only to advertising sign and it cannot just be read out of the Zoning Code. The Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission have to give it some meaning. The meaning the district court gave it is replacing a biffboard sign face is a"renovation, which is the key to 66.302. You cannot renovate a sign unless the location of the sign meets all of the requirements under Section 66.302. The signs have been no�contorming signs since fhe mid 1980's. He also pointed out that the judge stated, "it is the poiicy of the City to have the signs removed over time ° Mr. Bates said it is past the time that these signs shovld have been removed. The sign strucfures have not been repaired for two yeas and are creating a blight on the � neighborhood and need to be removed. At fhe question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Bates stated the signs are nonconforming because they are rooftop signs and one of the biliboard structures is located in Highland Viltage Special � O 1-b S� Zoning Committee Minutes January 4, 200'I • File #: 00-150-648 Page 3 Sign District. Mr. Soderholm stated the general rule for rooftop signs is "no advertising sign sha11 be permitted to be constructed on a roof top or to overhang a roof [sec.66.2i 4(h)}. Mr. Liszt came forward in rebuttal and stated E{1er Media Company did some clean up work after ihe storm to alleviate a hazardous situation, but no repairs were made to the sign. Upon question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Chris McCarver, Etler Media Company, apQeared and stated they would check their records for documentation, such as time cards or work orders for the ctean up work on the biiiboards after the storm and present them for the record. The public hearing was closed. After further discussion Gommissioner Gordon moved to lay the case over until January 18, 2001, in order to obtain information on the Checker Auto Parts Sign, documentation from Eller on the sign clean up, and claritication from the City Attorney on §66.302. Commissioner Faricy seconded it. u Adopted Yeas - 5 Drafted by: � �,d-� �7Zct,r.�ne� Carol Martineau Recording Secretary Nays - 0 Submitted by: Larry � Zoning Chair / • Abstained - 1 (Commissioner Mardeil) 0 c�� asa EXETER REALTY COMPANY December 1, 2000 ♦ � BROKERHGE CONSULTING MANAGEMEM . Mr. Larry Soderholm Saint Paul DepartmenT of Planning & Economic Development City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Pavl, NIlV 55102 Re: File # 00-150-648 Applicant: Eller Media Dear Mr. Soderholm: 7080 MONTREAL AVENUE $AWT PAUL, MN 55116-2371 PNONE: (657) 690-2007 F(0(: {651) 690-2003 C o 5 �pQ� R�� Our company is the property manager for the Highlanc3 Crossing shopping center located at the southtivest corner of Cleveland Avenue and Ford Pazkway in Saint Paul. One of our affiliates is also the owner of this property whose tenants include Bames & Noble, Old Country Buffet, and other tenants. On bel�alf of this properry, we aze wrering in oppositeon to Eller Media's request for authority to reinstall certain billboards in the area that were blown down rico years ago. Our posiUon is that the roof-top billboards aY Cleveland and Ford Pazkway are a visual bleght that detract from the value of our shopping center and other properties in ihe area. We Yhink a11 roof-top billboazds in the immediate area should be phased out over time. We would therefore urge the City of Saint Paul to stand by its decision to deny permits to reinstali Yhese billboards. Very truly yo,urs, � � ��es��A�to es�� `��"'� � � President a�R�..^- �rsr :c. � E�ETEf� • i MRR-26�1900 16�40 • Janvaxy 3, 2001 , 'Zoning Commiftee Members s 1100 Cify Hall Amnex r `25 West Fourth.�5�reet � St. Pzni, Minnesota 55102 P.02 (31-�f� West �th/Fort Road Federation 974 West 7th Sueet Saint Pau1, Minnesota 55102 (612) 298-5599 � � � i gaz s, � ��/ °�a� t�za `Ilie West Scvench Fedetation is opposed to tlie appeal of Eller Media Company to repair 3he billbQatds ati1184 and 1209 West Seventh Street. These signs were damaged in the storm of May 199$, and are more than 51°lo destroyed. We support the staff's iecommendations, Re d • - , i , � � Cooperating Fund Brive Membar � �rmativeAction/Equal Opportunity Employer TOTRL P.02 SAUL A. BERNICK� MARV�N A. LISZT� SCOTT A. LIFSON DAV1D K. NIGHTINOAI.E pAUL J. QUAST JESSICA L. ROE January 16, 2001 BERNICK AND LIFSON A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIAT�ON ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 1200� THE COLONNAOE 5500 WAYZATA BOULEVqRD MINNEAPOLIB, MINNESOTA 554i6-1270 TELEPHONE �%63) 546-�200 FACSIMILE V631 646-1003 RECEIVED �� JAN 17 20Q9 �,�NOMICDEYEIAp.h1�L � NEAL J. SHAPIRO LEGAL ASSISTANYS KATHRYN G.MASTERMAN NANCY L WHAYLEN TRESA K. SAUER ipl$O AOMITTEO IN WISCONSIN 'PL50 <ERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNT/�NT �RFAL FROPERTY UW SPECIALIST ccmnm e. mc w�.xcsm• sr�.e e.c.ssocurron ��.��.��if �� Litton Field, Jr. c/o Department of Planning & Economic Development Ci�� of St. Faal 25 W Fourfh Street St. Paul, MN 55102 RE: EAer Media Company Appeal (00-150-648) Dear Mr. Field: �.; i 3 .:af��. ' :.� � i t� � � g _ � • ,� � This is in response to your request at the public hearing on January 4, 2000 where you asked Eller to review its records for the purpose of determining what costs may have been incurred by Eller in cleaning and securing the sign at Ford Road and Kenneth immediately after the storm damage on May 30, 1998. In reviewing its records, Eller has determined that it had several crews workin� on damaged signs throughout the City beginning on Sunday, May 31, 1998 and continuing that week. The crews have time cards indicating beginning and ending times for each day but not itemized for specific locations. In discussing This matter �vith Eller's Director of Operations, it has been determined that on Sunday, May 31, 1998, a crew of three men spent approximately four hours or a totat oi �2 r:.a�. �aw:s sec�-uing and cleaning up the sign and debris at Ford Rd. and Kenneth. This basically involved cleaning the debris resulting from the storm anc[ maicing �urz t::e ssg-"- was safe and not presenting a safety risk. That crew visited other damaged sign Iocations that day but Eller has confirmed based upon its experience and conversations with the crew that this is the amount of time spent at the Ford Rd and Kenneth location. On Tuesday, June 2, 1998, Eller received a call from the owner of the Highland Shopping Center indicating that LeAmi Chin's Restaurant had sustained extensive �vater Iea[cage the previous evening and suspected it may had originated from the roof area. Eller sent a crew to that site on Tuesday and discovered that a piece of angle iron had broken loose from the sign and was embedded in the roof. This was apparently overlooked by the cre�� on Sunday, May 31 �`. This angle iron being embedded in the roof was the cause of the water problem. The crew removed the angle iron and patched the roo£ During the process of removing the angle iron from the roof, the crew also noticed that a weld had failed on one end of a o-channel on the sign. The failed � � � Y�\-JSc • weld was reestablished. Once again, the June 2"d crew did not itemize the number of hours at each location on separate time cazds but Eller has been able to determine that this crew spent approximately one-half day or 12 man hours at this site. The time spent to remove the angle iron and reestablish the weld was nominal. �'he above hours, except for the roof repair, aze indicated in the cost estimates previously submitted to LIEP. The majority of the time spent on 7une 2" was for repair of the roof. Eller did not incur any matetial costs in all the above except for very nominal materials costs which aze always carried by a crew. I am hopeful that this is respansive to your request to clarify any confusion that residents of the uea may have. It is important to note that on Friday, June 5, t998, Elier had another crew on the Highland shopping center roof but that crew was involved with the sign at Ford Pazkway in Cleveland and not the one involved in this proceeding. 5incerely, BERNICK AND LIFSON, P.A. �� ;��.---- �°-� Marvin A. Liszt MAL/atg • cc: Eller Media Company • �� oi-as� MINUTES OF'fiiE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, January 18, 2001 - 3:30 p.m. City Couttcil Chambers, 3 Floor C+ty HaII and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: OTHERS PRESENT: Anfang, Alton, Fisid, Gordon, Kramer, and Morton Faricy and MardeU Peter Warner Carol Martineau, Ailan Torstenson, and Larry Soderholm of PED The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. Eller Media Company Appeai - 00-150-648 - Allow biiiboards blown down 2 years ago to be put back up, reversing City staff's denial of permits. 1184 W. 7'" St.,1209 W. 7'" St. and 2014-2018 Ford Pkwy. larrySoderholm statedtherewasaletterreceivedfromElferMediaCompanyconcerningthework that was done on the Highfand Village biftboard after the storm. Peter Warner stated Section 66.30i of the Zoning Code applies because the signs are nonconforming and as a general rule property owners that have a nonconforming structure are allowed to make minor repairs. But in this case the nonconforming signs themselves, if not the supporting struciures, had major damage caused by a storm, and the zoning administrator in LIEP rejected ihe permit under Section 66.301 oi the Zoning Code. It is up to the Commissioners Yo determine if the zoning administrator's interpretation was correct or erroneous. Commissioner Field commented that this case calis for a determination of the meaning of code. The committee needs to look at the facts about the damaged biliboards and decide if the zoning administrator interpreted the code reasonabiy. Upon comments by Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Soderho�m explained that, of the eight sign faces in question, one face remains and one-fourth of anotherface remains, Seven faces were damaged 51 percent or more. He thanked Eller Media for checking backthrough their records but said their letter does nof h'etp much in arriving ai 4ne exie� �s�ve� �ess cf ihe damage to the sign structures. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm stated the West Seventh Street moratorium on billboards has now expired. Commissioner Gordon stated the code is phrased in terms of sign or sign sirucfure and tfiose terms are separately defined in the Code at Section 66.121. No one disputes that seven of the eight faces were damaged 51 percent or more. Commissioner Gordon moved approvat of the staff recommendation number one but not staff recommendations two or three. Commissioner Kramer seconded the motion. Adopted Yeas - 4 Drafted by: � r ��'A,1-D-C /`��Lt/1/[�y2C�j Carol Martineau Recording Secretary Nays - 0 Submittec! by: Larry Atrstained - 2 (Anfang & Alton) I Approved Litton Field Chair • � • • ► � ► • ZONING COMIVIIT�EE STAFF REPORT FILE # 00-150-648 1. APPLICANT: ELLER MEDIA COMPANY DATE OF HEARING: 12/7/00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. � 9. u CLASSIFTCATION: Administrative Appeal LOCATION: Three locations of storm-damaged billboards (1184 and 1209 W. Seventh St., 2014-2018 Ford Parkway at the Highland Village Shopping Center) PLANNING DISTRICTS: 9 and 15 LEGAL DESCRIPTTONS: On file at PED PRESENT ZONIlVG: All signs aze in B-2 districts ZONING CODE REFERENCES: 66.408, 66301, 66.302, 66.121 STAFF INVESTTGATION AND REPORT: DATE: 11/30/00 BY: Lazry Soderholm DATE RECEIVED: I 1/15/00 AEADLINE FOR ACTION: 1/14/Ol A. PURPOSE: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to deny building pemuts to replace sign face panels on nonconfornung billboazds that sustained structural damage during a windstorm in May 1998. B. EXISTIlVG LAND USE: The W. Seventh billboard structures are on commercial rooftops along a mixed use commercial strip (commercial-residential). 1184 W. Seventh is a TV repair business; 1209 is an auto parts store. The Ford Parkway billboard structure is on the rooftop of the block-long Highland Viliage strip commerciat building, which houses several restaurants and retail businesses. C. SURROZ3NDING LAND USE: The two W. Seventh locations aze neazly across the street from one another. In this mixed use area, there are businesses and housing on both sides of W. Seventh. Most di the housing on W. Seventh consists of small apartment buildings. The abutting properties on the neighborhood streets aze predominantiy single family, with a scattering of duplexes. On Ford Parkway, the Highland Village Shopping Center is part of a large neighborhood shopping district. The sunounding land uses aze o t -aso �� oras� predominanfly commercial with a church and parochial school on the ne� block to the south and a public playgraund on the block to the east. • D. ZONING COAE CTTA'I'IONS: 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 Yhe ea�tent 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 regularions in 66.302. 2. Section 66301(2) says: "Should a sign or sign stiucture be destroyed by any means to any extent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this ckapter." 3. Section 66.302(1) gives conditions for the renovation of advertising signs. It is unnecessary to quote the whole section here because Eller claims they do not apply and made no attempt to meet them. 4. The Zoning Code has definitions only for "sigu' and "sign structure" (66.121), as follows: Sign. "The use of words, numerals, figures, devices, designs, or trademarks the • purpose of which is to show or advertise a person, fitm, 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 structure may be a single pole; it may not be an integral part of a building." 5. �ection 55.4�° Y:c::��s f�r appeals of decisions by the zoning administrator to the Planning Commission. It does not give sfandards or critena that the t Ianning Commission must consider. E. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: All of the billboards in question are owned by Eller Media Company (formerly Naegele and then Universal), which is a nationai billboard company and the one that has the most signs in Minnesota. A major windstorm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, 1998, causing a great deal of damage to homes and uees and power lines, and aIso to some billboards. On 7une 5, Ciry inspectors from LIEP checked the sites of damaged billboards owned by Eller together with Cluis McCarver of Eller. The LIEP inspectors divided damaged billboazds according to whether they 2 � � o l -asa • sustained damage to: (1) the sign structure, or (2) just the poster panels, which are synonymous with sign faces. The present zoning case is about billboards that had structural damage to both the sign structure and the poster panels.• (1) S o�+zs with structural damage. On 7une 22, 2000, LLEP received Eller's application for building petmits to repair the three billboazds that are the subject of this appeal plus one additional freestanding billboard at 1142 W. Seventh Street. LIEP requested more information to document the eactent of the damage and extended the 60-day time limit for City action to 120 days. In the meantime the freestanding biliboard at 1142 W. Seventh Sueet was removed. On October 17, 2000, Wendy Lane of LIEP sent a letter denying building permits for the repair of the three remaining billboard structures. On November 15 Eller submitted their appeai of LIEP's denial, initiating the present zoning case. (2) Signs with poster panel damage only (background informationJ. There was another, related zoning case in 1948, which was filed by Scenic Minnesota, about the billboards that lost their poster panels in the windstorm but otherwise had no structural damage. That case went to the Planning Commission, then to the City Council, and finally was appeated to district court. On June 10, 1998, Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote to Eller that, according to the 7une Sth inspection, two of the damaged billboards, at 1820 Grand Ave. and at the southeast corner of Ford Pazkway and S. Cleveland Ave. had not received structural damage; therefore the poster panels (sign faces) that had blown off could be replaced without building permits. (As a matter of standard City � practice, building pernvts were not required for the replacement of poster panels.) Eller proceeded immediately to replace the poster panels on those two signs. When Scenic Minnesota appealed, claiming that LIEP should haue required building pemuts, the Planning Commission upheid the LIEP anterpretation and so did the City Council. But the City's decision was reversed by the Ramsey County District Court. The court said a plain reading of the code provided that repainting of sign faces and reposting of advertising copy were pemutted without a building permit, but that replacemenC of sign face panels would require a buiiding permit. F. DISTRICT COUNCII. RECOMMENDATIONS: The West Seventh Federation is opposed to putting billboards back on top of 1184 and 1209 W. Seventh Street. They are generally opposed to billboards in their district and were one af the first district councils to request protection from advertising signs under the current moratorium on advertising signs. Their request, which was made almost two months before the 1998 storm, included a prohibition against the replacement of damaged advertising signs. The Highland Area Community Council is opposed to putting billboards back on top of the Highland Village Shopping Center. The district councfl has opposed billboards consistently since at least 1985 when the F3ighland Village Special Sign District was written. It prohibited new billboards and set a goal of removing all eacisting advertising signs by 1995. • �` o� as� G. FINDINGS: 1. Existing physical conditions of the billboards. The bitlboards in quesfion were ail � structurally damaged by the windstorm on May 30, 1998, and have been out of service for 29 months. A The billboard structure on top of 1184 W. Seventh ("the Bill's TV board") was a V-shaped structure with two 30Q-square-foot sign faces before the storm. In the storm both faces blew off and the upper structure for the west-facing board was bent and taken down. Now the bed franung and the angle-iron upper struceure for the east-facing boazd are all that remain. Although the west-facing board has neither a sign face nor an upper structure, Eller applied to repair 600 squaze feet of signs. B. The biltboard structure on top of 1209 W. Seventh ("the Checker Auto Parts board") is a V-shaped shucture with two 300-squaze-foot sign faces that face towazd the east and one 300-squaze-foot sign face that faces toward the west. The west-facing structure still has it's poster paneis, but the angle-iron frame is somewhat bent. The sign face is illuminated at night even though there is no advertising message. One of the east-facing signs has a remnant of iY s poster panels; the other has no poster panels. The angle-iron upper structure remains. C. The billboard structure on top of 2014-2018 Ford Parkway ("the Highland Village board") is V-shaped with one 300-square-foot sign face that faces toward tke east and two 300-foot sign Faces that face towud the west. No poster panels remain. � The angle-iron upper structures remain. In addition to the billboazd structure that is the topic of this zoning case, which is towazd the east end of the block, there are two other billboard structures on top of the H'ighland Village Shopping Center. On the west end is a 672-square-Foot billboard and in the center is a wide-angle V- shaped structure with two 300-squaze-foot boards. These three bi�lboard faces are in use. However, the center one was a subject ofthe 1998 zoning case and court ruling. In that case, Eller representatives testified that they did no work on the boazds between the storm on May 30 and the City inspecrion tour on June 5, 1998 except ta c:��= u ��.^:s �� stabilize the structures to eliminate any hazard to the public. Neighborhood representatives, on the other hand, testified that Elier crews spent a quite a lot of time working on the boards between those two dates. A report on 6/19/48 by Blter's shuctural engineer stated that, "One steel channel section resting on the heavy steel fzame was bent and had been replaced." 2. Policy context for administrative decision-making. Over the past two years, City policy has grown increasingly cleaz that the City wants to reduce the number of billboards in the city and that administrafive staff should, to the extent that they have discretion in interpreting regulations, exercise that discretion to curtail billboard construetion activities. A. In February 1998 the City Council initiated a study of advertising signs and � 3v 0 � -3..5 c� • provided that district councils could request temporary special sign districts where new hillboazds and modification of existing ones would be prohibited. The West Seventh Federation requgsted such a district on April 6, 1998 and the City Council approved it on 7uly 8, 1998. The Highland Area Community Council requested a moratorium for another part of their neighborhood, but not for Highiand Village since billboards were already prohibited there by the 1985 special sign district. The district-by-district moratoriums cover about two-thirds of the ciry's neighborhoods and will expire on January 8, 2001. B. In 1998 a Legislative Advisory Committee on Advertising 5igns, appointed by the Ciry Council, recommended a method for reducing the number of billboards in the city because the e�sting 600-plus billboard faces were too many. Then in 1999 and 2000 the Planning Commission developed additional methods for reducing the number of billboards and prepared ordinance drafts for City Council action. In November of this yeaz the City Council passed an ordinance protubiting any new bil]boazds anywhere in the city. The Plamung Conunission and the City Council had estensive discussions that the number of billboards in the city would decline year by year through attrition as existing billboards come down due to wind damage, wear and tear, loss of leases, and redevelopment. C. As mentioned in the zoning history section above, the Ramsey County District Court ruled in October 1999 that the Zoning Administrator erred in permitting poster panel replacement without building permits. The judge wrote: � "The distinction made by the (zoning) provision is between changing the advertising content to be placed on the panels of a billboard and changing or replacing the panels themselves. The first is permitted without a permit. The second constitutes a renovation of the billboard and requires a pemut. There is no ambiguity in the ordinance requiring that it be read in favor of the property owner." (emphasis added) "Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent with the ordinance's underlying policy. That policy unmistakenly contemplates the removal of nonconforming billboards in speciai sign districts over time. A billboard without face panels ceases to function as a blllboard. It lacks a billboazd's essential functionality. It is nothing more than a collection of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a billboard ceases to function as a billboard, the policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permit before the billboard's functionality can be restored." Neither the City nor Eller appealed the district court decision. 3. Applicable zoning regzdations at the time of the application. The City staff believe that the provisions ofboth section 66301, which applies to all types ofnonconfornung signs and contains the 51 percent damage rule, and section 66302, which gives more detailed � L_J �� regulations for the renovation of nonconfornung billboazds aze applicable to Eller Media's building pernut application. Eller contends that 66.302 is not relevant for "minor repairs � of storm damaged signs"; it would apply only if damage exceeded 51 percent of the replacement cost, in which case they would need to renovate the billboards. A. All of the bitlboards in quesrion are legal nonconfomung signs for one reason or another. The Bi1Ps TV boazd is too high (over 37.5 feet}. The Checker Auto Parts boazds are too big (more than 400 sq. ft. on the east-facing side). Both are in the temporary special sign district for the West Seventh neighborhood and subject to the moratorium provisions, which aze discussed in point 3(D) below. The Highland Village boards are too big (more than 400 square feet on the west- facing side) and too close to the other boards atop the shopping center (less that 660 feet) and, of course, are located in the Highland Village Special Sign district, where billboar@s have been a grohibited use since 1985. B. The zoning rules for all types of tegal nonconfornung signs are found in section 66301. The code's intent for all types of nonconforming signs—inciuding identificarion signs, business signs, and advertising signs--is that they shouId not be enlazged or eactended but should be allowed to continue so long as they "...are safe, maintained so as not to be unsighfly, nor removed and not abandoned subject to the following provisions: ... (2) Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any ea�tent of more than fifty-one {51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in con£omuty with the provisions of this chapter." The 51 percent damage test discussed in points 4(B), 4(C), and 5(A) � betow. C. A special, more detail set of zoning niles for legal nonconfomring advertising signs is found in the neact section, 66302. It provides that nonconfornung billboazds may be replaced, relocated or renovated on the same zoning lot if such activity brings the sign into greater compliance with the regulations and meets a list of sevan standazds, which include: location in a B-2 or higher zoning district or in a special sign district where billboards are pernutted; conformance with size and height standards; exemption from spacing standards; and replacing or rebuiiding within 12 months. D. The W. Seventh St. boards are in the inferim special sign �strict approved' oy tiie Ciry Council on 7uly 8, 1998. The letter of 4/6/98 from the W. Seventh Federation requesting the district and approved by the Council said, "The special sign district would prohibit any additional signs, modification of existing signs, or the replacement of any damaged signs advertising signs (sic), except bus stop signs." However, City Council Resolution 98-733 approving the district councils' special sign district is not cleaz about "replacement of damaged advertising signs." The resolution reverts to the language in the original ordinance providing for interim special sign districts. The "resolved" clause in the resolution has four main points, inciuding: 6 �J � o�-asa . "3. The prohibitions of these special district sign plan moratoriums aze consistem. The council finds that the prohibitions apply only to prohibit the construction of new advertising signs or the modification of existing advertising signs. It is implicit that these prohibitions exclude bus shelter and bus bench advertising.." 4. Documentation submitted by Edler Media Company A. Eller hired W. T. McCalla, a structural engineer, to evaluated damage to the signs structures and determine what repairs would be needed for each sign. The City's stsuctural engineer in LIEP, Frank Berg, reviewed Mr. McCalla's reports and thought they were satisfactory. However, Mr. Berg has not himself examined any of the roof-top signs. (Mr. Berg did examine the ground sign at 1142 W. Seventh, the application that Eller withdrew. Mr. Berg detected greater structural deficiencies in that case than were listed in Mr. McCalla's first report, and ordered corrective action for public safety reasons. Mr. McCalla submitted a revised report for that sign with a more detailed list of repair measures.) B. Eller submitted very thorough and detailed cost estimates for the repairs needed for each sign. Their figures show the repair costs are minor compared to the cost . of constructing identical new signs. The comparisons aze as follows: LOCATION COST TO COST OF REPAIRS PBRCENT CONSTRUCT AN DAMAGE IDENTICAL SIGN Bill's TV board $13,167 $2,844 22% Checker Auto Parts $25,837 $3, 697 14% boards Highland Village $23,661 $3,620 15% boards ( W. Seventh, $8, 032 $1,453 18% for comparison} . The zoning administrator has no basis on which to either confirm or refute these cost estimates. Eller's estimates as shown in the table are for "direct/hard • reproduction costs" covering the materials, labor, and equipment needed to repair � o�-�.�� or construct the si�ns. If they go further and include soft costs for site procurement, overhead/contractor's allowance, and a profit margin, their cost � estimates to build new reproductions of the e�sting signs more than double. Then they subtract a depreciation estimate of 15 to 20 percent and reduce the total reptacement cost to approaimately double the direct/hard reproduction costs. Eller also submitted invoices for face panel lats for 300-squaze-foot signs and for the trim kits (that make the picture frame azound a billboard) to show what Yhese parts cost. In 1998 the face panel kits cost $500 apiece and the trim kits cost $220 apiece. These costs represent a small share of the cost of a billboard structure. C. Marvin Liszt, attorney for Eller, in his 6l16/00 cwer letter for the building permit appiication asserted that the City Council Resolution 99-1091 memorializing the Council's decision on the 1998 case on storm-damaged billboazds renders its determination that Eller's building permit applicarion is subject onZy to the provisions of section b6.301(2), which is the 51 gercent rule. This overstates the Council's meaning. It is also the Council decision that was reversed by the district court. Moreover, the resolution incorporates the findings of the Planning Commission's Resolution 98-45 of 8/14/98. The Planning Commission addressed this yuestion specifically in its point number 4 but said that it was not at that time necessary to decide the matter: "4. The first speci&c appeat by Scenic Minnesota is that, for advertising signs, the S I percent rule (66301)(2) is superseded by the list of conditions in � section (66302), which is specificaily about advertising signs. The city staff from LIEP, PED, and the City Attorney's Office have conferred and agree that nonconforming billboards are regulated by both sections and by applicable special sign districts; in the event of any apparent inconsistency, whichever contains the most specific provisions controls. Iiowever, the Zoning Administrator's letter contained only a request for information, not a decision about how the renovation cost information wouId be used. Therefore, since no decision has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature." D. Eller's building permit application made no attempt to address the requiremeri�s �f section 66302, which contains regutations specifrcally for the replacement, relocation, or renovation of nonconforming advertising signs. Eller's claim, apparently, is that they are doing minor repairs which do not rise to the level of renovation, thus they aze not subject to 66.302. Nor, apparendy, do they believe their repairs amount to mod�cations of existing advertising signs; thus they are not subject to the moratorium on building permits for billboards. The districY court judge wrote that replacing sign face panels constituted renovation. C. A dictionary definition of renovate is "to restore to an earlier condition, to improve by repairing..." (American Heritage Dictionary). It is reasonable to suppose that there is a lower level of sign repair than renovation--say, minor repairs or routine maintenance--but these terms aze not found explicitly in the Zoning Code on signs. � � U�-dS • � � � C� Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the code and basis for denial of application. A. The Zoning Administrator's letter of 10l17/00 denied the huilding permit after concluding that at least in the case of billboazds the sign face is the same as the sign itself. Section 66301(2) says: "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any estent of more than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." The Zoning Administrator reasoned that this language creates a twa-hurdie test, that if either the sign or the sign structure is damaged beyond 51 percem, then any repairs must conform to all of chapter 66 and, in particular, to section 66302. The information Eller supplied about the sign faces indicated that they were 100 percent destroyed. The Zoning Administrator's interpretation of the two-hurdle test follows from the disuict court's statements about the Zoning Code's underlying policy of removing nonconfornung billboards over time and that a biliboard without a face ceases to function as a billboazd. f] Eller's information did, actually, show that one sign face remained intact. The west-facing panels on the Checker Auto Parts board was not blown down. The vertical angle-iron on the west end has a small bend that curves the face backward, but the panels are probably usable. The Zoning Administrator's letter went on to suggest two altematives to Eller. They could reapply for repair pernuts and indicate how their application met the standards of section 66.302, or they couid appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. C. The Zoning Administrator did not question whether Eller's applications to repair the storm-damage signs on W. Seventh Street violated the temporary moratorium. The letter from the W. Seventh Federation, wtuch was written several weeks before the storm that cause the damage, specifically asked for a moratorium on repairs of damaged signs. Relationship to November 2000 billboard ordinance. Eller's application was made long before the new November 2000 biliboard ordinance was written or adopted and the new ordinance is not relevant to the case. The new ordinance was published on 11/24/00 and becomes effective on 12/24/00. But for the Planning Commission's information, the City Council did not significantly change section 66301 and retained the first couple of paragraphs of the eausting 66302 but cut out all the rest of the section. The new ordinance also added intent statements, both at the beginning of Chapter 66 and in the paragraph prolubiting new billboards, that the number of billboards in the city should be reduced. If the Council had adopted the Planning Commission's recommendation about what parts of billboard structures could and could not be repaired, the repair and replacement of 9 �� oi ��LS structural parts in the present application would be prohibited. But the replacement of sign faces on signs without structurai damage, which was the subject of the 1998 case, would be permitted. . PED STAFF REC011-Il1�NDATIONS: The Zoning Adminisuator has correctly interpreted Section 66301(2) as creating a two- hurdle test for signs and sign structures. If either is more than 51 percent damaged, the repairs or modifications or renovation must meet all the other regulations in the sign chapter of the code. Except for the west-facing board on top of Checker Auto Parts (1209 W. Seventh StreeT), the sign panels aze gone and the Zoning Administrator properly denied the building permit applications. 2. Although the west-facing board on top of Checker Auto Parts meets the test of being less than 51 percent damaged, it is in the W. Seventh interun special sign district. Repair of that sign structure should not be pemritted during the moratorium, particularly when the letter from the West Seventh Federation specifically reqnested that damaged signs should not be repaired during the moratorium. The Planning Commission should again recommend to the City Council that the language in 66.302 needs further work, although it does not need further review by the Planning Commission, which has already submitted it's recommendation for rewriting the section. Attachments: 1. Eller's appeal to the Planning Commission 2. Eller's building pernrit application on 6J16/00 (W�hicn inciudest�e �:�y �cun;,i? Res�!r�±�an 99-1091 on the 1998 storm-damaged billboards case) 3. Eller's supporting documentation 4. Zoning Administrator's eactension of the deadline written on 8/18/00 5. Zoning Adminisuator's letter denying building pernuts written on 10/17/00 6. Piamiing Commission Resolution (98-45) on 1998 storm-damaged billboards case 7. District Court ruIing on the 1998 storm-damaged billboards case 8. W. Seventh letter requesting interun special sign district received 4/6/98 9. City Council Resolution 98-733 approving interim speciai sign districts lO.Location maps • � • K;lSfiared�PedISODERHOLIZONINGl00-I50-648pcspffiepotLWPD 1 � 0 � APPUCAT3pN FO}i APPPAL � DepamnenY of Ylanning oxd Pcnno�nic Developme. • Zoning Settiax I1QQ City FIaII �irsrter �5 West Faurtk Street , Saint Paul, MN SSIQl 166-6589 APPELLANT Name Eller Media Companv AddreSS 3225 Spring Stzeet, N.E. Cj{y Minneapolis $t.MN Zjp 55413 Daytime phone $69-1900 PROPERTY LOCATi013 � Zoning Fiie Name Eller Media Comnanv Add�9sSlLoCatlon 1209 West 7th and 1184 Wese 7th and 2014 - 20 Ford Parkway TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the: CJ Board of Zoning Apg�ais ❑ City C nci� under the provisions of Chapter'�; Sectio 66. 4o8�9�Qh of the 2osting Code, ta appeai a decision made by the� Zoning Administrator 0 � October 17,, 2000, copy at F(e numDsr. (date GROUNDS FOR APPEAL; Expiain why you fee! there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refiusaf made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Pfanning Commission. See Attached. • Attach additional Sheet if Appiicant's � �-. �Nlarvin A. L3szt�} Bernick and Lifson Suite 1200, The Colonnade 5500 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416-1270 _� as� � City agent J"�tin t-� tc.K L�' ((— (5 �� J._ v� as� Grounds for Appeal: The zoning administrator nnproperly denied Eller Media Company's application to repair storm damaged signs at the above locations. The zoning administrator misinterpreted the St. Paul I,egislative Code in determining that two distinct damage hurdles must be met, one for the sign and one for the sign structure. This is especially true when the determination provided that "the zoning code does not give us clear direction in how to process this type of app2ication and we have had difficulty reaching a decision." The undisputed evidence established that each sign was damaged in an arnount far less than 51% of its replacement cost. � � • a� N�U-3e-1900 18�56 FR�M CITY pF ST PRUL LIEP TO 92283314 P.6be � JVK/ �� BERNICK AND LIF50�' A PRpFE551GNAC ASSOGIATION o •.-� t} /� �_�,�'� '�:'::I•��-�i V ATTORNEYS AT LAW " � ��: � . . .... � NEAL J. SHAP10.0 SAlll A. OERN�CK� MARVIN A. LV52T� THOMAS D. CREIGNTON SCOTt A 1�F50N OAVID K NiOMTNGnLEi PAUL J OUAST� WiLl1AM 5. FORSBERp�� MICHPEI R.BRADLEY STEPMEN J.GU2iETTA� SUITE 1200. TME CO�ONNqOE 5500 WAY2ATA BOU�EVARD MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTq 55416-12'70 TELCPNONE I6�2) 546-1200 FACSiMILE (6121 346-1003 June 16,2000 . Wendy Lane, Zoning Manager City of St. Paul 350 St Peter Street, Suite 300 St. Paul, MN SS1Q2-I510 RE: 1209 W. 7th Street, 1184 W. 7th Street,1142 W Dear Ms. Lane: � 0 `_ ;,.� rU .,-, 7th Sheet, and Ford Road and Kennetl�r- � _, __-� -:,,-� �,:; Enc►osed please find Billboud Permit Applications for minor repair of storm damaged signs at each of the above locations. It is my understanding that you have already received from Eller the supporting documentation verifying that in each situation, the sign was not destroyed by more than fefty- one (5 t%) percent of its replacement cost. Although Eller does not believe formai Billboard Permit Applications are necessary or required to be submitted in conjunction with the enclosed documentation, Eller has submitted them since you have indicated that LIEP will not process the storttt damage repair requests without the submission of formal pemiit applications. As I am sure you are aware, each of the above signs are legal nonconforming structures. The St. Paul City Councii has aiready determined that in such a situation the applicable ordinance provision is §66.301 (2) and the only determination required of LIEP is whether the sign was destroyed by more than fifty-one (51%) percent of the replacement cost. (See copy of City of St. Paut Council Resolution dated November 10, 1999, attached hereto). Obviously, LIEP is bound by the C'sty Council's determination since this submission and the one before the Councit in the attached Reso]ution aze identical. I fully expect that these applications wiil be processed by your office and determinations made prior to your disseminating any of these materials to other persons or entities. In the event you have any questions regarding any of the above, do not hesitate to contact me. Very tru(y yours, BEAN K & LTFSON .A. ' ,, iy � �-. Marvin A. Liszt • MAL:dI Hnclosures cc: Eller Media Company Petex Warner � I ��:150I�OMITTEO �N WISCONSIN C {+qy�p�CCRRIIEO�Pl3�} ♦ VNTANT �� J.CSOI�OMliikb`�Fl�i .�. �0.FS� PROGERTY tl�W 4GEC�AUST «m..m �...c.�..uo.�ax..[ w �ssen+�w• 'nDM1TiEC �N MASSACMVSETiS ANO OISTR�d OF COWM8IA IEGAL Aa51$TANT9 KAtHRVry Q.MASTCRMAN NANCY l. WHAYLeN TOTAL P.002 . d� as`� Councit File = — '�qt CITY OF Presented B;� Referred To RESOLUTION Green Sheec =_L�j L.��{ T� SY PAUL, MTNNESOTA �S Committee: Date 2 WH�REAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-:54 and pursuznt to Saint Paul :; T egisla.i � e Code j G5.40"o made appiication [o the Saint Paul Planning Conunission 4 (Commission) to appeal the decision of the Saint Paul Zoning Administrator to allow repairs to 5 storm daniaQed advertising signs located at 1820 Grand Avenue and at the southeast comer of 6 Ford Parl.�vay and South Cleveland Avenue; and 7 10 I1 12 13 1-� I� 16 17 1S 19 ?Q 21 •; � 23 24 25 26 27 �s 29 JO JI �? WFIEREAS, on August 6, 1998, the Commission's Zoning Comminee conductzd a public hearing where a11 interested persons were �ivzn an opporhuuty io be heard and subrr.irted its recommendatien to deny the anpeal to the Commission; and i�'FIEREAS, in its R.esohstioa No. 93-T�, datc-d Auaust �4, 1995, the Commissior. decid�d to d�ny ihe appeai based upon the tindin�s ia Resctution 93-43 which is attac'�ed lzeretu an6 incomo,ated herein by reierence; and �� VYfTE rAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zonin� File 98-2�7 and pursuant to the provisions of Saint Paui Legislative Code y� 64.206, fiied an appeal from the determination made by the Commission and requested a hearin� before the Saint Paul City Council (Council} for the purposes of the ac[ions taken by the said Commission; and W$EI2EAS, on October 7, I993 and acting pursuant to Saint Paul Lz�islative Code �y� �"••'�� -�^ ?^R �-�_`_ -os�ce to affected nar[ies, a pubiic,hearing was duly conducted by the Council where aII interested parties were given an oppommity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Council having heazd the statements made and havin� considered rhe application, the report of staff; the record, minutes and resolution of the Zonin� Commitcee and of the Planning Commission, does hereby; T2ESOLVE, t� af�.i�� ine QZCIS;C�R OT the Comnission. The Ccuncil iinds no erro; i:i anc iact, pr�ce�ure OT tiC1�I: �T II1312 b�' iitc' �In;1Il1II!? �pII7IIllSS1QP_ a1R� iI]2L LOII!DH �..4Q2 � 6C.��Ji 3L�PI1�S IO �,ese nui? - :,01?O�!I11R�? 1i�� 2:Llcii;_i :_ni:S : HIIQ DZ IT s e � �� ,: t ? 3 4 • � • :co; 3t q.`� -to q.� FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a cop}' of this resoiution to Brian Bates, Esq. on behalf of the appellant Marvin Liszt, Esq. on behali of the si�n compan}�, thz �1 Zonin� Administrator and the Plannin� Commission. P.equested by Departn_.^.: o°: 2y: °ocra Anp 5y Cic: ?. to-te' >y: �/dWG✓�M�_ �v/27�4'�'7 �p?rcved �y :^a;ror "' S''�a_s�:on to Cnurcl �y: � .,3�cnec. �y Co::aril: �sc.= _1 __. \cl \q��°, .�� _ ""'__'c Sy Cac�tc" s=_cret°r� CITY OF ST. PAUL OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMEN7AL 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 FJSE Number Sireet Name �@$$ '��/ ' L(��C1 �/'d l� r4uld Contractor � )(,z� J�'jzc � �- (!er�FF.�� Addre. /� City :ContactPerson ��:g /ll�t.�r�•- State iess/Owner� Sa Addre Cifir New Bilfboard Billboard Demofition ❑ �, BILLBOARD PERMIT APPLICATION Cross Street Qf Applic (��' nrk i h— �7 (Permitwiil Ee madetl to Ihe Cor '3225 Sp�� • �+a Mr,�nz� �l;s.N'� P.v. E�r lyso ;�.n+ttcP��S � 71J� �+4 rt Date Es[imated Completion o S/ j -/J S S `/13 �� ; - Phone ss4BS ESTtMA7ED VALU $ �' S''bm.IK/� �mpany this permit appiicatior Biilboard Dimensions Length Height(Abc iype of Biilboard (Check appiicabte box.) 7otal Square Feet Width Free Standing ❑ Wall � Roof � /�A� �l d �� `I CJ Fil! out this sec[ion for Illuminated and/or Electrical Billboard. NOTE: A separate Electricai Permit is REQUIRED when the biliboard is illuminated or is an electricai Check box of hpe: EIECt�IC81 - Illuminared � Contractor � y�,��,�,r ��c� � �.. Contractor Eleccrica! ❑ phone Number Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all pertinent state regulations and city ordinances will he complied with_in rform' he 8rk for which this permit is issued. _- - C�C'/2� Gi— l°o� plicanYs Signature Phone Number PAYMENT CAN NOW BE MADE BY CREDIT CARD� ` If paying by credit card, please complete the following information: EXPi'tc� i iv� i,A � E: Master Card � j vi�a n ❑ ❑ ❑❑ u I n!'(`ni TTiT Tii iA�tRFR � ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate App r o vals Structu�al Review FOR ppproved r� -��- Description of Pioject � • {� <f't � • ci.7_ �.� • S , _ / i � �ET�; ;2� I �t � L' OF � PROJEC !�(1c� ^� ance to Nearest � oard on the sam of the street (In Feet) ; � A c S o ��. ��Q � �r, r e �_�� 1 ' fd l�✓✓-�� SUMMARY OF FEES Biltboard Permit Fee $ Plan Check Fee $ Total Permit Fee $ (Make chedc payaE�e m Ne G�ry o� S Pa FAX lT? Would you like YES � your permit � faxed to you? NO if yes, please enter, / � J Z � �/ �` �, your fax number. � 6 L- Remarks • Non-Confarming IPIN � - ) �gy Sign Credits ��/ C1TY OF ST. PAUL OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 ST. PAUL. MINNESOTA 55102-15t0 !rJ Number Street Name St,Blvd„Ave,etc. ��t r— � �ess 1 �• 1 � � ��2� C t t Address NSEW �� . on rac or ) r � yp � - y �I� ° � n CI� �ZZS S�`�"� Indude Contact Person �,� �� Stat8,Z1 +4 �'��n✓l2� o� C! z/�� r� P P i�s, r 3usinesslOwner �;��,,,,. j� 1 Address l I b� w• � cry Sd. P� l, M� include Contact Person Stdt@ Zi +4 L" ^ Esti ate Start Date Estimated Compl New ❑ Ezistin� Biilboard ❑ �� g ) , � v Biilboard Billboard Demolition / BILLBOARD PERMITAPPLICATION �� Cross Street (If Applicable) Date �/,�/ ieCmvattofsACmess) phone ��Z S-1. F1 �. ,nl ss�J3 �'62-1`t�'� SS ICZ $ re_� �. � � � �ype of Biliboard (Check applicable box.) Total Square Feet tllliboartl Dlmensions Free Standing � Wal! � Roof m �� Width Length Height(A �ve Grade) / z-�J. x z, fi�. ys CA�. -:H� Elec�ricai is REQUIRED when h bElboard isBilu o is eleetricel Description of Pcoject g�llb n� to Nh arest Check box of type: E�eGtflCBl - Contractor� r' �� I(tuminated � K� In ��Z t �� C ,� �. Eltctrical � Contractor Phone Number Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all ertinent state regulations and city ordinances will be complied with in � �rfor n� l e work for which this permit is issued. �- �iz��'�9-/`fa D ApplicanYs Signature Phone Number 'AYMENT CAN IVOW BE MADE BY CRED/T CARD� lf paying by credit card, please complete the following information: EXPIRATION DATE: Masfer Card � Visa � ❑ ❑ ) �� _-------- ---- i oar on e sam� side oE the street (In Feet) --------- - ��<�i c�_-'�X iS��n� � -- _'F/�+'1.CCY �.-, j��4c �.�c / rL cr� �,-+: G S�� z { �'S --� I��m, l� —7 -- --- .PnG��t �o-+��t_ _ SUMMARY OF FEES Billboard Permit Fee $ Plan Check Fee � $ Sotai Permit Fee FAX i ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate S (Make Weck payaE�e to t�e Ci:y ct St Pa_ Woufd you tike YES� your permit ❑ faxed to you? NO f yes, please enter, yourfaxnumber: i Approvals ictuFal Review Zoning District Required FOR OFFICE USE Ol Approved Review %Z� �� —70 � G� Sign Credits i� �� ` f 8Y CITY OF ST. PAUL OFFICE OF LICENSE. INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 S7. PE7ER STREET, SUITE 30Q ST. PAUL. MINNES07A 55102-75)D Number Street Name ress ��Z j�_ `��l Contractor�� „{;�� ?�„�P�� a Contact Person �� M�� r""Z� nesstOwner �� /� V ,� Include Contact Person _ ,—�� ❑ 2r<.- L� ❑ New p'�rExistin Biliboard Billboard Billboard Demofition �t Date � Estimated Co�, � q ate �l/06 'ype of 8iilboa d(Check applicabie box.) Total Square Feet Free Standing � Watl � Roof � �� D(!�' W�dth / G "Tj� FiII out this section for Illuminated and/or Electrical Billboard. NOTE: A separate Electricat Permit is REQWRED when the biilboard is itluminated or is an elecYricaf Check bo � of tvpe: EIBCt(iCB� J Illuminared � Contractor � Q�ry� � f- E�L—{ �, � �� Elzccrical � Contractor Phone Number , Applicant certifies that all information is correct and that all pertinent state regulations and city ordinances will be complied with in rformin work�or which this permit is issued. � � ( / �z 6 �-l�aa A I' nYs Signature `Phone Number 'AYMENT CAN NOW BE MADE BY CREDIT CARD If paying by credit card, please comptete the following information: EXPITZATiOiv D� i E: Master Card [� ifisa � � ❑ � ❑ �ACCOUNT NUMBER: ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate > ' ' 2 <,� �� .�yi�' �n , L.. a1-- _ P ) — ----- I � , // { �( 1 ;,.," ___�{I..L f.�.r /Y'f''1�� / r nLi� C?o>1 -_��'t m, ��(�_ �' z �d.� L4_�__ __� SUMMARY OF FEES Billboard Permit Fee I $ Ptan Check Fee I $ Total Permit Fee I $ (Make check Dayabia b t�e Cny c` St rau FAX lT? Would you like YES � your permit ❑ faxed fo you? NO If yes, piease enter, ��/ �� ,� `!� „ your fax n�mber: UI.Y_�1 Appr Structural Review District Required i Approved BILLBOARD �� PERMIT APPLtCATfON `---`---- ` St,Bivd„Ave,etc. N S E W Cross Street ��t Address (Permilwlll4emailetlmlhee�clof��ress) '�225 $ %� City �',n�tz. ��'s� �J.1 5 5 y/ 3 c+�+e �t.,+n !' . Address � Z b'8 � �-t �c•�i{ A�-z- - c;�v �-�.. �'�.0, � ✓� ss �d� S Length � 2 �-�J. Description of Project ��/� �/z�� Phone�� z, �6�-lRD� Phone ALUE O PROJEC7 .m.f�C'iil !'71.C«r�t.J' Height(Above Grade) /�wv-rix Z� / Distance to Nearesf � ��Billboard on the sam side of the street � (tn Fee[) -- - -. Remarks . Cretlits �� `�' �8Y C1TY OF ST. PAUL OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAI PROTEC710N 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 Number 5treet Name �ess �Zd� � � �L Contractor r �� ,, K p \ � Contact Person � r� S N<< `d ��r J iesslOwner� � I� a �c� SI,�. ]L-t r Indude Contact New ❑ Biliboard Biliboard Demolition � (Perm4vri6 be maded m the,COnVattMS F;:reszl 3 2 Zs S�r ri� $'�. .a1.C: � / 1 'l , nntGp.,l �s, M� SS�lt3 �300 P"�0� l/•ndb �G�. Nk no�c�� t,�e ��G•l s, M,,t_1 � SS J2.0 )ate Estimated Completion ESTIMA7 �/l $ ��P fype of Billboard (Check applicable box Total Square Feet Biliboard Dimen Free Standing � Wall � Roof� � Width Length �L� O s� -� - /2 4'�. x 2�-�a. Fitl out this section for Iiluminated and/or Electrical Biilboard. NOTE: A separate Description of Project Electrical Permit is REQUIRED when the biliboard is itiuminaied or is an efectrical Check bos of type: EIOCffICB� -- Illuntutared Contractor �„L�K r E�2C_ar1 G �p . (� � 2 �,� !7S �X � � Contractor --� � � Electrical ❑ Phone Number w S��L��'r=�!� licant certifies that all information is correct and that all state re ulations and city ordinances wili be complied with in �i�mi �the work forwhich this permit is issued. -__�"" v�/Z � -l`lC�O plicanYs Signature Phone Number 'AYMENT CAN NOW BE MADE BY CRED/T CARD If paying by credit card, please complete the following information: EXPIRATION DATE: Master Card � Visa ❑ � ❑ � ❑❑ ACCOUNT NUMBER: ame o ar o er p ease pnnt) ate mce to Nearest � �ard on ifie sam of the street (In Feet) ., G t,- c. S f. �..� / ; �' -l� _C� ��r'� �.,.e. - _- -- - SUMMARY O FEES L Ob°-/ i0�� Phone NM(n Height(Above Grade} . -�..� Billboard Permit Fee I $ Plan Check Fee � $ Totaf Permit Fee I $ (Maka check Paya0la fo ihe Ci�y o' SI Pa� FAX lT? Would you like YES � your permit � faxed to you? Np If yes, piease enter �, -, yourfaxnumber. �� 69- ��6 �" Approvals ictuFal Review oistrict Required � Approved I, BtLLBOARD Dl-3S� PERMIT APP LICATION Street (If Applicable) � Date s-�r��-� Remarks Non-Confortning p�N Ke� Sign Credits � g1' ! �.: �'.� � �� s` ,� • � ��.� � �_a � � --.r: � � 4 < - . ��-:� '� ` �' ` . ,' �`�' 3 ,_ ', i " F .; i y' � � �. �� •� .,.� S r . i . ;F�� y5� @'�. ��, y S . f •' ; } t' , � ; - � �:. �:� b , k. } }.4: , �� 5' f � �} j ! f . .� s C �� '4 fr"_. S�-� �... S '�`4 ' a�: ' , i t � ' 4. �. . . •. ( � S1 F Y . � i ; ; } r �� ' �- i . - , ,-..-: , . ; '._�- . � � ; a .� �. . � e.. `:..:. - F, ? x � � � A� � ., � f�,tic.' ' � : . } �'++�:�1 /'bi�`z_ . .�� a 'b \ E y:� .:. ��:.g�`�,,:� �+. . r,, �,� � � �' y � : �F i:`i ; � 7 `� t �L ri3* l t�:i 1 u � ( � 'i�� th f'-� � � 4' ' 4. ' . �� ti� � . �� I' : . �; �� ' '� , '�,� C � `�' f fst �;`' � ... . . �{ . . t . ._ ' ,; s � �t � � � � , � � + � t � � �� :� / P`K � . . ; � ' - _ �., ..-+�. F.� �s�.., � z •�,#yr a +...'„� . . - _ - . .:. � 'r s . � " L , a � �_ �+ � � ..N t �-` r �x � � ',. . � � T,. . �t � � . 'r t � � r �}'' F '° ._ � r � - ,�i ^ . � _ 3 . � F _ -.""+, y: _' -� �' + f : Y ,rr _ � ti � ;i , 2' � S� x ' f = .-s�a3-.�� 5�_ . r . � _ } �.�_ '" � . . . . _ F t ' . . " � . z 1- , . j 3 � -_ . .' .. _ .. "i �' - '4� r � � ?. .rrR . e� ' . r" 1 � y � . � : �- '} F. ; 3% f y� . � 17r 3�?t`+'Nrril�T��_ �ti-rv } _ .:.1i�3*. - ; ' � - a/} . �-a • � ! ��.f .... ': . .. � � �.�+�¢ �f i�RZ.. �t i � _� 1 J .�+' _� � _� � �i � 1 �` � � .. .. � 4�� -_ . . . .n.�.. � . * Y 4 � _� ��a � -as� � :� Tififin's 24 and 30-Sheet Poster Panels, verticai or horizontal, are made of the finest steel, meeting the highest miil tequirements. Tiffin's speciai engineering and design ofEess speedy assembly and easy erection and �nstai{ations on-sife. Tiffin Posters can 6e compietely assembied on the fioor of }rour shop, or the ground, on-site and quickly and easiiy lifted into place on yourstructure. �� . .. A smooth, continuous surface is formed with Tiffin's Rib-Locking or interlocking sections. Tiffin has always been the fore- runner of new desig�s and innovations in outdooradvertising to improve appearance and life, and make instaliation taster and simpler. RitrLcck Sections fri instantly with Tiffin Sprits. Ti�n sections, parts and hard- ware are interchangeable with your existing inventories. � PiflY 13�20 FR(x�t F�Rr1ETC�,iNC_ n p. Box 1989 � 963 Pleasant Hill Rd. „uluth, Ga 3Q095 ate: 05/21/98 � TO E O R M E T C O, I N C. ORDER ACCLPTANCE 16128697682 P•@1 O� �SV JP OEFICE:� 770-476-7000 800-367-6382 FAX: F300-239-2394 '770-497-901� �� NOTAX Sold to- Ship to: � tLLER MEDIA ELLER MEDIA 3225 SPRING ST NE 3225 SPRING ST NE , MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413 MINNEAPOI,IS, MN 55413 � ATTN: Tom Klees ATTN: TOM KLEES + 612-869-19d0 Fax:612-869-7082 612-864-19Q0 Fax:612-869-7082 � Sales Order Order Date Cust No. SLS P.O. Number Shzp Via 86511 OS/21/98 ELL023 1 Ship Via -------------------------------------------------------------^•------------- ��rd Qty Item Number / Description Unit Yrice II/M Ext. Price ------_....---° -� _ -_ _.. _---�-�----------------� °--°°---° °° °--------------- � 5 *90-FXMW **Parent Item in Kit�"* 5145.55 EACH $727•75 FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM WHZTE 10 9Q-FXWV � FORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM WH`TE VERTICAL �0 90-FXwH � EORMA-FLEX 300 TRIM WHITE HORIZONTAL 90 *90-FX-TRIM-BKT **Parent Item in Kitx* $1.79 EACH $161.1� FORMA-ELEX 300 TRIM SRACKET � 90 90-fx-trim-bkt FORMA-FLE7C 300 TRIM BRACKET � 360 10-32501 - TRIM SCREWS - #14 2P '� Si l�-°-5ZQ2 SC.26 EACF; $21,06 ROOK BOLTS/NUTS 2 � S 10-21090 $34.55 EACi?. 5172.75 F-109 FORMATIC SPRITS � 5 *10-21092 **Parent Item in Kit*� $3.10 EACH S25_50 F-109 Z HANGER PLATES & BOLTS/NUTS S 10-210921 ��j� � P-I09 Z HANGER PLATES•WITHOUT B/N � YJ � � O � � � �/ � ! Page: 1 �,/ Jl �. 6.1998 1• 41PM 7IFFIN h�fHL PRODt1CTS� � /� � ; �.(. �Q : �� I � � � �b. J/ (04-7 . . . METAL PRODtlCTS 450 W211 SVeek Trffin, Ohio 44883 /(419j 447-8414 May 12, 19�8 ��`�� - • �.�,c,Cx.�.f.j �� Mr. Tom Klees II,LER Iv1�'DTA COMi�ANY 32?S Spring Street, N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 � Dear Tom, N0.176 P.3 a I -3�5� WATS 1-$-'�0-537-0983 FAX 1-419-447-8512 . �� v � �a�� CI'�d �( . Phoae: #bt7r869-1900 Fax: �612-869-7082 't�,�r� v"�'� '�'I` �'��..- :. It was a pleasure speaking with you! Per your request, we aze plsased to provi�e: o�s quotation for the following: ' • :��r.��,_ _:y �� 1 t f �t 3 � � � � � � � (8) Each I8" x 24'S-1/2" Horizontal 5ections (3) Each Sprits � (2� Esch 2" Hook Bolts (4) ,Each Hanger Plates � TOTAL. PFR FEr! ;E �499.25 _ �----- - (4} Each #95-158 Comer S:�pport Brackets for Fiberglasa'frim $2.€,��)/Fach (14) Each #1026 Brackets • $1.�?�ach *F.O.B., Tiffin, Ohio *Tax not included Torn, if you have atry questions, don't hesitate ta contact me �rect �t 1-800-53 ?• 0983 _ We are looking torwazd to worldng with yonr plant again. Sinoerely, 1T�FIN METAL PRODUCTS �� Peg Wennez Sales Manager/Qutdoor F'roducts Division � ::::. CREATIVE DESIGN lN lviETAL FABRICA, �'!ON a I � `�'�`` a (�� # i c�� t'� � n r d r 1 � l� t. d , �'�� ,liNF17-i7�7� '�te •••c ""` W.T.MCCHLLA. P.E. � . . (MliC1 McCa14a. BE. eBW 75YaAvsmis no.tlL9makl�M1PaAC MN 55�7H (fi12) 580-7��G ]Une 29, 1998 Mt Thomas J. Klees D'aeuor of Operasions E11rrMediu, Inc. 3225 Spriag SirxtN. E. i�Tanupplis MN 55413 DearMr. Klees: 1N 11.�UL ��-oC7U r�".�i� 1151't" ��.., � re: Fow storw d�nnaged signs Wc� 7`" Street dt 1 otha location St Paul, Mu�neapolia WTM Job No. 1075. This is to certify that I inspea.ed the above 4 signs on 7une 18, 1998 in your presenee. Each struct�ue wili ix descn'bed in the ocder inspcctaf, as follows: t. 1184 Wat 7' Street is a double faced Vee stntcWre with a heavy steel wide flange beam fiame on the roof. The wesc A frames have be�► removed beca�se they had been bont diuing the stocm. The east tight gage steel sign psnels aze missing_ Ihe major part of the strudtm, the h�avy steei roof frame and t�st A ficames are �lamaged and stcuct�rally satisfactory- \ ,�p� 2. C3211'�West 7'" Stceet is a bi-direetioral3 postec strueture with a heavy structucal stcel wt�e flang� beazn roof frame. All A fraraes are intact, Z signs have the light steel pa�tls missing, and the 3'� has a couple of paneLs bent. The heavy scee[ fraau and A frames arc uadatnaged and ahueturalty adequate. 3. � 1142 Wat 7`" Suea ia a singie poster ground bu�d with the light sieel panels missing. I'he 3 vertiral sapports are fornied from ]0 gago stxl tapered channcls bacl: to baek fosauag 3 I beams. The beams are set ia 3 sted caas that appear to conuun saad, noc conctde. The 3 beams tilc varying amounts but do not appear m be daznsged at sll. �.� Coaection requited is to looxa the sand and stcaightw the vcrtical t�ame �i3 replace the paaeIs. 4. Ford Pukway at Kenneth a� F�illcrest is a bi-directional 3 poster strucwn with a heavy structural steet wide narcge b�,,. -.-:.c: �zexe: 9ae szeel channd, sectinn restin8 oa tbe heavy steel frame was bart aad had been replaced_ Alt li�it steet i r,.ne7s are missing. The hcavY steel frame and A fiames are iatact and scructurelly satisfactory. In my opinioq all four locatioas listed abvve are suucnually adequate and rathu easilY refurtrished Piease f�ed free to catt me should you havc any civations or want fiuther detaila. Struetural Comuiurte Brrdqes - SavcwrN Gbhcroro • Erpen Tisnmorryr �y 6 ��B � P.. /� f G • ' '7 'tn7HL P.82 • � ��, . � .�.- ��.,�.�Y.�� ,..�:>a,� ,�:�.�:.,..� , ..�,.�. ..<� � .,.., 07/02/98 16:04 F.+.S 812 451 5929 . 1 �. �,r, ��es � oy.,►: �o �p {�• South St. Pau4 Stee! Suppty Co., inc. 200 Hardman Avente N. South S't. Paui. MN 55075-2A20 (612) 451-6666 � 'I-800-456-7777 Fau: (612) 451�929 Sfl. ST. PAUL STEp_ $()pp�y - ?i 200 HARDI4AN AVE M. .. S0. ST. PAl1L . MN 556752420 URTE; . 0?/02l5'S QUOT'E '#: 0144Q I5-0166 REQ SHIPe 00/00/C�0 •. 0100539-0142 UNIVERSAL OUTDDOR, INC. UNIVERSAL OUTDOOR, INC. 3225 SPRING STREET N,E, 3225 SPRING S7REET N.E. HINNERFOLIS MN 554I3 MINNEAFOLIS MN 55413 —_--- --- ------------ O1 60223 10 EA ANGLE 2-I/2 X 2-1l2 X 1/4 �� ^ � �� WIDTH LEN6TH 20' 820 35:9SOd CWT 319.34 TERMS: I/2% 10 NET S(� 02 62254 10 EA CHANNEL 5 K 6.?# `^� � w WIO7H LEN6Ty 20' 1340 41.80QQ CWT 560.12 7ERM5: 1/2% 10 NET 3C� 03 Q1263 WIDTH 94 91302 WI�TH ld EA CHANNEL ErX 54.5# t_ENGTF! �20 �_ , - - 14 6A CHANNEL $ X 11.5# LEN6TH 2c7' u � os oiaa� WIDTH 1 EA WF FtEAM 8 X 24# LEN6TH 20` 21�0 ! 34"s9540 CWT 838.95 TEFMSd NE'i' 3G 2300 39.9500 CWT . 918.85 TERMS: 1l2G 10 NE'f 30 ��___/ 50 ST PAUL STEEL ;� '; f�j001/002 e' ' . i a; •. �I—dS� : 2��es �?�1��r'�: �1V�- � �.. k80 59.OQ00 CWT 7ERMS; 1/2'/. 10 NE'T �C n � 254.40 0.'e/02/98 I6:04 F�b 612 451 5929 SO ST PAiJL STEEL South Sf. Paul Steei Suppty Co., inc, 200 Hardman Averate N_ Souih St Paul, A,}�V r,�p7c,�pq� (s� z) as�-ssss • �-soo-ass-m-i Fax_ (672} 451-5g2g OI90530-0102 UNIVERSAL OUTDOOk, INC. 3225 SPRING S7REET N.E, MINNEAFOLIS MN .°,5423 ` ,. .. S0. ST. PAUL STEEL St1PPLY 20p HARDMAPf AVE N� 5�. ST. PAUL MN 5''atl^�ti424 DATE:�07l02/5'9 QUO7E #: 0144915-01h6 FEQ SHIF: QO/0o/i�0 UNIVEkSAL OUTDOOR, INC. 3225 SRRINS STREEf N.E. MINNfiAPOLIS MN 55¢2„ ^- - --------- -------� --------- O6 00716 1 ER WF BFAM 12 X 4U# WIDTH LEtJ6TH 20' 840 ,3.OP00 GWT 424.Oa TERMS: 1/PY. 10 NET �( � � 07 OQBP9 I EA WF BEAP! ib X 45# uIDTH LEN67N 2�' 4R�F.� CQMMENTS 900 53.Q000 CWT 477.00 TEFMS: if2% !0 NET 3(% � TOTAL WEIGHT: 8740 TOTAL: 879E.7! o�-�.'�� 002/OU2 • :�NIVERSAI DUTDOQR INC 312 344 4177; 07/06/98 11:37AM;,j�x #156;Page 2/3 � .. � � - •: UNIvERSAL GUiDGCR � � � E_' _ �' :, � ' 6= �•� .� � +Y :.~ 5.. : 1 . +� '�:.� ��K��i��• � ��ti��n� _�t:.:'_. �.s....s�. _.-.•—.�g i CQNKRAG?ORs AR�B � � � �;�„�...�a ti._...: �r�( �r. is�s �Mr. BilE Hcggatt pt�ANTUM STRUCTfJRE ANC DESIGN 93Q Stf{es Drive Addisott. {t!'snois 60iQ1 — — -, , F T- ` r (76�) 9g6-6E 'S .. . . ...,..__.:.._�.._.:. _•_ .- gpgEA6'S'K£NILWORTNAHEP IE PAOSPECT HE�BHT6, u., SO: '6 �� . • �� N° � � 713� m �gb xu,�h.e._r_ 2Q34 ��, 1�' x 25"Vee" Cent�rrr+ourt Roof BuiIC : 1010 West Lake 6@'aet 8t Dupont Mir�r�paiis, Minnesota Co o1e �on [iai�e: April 1, '1998 Furnish �nd instalt refer�nced strudure in accordancm �+ith P�ane and sp�cif�catlon� P�' DravYinQ Nutnber97QEA'and 874BB. � 8U@TOTAL ��g7�•Q� Sappteme�tal charge tc fumish and instsll.two {2) VSr�� x 55 "spacet" .. bemms tio �tlow Na 20" d�arr�ter main hacizont�l pipe suPP� � .. d� a HYAC ualt on trie ruof. A4so �4uire9 ai thi.? sedon `�s fietd yvork s�ort�nin8 ths main vertic� $�+DPoR ootwmn to mstir�tain ths P�PK ovetali heipht • SUBTOTAL S'�,355.0@ A! the dir�cxian of NTn�saDalis operatiorss..tt�id wotk relocatsn9 � bott+ frant waticwaYs turtl�er aw�Y fiom the Upripltt�. Thls wotk Snclud�d extanding Si�e Srontrvalk gttppert ba8ms, n�vlsing artd ssbricaflrs9 a rtev,r.ccassavet �UBTOTAL d s�fetY rail.: 860.00 �ank ycu� T. E�,s: (J2139) � a�2 aaa ati71; , •: TOTAL A11�0UNT QUE TFi1S iNYGlCE We appreci�ts you� businesst N�t Ten c� a} �ays � adltalae t:z9Ftl;,� �22a;Page � � U :� : �.:. ��.: :... � . r,x. a�t-�.� _ . dlraix� - O�wP. F�ro S S [4eae.��_�_. __ . _ 01 -�`p � ��,i89 OC � � � W.T. (Mec) McCalle. PE. � F `�i � � � � 6SW 75YzArenue Norfh. Brookiyn Aark MN 55428 (612) 560-7446 AUgUSY 2E, 2000 Mr. Thomas J_ Klees Director of Operations Eller Meciia, Inc. 3225 Spring Street N. E. Minneapolis MN 55413 Dear Mr. Klees: re: Storm damaged sign 1184 West 7' Street St. Paui, Minnesota WTMJobNo. t075-A. � This is to certify that I inspected the above in your presence today. We surveyed the structure for d'unensions and section properties. We compared photos from June 18, i 998 to photos taken today. There has been no discernable additional deteriosation over the 2 year period. � Using the dimensions and properties noted above, I calculated dead load resisting moments and ;, obtain 94K'/49.SK' = 1.9 FS> 1.5 required. � In my opinion, this structure will be structurally adequate with the repair or repiacement of I beni 6 inch channel. Please feel free to call me should you have any questions. Very truly yours� //� � � ' j� %��F.E� W. T. McCalia, P. Ettg. Copy: by Fax, Frank Berg, P. �., City of St. Paul. �� Structurai Conwltant Btldges • SLvehus� Conciete - Expert Testimony .� 9bbL 095 Zi9 i n«�yau�h�ma[ ' w'y: Prepared by me or under my dircct supervision aM that 1 am aduly tLegiACred En6�� o^da �he lauspf�heSta�eofMinnesota/� lA/. �f �7�'�_6 �!/ Date Regrsuahon No. 10540 u � • '3'd `ELLQ7�W 1 M d0£=60 00-6Z o�-as � -_...__. -r;.� ,, ,;�.�. � � .. . 0 �1 '� _ a8& zl�,k�2.a�ac�T7�j��1 F�m �3�,Y Yft - . �4.�� .F... f�'.� . .. . + N.�.4 y `31 $ � �� „�, -� �.� . . .�4 ...r�. ',',-, � _ } . ' c � -: r ,, t��'�R� :� r _"bsf) «r.�3� l � � �' ! 1 �� j ..� �� _ � �,� ��i �� :, - f - ,. ��1ax`ar^... ' � � �`�`:..5 . Y... Y �u+fYY_ �+$ ��"�''.�_;:�..� � s '� ��" _ ... �: , .... . ... .uYi'Y{nt"' a`_Vi+.T..+r .. ✓ _ �'��e .... _.. i184 7th 0 b�-�su • � � � r. �- '�"'� : :: rc:�.. .. •' � -.K � �.+w �� , .� �' � 7 �. �� ' �` 3 ►.� � 3� '�"/•` � ' - ::eIM �..# : > � s^" _� p- � ' � A� . ;�, � , � � � � ....�_'�,. •-� "�''--� _�.�. �� v s �'� Y 'cx �`�'-:�--�.----' ��$'�'.�z��s�Cdrv'2 . .... .. . - . . . . ; \ :' - . . ". �.f �� ... � �� ' �. �'>. T��%� ' i��' r ,� ,: � �,', ,y _ ; _� `_ . i !�'�. -� . �►--�' t='� ,�� _ ,.%� �-� � •� -�` +� : , � T . � -. �� _ .'., _. .�_ ra � � �. i " . - " ._ `'\\ ��' �4 . .. � / . . . t-..�R �,� . - .��:' �� '_�"'�� - - - � _ . ,+z> `:: ! �j o�-a�� i '�� • 0 � � �, � } � STORM DAMAGE OVERVIEW . . ELLER MEDIA COMP�IY � LOCATION 1184 W 7 TH C' VIEW DISPLAY 2 POSTER FACES �� o�-as� � Photos one and two describe the pmsent condiuon at the site. Prior the storm this unit had an east and a t�•est face, each �cith a sinale poster panei. The storm damaged the easterly and �yesterly si� faces and bent the verRcal supports for the a�esterly sign face. The damaged sign faces and bent westerly suucture were removed. The hea�ry• steel mof frame was undamaged and is structurally sound (exhibit four, McCalla, 3une 19,1998}. � � � � � Repair at trus site will in�olve fabricating ne�r torvers for the w�est face and a sign face (see photo rit-o) and trim for the east and c�-est faces, and then installing the towers and si� faces on site. On site work will be accomplished in one day by a ciew of tiu�ee «orkers (24 hours). The remainder of the time ��•ill be spent on preparation and fabrication in our shop. The electrical service at this locarion is still in place and the fixNre and platform for the r��est face is in stomge at our shop. C. NOTES / AMENDMENTS At the City's request we have prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPL.ACEMENf COSTS LESS DEPRECIATION" workshee[ and materials list specifically for this site. In that process we discovered rieo changes from our estimates on our original "Stonn Dama�e WorY.sheet". We found the repairs, if identical to ihe preetisting sUvcture would be with a mix �f 2.5" x 2.5" angle and 2" x 2" angle, not solel�° 2.5" x 2.5" angle , and the cast of the identical replacement would be slighdy more than �ve had estimated. Those changes aze reflected in our Storm Damage Worksheetdated 4/4/2000 '"�� .:�J � � „� � � �� E 4s `-f U�-�iiC �!�/�- �t, v t e� � i. : ��►r • _� �:_ �: •_ ��-asa � - ,� faces �s�lface. . Total site procurement - - - ��c� °u : • r: .yt r �� • t : : .�: . .: . . .. ,. . ,.. :,. -Estimatedcoss------------------------ oaS•f'o -Aeliverycherge- ---------------------- S - -$81CSL3Y��--.—�Io_'_�""""'_"'-" f �6i.c1Q ; . ' SUBTOTAL----------------- � `�'a9L•rro '� '�l IN-SHOP FAAtZTCAT[�rI: - Labor to temova basic materiaLa from truck; in-shop fabricatiou,and assembly; in shap P��B . ". I ': -'L- man. crew Q g houzs p. 352. o0 �'. �� ! '� RTOT/�I-----�----^-�---------�-------------- �3SZ,vr7 � '-^ � ,. :��-: . ,�. ' , ii:::::r,x�.,i „•_. � - - -_.._ ...� .�. � ��I C_ .`=: _ p��iur`e,includes (a) erew & equipment necessary to haul suucttiue & material to ', . site and - employ aa auger to dig hoIe and haul dirt: . � =,: � � , � (a) " man crew @ . houzs Q to di hole and haul ! �c1ut�--'�----�----e----------------- (b) use of augar for ,_. hours Q i �_,Jtu -------------------- ,�.�_ ; - Labor to febricate footings at site and pour coiierete �ootings at site. , . - _..' Ataa c�cCw Q _ _ �� {`� ,5�; ..lhr:. ----- -------'------ "3s.�--� ::� ._ y� coacrete Q �_JYd- - - - ^ - - - - - - . N�f --- - EcI!uPment requued:. . • . � : (a) onc ' �ua1c Ca� ` ' � hours S N� ',�; •^---------------- (b) oae trucic @,, hours i. ��ro��--------�----------�------- �-�— � :: �: � ,� , � . . .._tlih .1 _... �� , • �. ;�. • . . . . . - r Pagc 1 of �� -asd � • � Ar�xarsai , s . � LOCATIOrT # . � . � •�flr P ACE"__R�Pi, h:�NT COC� nFp� .LATTOLY (COi�1TIN3£FI21 � i .. � ' Sl ASCF�y'�r e rrovFR C'IgUC7ZTRR 02�7 CTTF.: � � - - Includes assemtbly of fascia, stringets, platfomis, ladders, brackas, etc. flik5ii� _ 3 man crew Q� hours Q. ,_ � �$Jyt--------- -------�l - �4�P�L tequired: :. (a) oae oth w. truck Q � hours - - - - � � cs0 '. . Q. s��u. ------------ �� (b) one��r� tzuck Q �- houcs _ @c sn �hr.--------- - S /��o� i� �,.,,A,,,�c�.� � r�-� . �, 2 � _ . r ' -------- �� zo � vt� c�,7BTOTAL-- � ;` , ::, - '-" .1� • . ,�y.; �` ' `. e . .;,�:;,� •'n t� .� . . .. . ` .. ..... . . . . .. . •.. ., � u .;� � � . Page� � • � �• � AP'PEtAISAL !! � LOCATION �t � O l -2S ° t. : : y ��. ►lt • e • : y ; •. • uru�.� ► � Fi F�IRGAT �'T L�NA`I'IO23: �� `,` -:Purchase of basic elecuical material including li�t fixtures, ballestq, Samps, boxes, <` j haagers, brcakers, ctocks, misceIIaneov.s items such as coaduit and rnnnectozs, clamps � � �, . � and,chps,etc.(a3 �, --------- �/. ; � .. � . f . - Sales fax @ � % for maurials - - - - - - - - 5 85; c�J � � � i � ,- Load and waload equipmeat at site = a 2 man { ccew @ � hours each Qa S ��r• - - - ,�.-�OD •O�O '- Install eiecLcicat panels, run conduit, pul! wire, inscall fixtures and baliasts: � - � maa crew @ � hrs. (a� ��/k�r. ------------------- �aD"�a - Equipsneut requued: (a) one n� 'tcuck Q�� Y hours Qp S��'•---------- S dd� � . a (b) ont truck Q hours �,� /hr. ---------------- S (c) one truck @ hours pa nu.--------.--------- �_.___.__ f . . ' ' ' •: � .., ' � -- `� SUBTOTAL ------------�--- - - ---------------- '� • �� Ps; � 6►-asb n.rrxa�sni. � . . � - � . ,� LOCATION # � .. �'ih' P ACE" $�P�ACF cOSTS LESS DEPRFGiATIQ2V ! O��DI � �q'�g(i �$ aT_ P/�TNi'RRC; - Ctew to paint upzight4 iacluding structucal steel, laddas, sUrinB�. �, etc., alI icems �XC�g2 fascia. - 'L mau crew Qa � houis @ . y�1hr. ------------------------5 3s7�� - �w r«�a (a) one paneI uuck �u�d for �.,_ hours � ��- - - - - - - - - 4 . ofl : 3�JRTOTAL-..-------�------------------------- �SS2�crd . I�1LS�. .i,A�oti�: � ;: Permiccosta--------------------------- �3GZ, c� SoiIstests --------------------------- S �i/!�/ �, �3c�.�- I?IRECT/HA.RA REPRODUCTiO1V COST (ITEMS 2-� ----- l J/ i � , r : ; . �,q�raTTOx: - , ,s � The abpye cosis are for la.�r n�d zavv materigls onlv end do not iaclude "induect costs" inclu3ing such items as ( - staadard overhead sllowaace and (Z) wucpreneuriaUprofit --- as explained in ihe nattative of tfie zeport- �i�� Page � � � 4• AYYiiA1�AL # L:�'�'AZ'I'32`1 # � � � d�_� � 1 �� : �1' : : �J �ar�a/ a y . 1 ' : �l : 11 • � • ��t►t t � lu�ua: • :�I�;�r ylr�� • . . ...�. •r� L ..•. � - ``� � � � � � Ia place nplacement (diiect cost) = S 3/67 a0 (pages i, 2, 3& a) s�tnosai -------------•---------------say, a ao�F . i � Overhead/conhactoz's aliowance @ t S �o - - - - - - - - S �'0 7S, o-U_. Entreprulcu[isl proflt � � °/-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 30 2 � v0 REPI.ACEMENTCOST1�iEW---------------SAY, 3�.0� � ': : �s� itu: � � .• . .. ;� � � � TOTAL AEYREC7ATION ESTIMATE - - - �(�.�3 )• *.NOTE: DEPRECIATION IS ZC� % OF DIRECT COST (DEPRECIABLE ASSETS) � oN�j, rc ONc; . . . TO�'AI, REPLACEMENT CO5T 1�iLW ------ 5 32�G 7, oo '' �. ..LESSDEPREC3A�TONALLpWANCES ---- �Yr.3 y , � REPLACEMENT COST LESS DEPRECiATIO1V VALUE - SAy, �� 3 ��. �� . I I � / . `�, /I�/� v� � � �� .�l_. (I) actuaI age of tfie in-place oucdoor advertising structum and - (2) recogniting the sttict maintenaace schedule appIied to outdoor advertising sirucLures and - '(3) the conditioa and quelity of construction and - {bj thc locatiau ead cconomic lifc expectsncy of the outdoor advertising structure ----• We have atlived at the conclusion that the overall depreciation esiisnate oF �� %* should he applied or as follows; �� .. Page 5 of 5 � - `. , f;� ; .. � , . , � ,.; � _ � Vv�.a� � �_Q.a� 7d� 9� V� e,u.� �� ; o� I� �„ � `;, � F -- i ;� :.� I` -<.. � ; ; S �C � $ � � �^ pZ..te�-+.^- �c i Z .-, a' --- ---. 5;.�'�` Uv �- `, F �, � 1 � °' ' ; � G' c'.�.a�c�.-Q w� 't� � -�T ` r S . � - • II' 1sG r z- �/ �- x Z�/Z �-° �ivx,. � 1.eo/a --�—°2 `f �t. 6 O —._.... ,;; . .., , �. `: `' S� Z'� �C a`� S<„ �:vu�C�,� 0 5 7. o(� . ;. ; � �—�----" -- �: �E 1' l�a..� � � e4 � —. + t (� /� � � / �}'�'' � �.I 1 2 �._ � X � �Z'//O�177. w �. �'7 _. _.__ . ..__. — .�s.o �( n cJfl 0 r= � �_..M . _ ,., . . � i i �: jy.c.f�u-� - 13� � � � ' - o� :'��:� ;��--��sa _:� ..�::, ;,�<. :� ; �� .?� �� ° r," � 1 ,Ii�'yS'�,. �.� 1.. � �,;. . � ` '" l -- �,,.. �L �. :�� u.- ; T I °. . � .i.> ; ;� : • J� 7 6uo� + ----- � � � �-� x��. � F.! �Os V�`-yC/��.0 O� �'yQrv� TiZu�-..- c %t � � >� �. � : . � , ��y,� A i, .3al. � _,. _ �� '�-, � �. �U 7 $ . 8C� S S',��c `/77.'07� as-�, z z�. vz� � �ozs, 90 F . � ..—_._.--ii — ...� j� � oi-� � �. � C�l �� 1-�S� C_/v�_� W.7. (Mec) McCalle. PE. 6600 75'/zAvenue North, Brookyn pa(k, MN 55428 (652) S6D-7446 August 28, 2000 Mr. Thomas 3. Klees Director of Operations Elier Media. inc. 3225 Spring Streei N. E. Minneapolis MN 55413 Dear Mr. Klees: re: Storm damaged sign 1211 West 7'� Street St. Paul, Minnesota WTM Job No_ 1075-B. � This is to certify that I inspected the above in your presence today. We surveyed the.Structure for dimensions and section properties. We compared photos from June ] 8, l 998 to photos taken today. There has been no discernable additional deterioration over the 2 year period. � • Using the dimensions and properties noted above, T calculated dead load resisting momenis and obtain 162.9K'/99.K' = 1.64 FS> 1.5 required. Tn my opinion, this structure is structurally adequate as is. Piease feel free to cal! me should you have any questions. - Very truly yours, 1 hueAy certify thal Lhis pian, specifica�ion or mpoA was prepered bq me or under mydirect cu�enision and Ihal 1 am a duly Registered GgiMer ufder Ihe Iqwsyf�leof y)� � � '/ � �� Ll/ '/2'"L`� I��i t ,�� natc Q7�Regishetion No. 10540 W. T. McCalla, P. Eng. Copy_ by Fax, Frank Berg, P. E., City of St. Paul. Shuctura! Consultanc 8ndges • Strucluta/ Concrefe • Fxpert Tes�imony � EO'd 94bL 095 Zt9 '"3"d`QlLBJ�W 1 M di£=60 00-6Z-��H ot -as� PREVIOUS 1209 West 7th i i • � �4�'� :.: li�l �='�'= --- �;�r r, 'I� ,..�:�=��±. k . .. . - . . ,,,s,..- ;• _ : � , ._ _ .,;��, �: - ��;.: . _ „�. _, .° a.r.. `"'m'" _. ` — ' �r � ...� .; . .«. _ ;. ., - �. _' _� r ,,.: ,� �� . � . ,7 .u..s � � . . , , , � ,. . . . . . . . , ., _ � ��' I:�ii�Ii�i��e�ii.r� ..-•�.� --_. l��3:`:`Rb 17M\�s'i��.�'�w•w.r��r�..-. � �l� '7.�!°A�p'"�� : sr, va� . .. -:..r; � :C ' . .,:� . '� , �,— , "�.�..�� :,z.�. .. . . . . .;{�- _.x. �.-.�- . __ant_ _ �_.' _ ":-. �..,. -� -s�+�_ — _ ^ ' � , � .. . .. . _� "_ ` _ _ j.,, _ .. . . � , � . � . _- �� . . ��' �..r.. . _. . � ��.., .GRf. �_ ._ . ,_.. �, , � �''i�t4�y��. . '' ... _ -.: �..;: ,�,.� �-, .,,` �.4� -�`� .. . _ : . . .. , __ . _--°. ... _ , , ._ _ , _�... ,;: . . . . . . .. . -� _:�:; .. .., � -s...�_ . .� ..:. �. . . . . . . � . .. � � - v��:,: :. �., -�.i� � �■iri► _,_.,......�.. _ ■��iI�I� �� /��-" - � r . P. . ; s � : ��.� : � �'. - � - 1 �,, : � ,�� ,�,�3 �- . . ' � � . : �-� �,:rk 9 4 ' <: -� ' x .:.�----= --�'�' _:� �t� ._ - --- . -.. ...� . ._ _. .- _--.—__�_ ___-' __ _- � _ ___ _ . ... ---- -� � `\ _ ="µ � .'_ �„� _ . �y � �� _ .. . �... �i .,_ �- �3'-�-��s' : ,;: � - .=` � � �,�',�� '"� �- __-- "� _'=,—___�----� _ [ �,3?i'�Y �„`;.�«� ' ,+ 1.:.- -'`�' �; >_ -� s �.r�;. ,., : K f, .. T :s' ( 1'< w n - ?- �" .z'-r'+°'�a_ .�`�� L: `F0 (�..� ' J ' i -- . �� ::�: ��.-, ..;._ .._ _ r � ;I � �* _ _��, � � _ �.,,,1�,�',.- ,.,..`_ . `° � _ j, . t � . � -__= !.y '-. �� __�— -__ _ � _ . . .t:z' �.s,; ,\ '� . t . � 4 � � : :t. � �, ` ��" � � � �}�. � ' " � � ka .i�. .�-�� ' � .', ' ;-ss-= . .,�" ._- . _ � _ - -_ ....�. . .3. . �r.r.�.� .,. ...: _ . •> � �` �llltt'A�4Yt.'�ES�-•.. - ._ � } � ; . '�`-- '� ��, '� �' : _ �� ,��'�'�:�:� � _ �_ �z .. _ ._ . ,�.- _ , r � .,. . _ - _ �,. � ... , _ .....��- __. _ +... - _ . , _ ;�,� ' _ � . .� � -- : . � . _. .. y. T " - ,_ ._ ._.._ - �... ..� '~ 'J^*-jfl�l'.� 3' P } Y ." � ,. �:� i l i k , .. . ..:.� f� �Z �..p ';. �l��w k . , '' � - ��-. _ x�. � ` _ ' , � �' / � ° � /�� ; :i�� lt�. � /� I _ J lt � - , �r�.'� �� .- �► � • ,i�'�.i �. - r , �� ,ti� �� - � . � � � � � � . � .. � � � � K r . �.. s..-k s ' �� _ a. . 5� � �: � . . . � y� i = �p 3i.. . � � . . . �.�i _ _... , .�:'n. . ..�.,.,.-.". .....� �^"'�� . , . ��, � �� STC?RM DAMAGE OVERVIEW ELLER MEDIA C4MPANY � LOCATION 1209 West 7th Cd' Vie� A. DAMAGE DISPLAY 3 Poster Faces ot as� � Photos one, two and ttuee describe the present condition of this strucriue: 'Tfie damage was limited to the siLn faces. No stcuc:tmal damage occurred at this Iocation (Exhibit Four, McCalla, June 19, 1938). The electrical fixnuzs and ser�ice remain in pIace. � B. REPAIR � Repair w�ill consist of fabricating three sign faces in dur shop and installing them on site. We estimate this �� ill require tfiree workers on site for a day and a half, 36 houts installing the faces, and the remainder of the rime in the shop fabricating the faces and preparing for the installation. � � L�J C. NOTES / AMENDMENTS At the City's request we have prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPLACEMENT COSTS LESS DEPRECIATION" worksheet and materiais list specifically for tlris site. In that process we disco�-ered the cost of the identical replacement would be higher than we had esflmated our on our original "Storm Damage Worl�heet". This change is reflected in our Storm Damage Warksheet dated 4/4l2000 4f4!2000 • \ I � �� ►�L'� �T�%I�::L. ` . t��i°"TM'��s ►��:�: - : _; . x:. ,� r- �$ : - _ - �� _ ,�_, __ — - - - -' _ .-. � _--- _ .�e.►_ - - _�---"- _ _=,- _ — � . ,_-_ = - � . -- _ ��-�s�-: • °� . "'a� = � . _.� . � _ � ,. —'7r'4:-._ � � � . .. .. . _ ` ^�'.. '.. �.:� �..�� ..�:::... ��I,~t r e, 1 �_ , � i � . e� � � G � 'f S��%.',ki ' , �. �. �V _ �� -. i. � : . k ...✓. . � �• • ' E '� ' . . . ' .. _ � � n � ��. - 1 n {---��. �� — ' �"i' � -•-... !� �! . _- , v�. � _" � , y�,.�.__ '-- — .. 8 . . �.,..,� . ..� c�?_ze� � ; _' �,�� ' ' y . '—% i��tti:�-�..�. ..,," -- ' � §' µ &n��.. ��? . . .. � �� f � �� 'r � w � � . . � � � } � �� . � �<<� • . • . �. e��. . .. .. �':.9 . � . � . } �.��w�y�� . E � v�-as� STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET ELLER MEDIA COMPANY LOCA"fION 12Q9 W 7th Q View DISPLAY 3 Poster Faces A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS 1. STRINGERS AND St1PPORTS (i} ft ang(e iron @_ per ft none ft"C' channei @ per ft none 2. SIGN FACEAND'fRIM (2j 3 sign faces @$499 per face 3 frim kits @$220 per face B. LABOR 70 hours @ $22.00 per hour COST OF REPAIRS Estimafed cost of new identica[ structure (4) Estimated cost of new repiacement sfructure(4} Estimate oi cost of securing, stabilizing and clean up on May 31(3} 18 hrs at $44.00 per hour (i) Ses note 2c (2} See nofes � a & b (3) See note 1 (4} See note 3 Afi costs are direct cos�s a�a�2000 �b $� 497.Od 660.00 $1540.00 $3697.Q0 �1-8;538�$25,837.25 $35,500 $792.00 • � • � " RF, � . p��:� co� „�,.. ,, :: ,5;_ ;�. :- ;� ;; �;,,Laborto �� il � r�AVtl� :��+�p- h, ,,:.. YP �� B .� c �`r _ � ��Si�.,yY'm.c,;��.Y�'J_--ia_ � � Total site procurement - - - /G�� FR�: __�. �n, includin8 �'- �: • • :� _ £.= ---- ---�---------- S9773'cs0 �~-;�' . _ 's';.'_. ------ �r..� --- . .---_ ----------- ��---------- �io�Y.�� .' ''�= ' . - �. - K%z_ � j � .. materiaLa fitOm truck; i aasembly; ia-shop lIIBR_fCiCW (L� ��"O 1108i9 �C13 , � � , .{ro-�"'�1� ... ;; �'•`'�_.--' -,-+:�.' =r^,: - _ _ _ _ _ _ "' ... _ S j3ao.00 • STIBTOTAL� �"'^ - --------------------�------- ��-�.i r�:�,� . . - I�E"� . ?:.'� �=<:- procedure�includes �(a) crew.& eqaipment necessary to haul shvcnu�e 8c material to � s`;=: "-- `site�and;,.(b) empioy aa auger w dig hole and haul d'ut: .� - :�. �vi : ,u� _ �:�.., t�h.�? :?= _' (a) _,.,'� man crew. aQ. houzs Q- � y a_ . S'_Jhx to dig hote aad haul -- ---- �: :�:°�- a�-- .- -== s �� =� - : � (6) ;use af auger for hou:s � �; �; . �;�_, ' ------------------ S.NI� - Labor to �'abricate footings at site and ponr . concxet� footings at site. ' maa czew @ ' hours (a3 . : wS ,Yat3swncre[e,Q�_JY� ------.`_ S �-,-�=�-- ; '� - • - EcIuipmeni r�qaired; __;;; .��,i - �� ;,.. n,. ,. •� � � �"` � -. . }` ;� one �` hvck � ^ hovrs • :� :'^_. � :� ;:r.:`'.CQ3,�.�.__/hi:------------------ � N-�- . ,: . ... .�_ ��•. avckQ :;-=w.= :,. : '� _hours � N: +��= ;>,'. �`:: -..-- .g `S�' =''�jbr:' - --' �---' y � '' 'µ;;_'��;'�C�3;.. . . ,' _ . , .�,L-_ �i �-_ �t �=�� - ---- ------------------------ `_�- � .�- �i. ;x: �� ;x � �- � � �_`+:'� �. _ __�"�:, _�'�'� ' ,,,,.. ..,. ��,,::�..:�r r ;��;. �';,'t.>� �'r= �� " :�:�' ;,:: _ „� . _ �.=.f�°�.•�.. . .;....._ _ ...� bl-�5� � . . ; . .; . � � Page i of _.;�� :,:,_ r=_ ,; .�:�<;�:,_� , .:,�:. ._ . �'°:=;�;:;: �. _ � 'zr:..' ' � - . - � - APPRAISAL # � ' LOCATION !� �. - _ ;- - =.;::.: - - - �'��:-^ :'- s :: � ; :�ti�:V, - =��;i; - �,: �;�;":;�>.;-;.�� 4* � � . : � . S r '� �'Y_ �� - ��;ix s- ..J- bt�a5� � � s�� Platforms, ladders, �;; _ .. � _, ---�--�� , �� -._rA??.F�ea; re4au�: - ., .� .�; a, ;�.., .s. "a �`�=�� .-�:.:`. `�s;:��,u ` �,�'�_:: .� �; :. w � �, ��:��. ,:�� 3 ,�_ °� ;` _=�' (, onc U'^ huck �--hours �� -. :�_ -, :�� 5� , :� -., �� _�----------------- da��o�c� n:;=s-�,;r ..�:_.>,<, ��,�� :<, ... : �;H,;-<. �`�.;_' � _ �'i«`.:-.;.,: `' ��,�}. ::°.��-�.. -- -- -------- _ `` <`�(b) oae:�i��' ttuck @ 3 L hou[s �, . =; K � �-�Qa S�`SO�`/Lr: - - _ _ 600.CTQ � � -� _ ,�.... , ,.. ' � � � -�� .T_ �-. _ �) 1 °"T/t,a�.?f�. �— �G /�•v � ap' ' � - �;..�s�; �.: � ,�..:�=✓.�s� - . ° ...:.j��y �� .�- ./—/��j _ i:_^.`<p:.: ._ ;L:,_ . yN�. Y . �v - � . •':Y,-;...+.3"'.;' .ai. . s,' ��.. �.."stra�roT�r: ---------------------------------- � �� . , _ -._�- .; . �.. - - :. - � . . � . �_ . ;�� _ ' � � . t �•-�. . . _ ..� � . � �. _. . �. . . , _ ::- :.. . . . �•`'`i:��_ �tr . .. , a ; n ... . ��J 3. �. . �, _. . ry J . , `�__/ Fl Page 2 � ., �'> r 'g_i . : . - .%' i APPEiAISAI; # ` �` ' ^' r nn��rmv.� • . . a � -35`� -�i'- -:i=�=�= � � . - i' T-�(4::c: _ _ ' . SS " s :::"•IN-PLACE" RFp A� NT OSTR T�S,S D 'VRF['TA'j'IOj` ( pT , Ii� bl .T. . T T./fT.T i7T�m.r.�-..;� , . 'L . .,_... :r = � : "_ . ..:. - .� � �,, .. , , _ .�r i�-. Purchase af basic eIecaicsI material iacIuding light fixtures, ballast9, lamps, boxea, ��= �S�,.b��s, clocks, miscellsaeous items such as conduit and conuectors, clamps �andclips,`etc:� � /SSv,mO -------- �?�, :Iz� ;,._:�,'.� - - �:`)•',.- . j:;�?)i:;:a ..- ' ^y' . h �. q' " _' .'.....�. � ♦,..� w � �SSiCS Qe`G S IUfOL�fPf �� ,. , � -- �', ��. . _ - ;j`4' ;',f, _ - . - `"i.: - Load and unload equipmeut at site = a 2 maa : .;,. -`c: crew uQ'` 2: '� kours each Q� 'SSr,r� lhr. --- vD:oO . - .`L . ��.iw:�)i� : y�� .`:.' ::�y ' . . ,. - 1"''.. � 'u;z.', . . __. . ..... ,.. ..... C':1t:iG�_:t;.:.. __.:.;x.... . r,•'� � �.li' . anels, run candwt, putl. wire, instatl Sxtures and ballasts: cr�w,�' 2c7 hrs. (a1 �-. -- . --. -------------s3a�.a� 4; �•' - -..:. ... . . �. truck Qo � hours -1br � - ---- r----- S l[9r90 rrfl � ' }: r - �UCIC Q hoUts �r• ----'-'-..�"" �. :=� � `:.. . i :' .,-,�a:�...:- .. _ 4ttck Qa hovts .1�• --------------- ,�.._.,�_ .,:: ti a '' i. . _ �' > -:: r'• ' .`�f�C"'dw—_'.�'1_,'� r . 3'.:...,��Y.:%�+i�.�.�'�'� . �.c.., �s�- ; i; -' ��.:: ��:. _ :s:�: ��a:°:a:<-::c�`� '� �.�>.��:�-: � .. I ..: ' � i. . .�• - , . � ,,:�� ; ��:. .. .. . . . ..� -.. :; : : S/,a�J : , Pat � `fp`Y < _ . ; -�-- hours� -------�_,� � _ - e: - {"� A IC�C LGQlt1I'Cd f07 � �/hc -------SSao�oO �. ; _ �� - - - --- ------------------- � �� . . t; �_ • ti . 'udtng sGhvchctat a, etc.; elI .�.. ., . _-.:: ;<-,: ��..:: - _ . . i�i : �: � F.. :'.eiyY,.?iu . � _ . .�t ' � �p , :i '- ":. „' :'=Permitcosts------� ---- S 3G2•oD . . ;1 _ Soilstests - ---------- -r -----•---- ,�,_'G'� = :_- . - -�• ,> - �` �. :;Si1RTOTrL7•.------------- �. -� -.: "�;;_ '�� v�;��'a�'_ ----------------------- 3G��o0- -;;=- �°} , . �. s;: ; :. � #; �::x. , :=��.. � �; . • :LL�,. ;� : - ��.,. `�-� ; REPRODUCTTOi�' COST (1TEMS 2-7) -- - -- ��-asc� � � fr37. a � . . . ; . M ' . •i nat 'ais o iv and do aot include "indirect costs" iacluding such items as ( auepreneurinllprofit --- as ex,plained in the nacrauve of the report- y4:[ ':;{, ' w� r ?� .'� _ ... �..._ --• '': - . .t�..�"`�..�:. a page 4� Hrrxniaru, rt LOCeS,TIOPI # -��' :3 �� i "'y:_, ^ - � }, Sittproctuement - ---------S o Scn.ot� :5� �S.—;.n_.,414 _-r1`i-- -,;.M-�� ;'�v: ::� ;: / � P� rePl�arc (d'u_+ect cosi} = S�S 2S - v ` --_'—�'-rsv}��i`:: GiLa:. t' .?_.�'._"�Aig ��i_ �^E��=3'�'te-'.' � _ . . � iP� I) (pagts 1, 2, 3 & 4) """"""""'.$ � 3 �O�O �,`�_g'o---------5 1 /'�,S ! 'o 0 . - , - ----- �.__s3 cosTrrEw-------- :..,. -_., . . �a;lY.:.' , ��'O�� .� 8/3 �� c�-c7 :s; . .�.,r.. ::> , _ < aa�ertising stru�mre aaa - �schalule applied to oucdoor advertising struciures aad - of conshvctio�t and - : life expectancy of the outdoor adveztising structure ----' '.'' - . -; w . . . �sion that the overali depteciation estimatc of - or.as follows: . - # �;�s;�? . �TAL DEPRECIAITON ESTII�tATE - . - 9P ��.e0 + . - z : . ". , _ : : . . , t� OF DIRECT CaST (DEPRECIA$LE ASSETS} ; , • b -{ R ��:� pa-�*�vd :i _ 7: - >.,. .:�:=;�:�.�:�:.�:TOxar: x�rr,nc�MEr,rr cosr rrEw - - • -- - i3d.vo .."v>��_ "• '=r�: ..e>;��'��7i_:...: ; it ��",� ,;�� .:� s. . �. _ ``F .-_ . _ :::._ ,�? �` ` ,' LESS v AI:I.OWAIVCE5 - - - - [,� �� 7 �� :;,;:- " �:2,�-�,.' .. �, ~_'• �-� .-_"; REPLACEMENT COST LESS DEPRECIATION VALtJE - Say, �� a�� ' . � �� . ;:?. . , .. ,� � _ .. -. . . <.;. �. �� . . y � r 1 ��'�V Page 5 of 5 '`��.:'� x � _-- - fjl �2.Sc� .�� ,��.-. -�= _.._.__�.�_ - - � :,» _ �} . _ - � �_ :. ..... �:i. _� _ _ __ . . . . ^_�1M � �-2�t-c..a�--�O � f�-a.� � 1�-h9► V� -P��,7 ,. F t fi� � - �=----,,;� `�"''`'�/� � � .�� ,• -� y�.. - _,� :�,�e . � i � i:f.�= �i,: _. ��,r>: . , . �" � t :+:i> .}1 :. "� .x:...« <: � ' _ . n: s.,",�� `:fis�. . �-�� . . . :{. ►'�"`.� 197� P�a �l3ySi� C�--C - _ {� ,'z„ > � �/ � ,} , � .s: �o ��a . �ti `I . : a.�,,o.n�-�..Q rr� , ,,. � C� �r. 4,i9 13'�, G � �' ' .1 ��- �/�+.- ` Z r lZ D,.�ovQL �-o-� St 1� �/ a o sri 4�, ua ip�: : : , .— '}, ` 2- � i X 2-�/L (J?titr4 /ull�`CG*.N-, c.-� l�'� / J G c� a8$'� crD �:; � r iL x Z�Z S t,� � �it�-�.0 o.�t 1 Zo �/ co I s a�rU ,., E'; o .� Yv kS 3Go< u-v ::; . � � 2:�a . cro � 7a o. �rv � � . . i. � '� -- / Z � �—.CrCQ.��uv u.1.. //J 2-d / /�y Lo ; `:r .�; .,:_ � Ui��lTcc � � Z`/o ob d-'lo m� _ �_. . - . . . � �-� . .;:,;,.- .:. �,. , -- ,' `: l� t o-v t4- r+^- t� /��xz..Q /5� t� �c�/, oc� 30/ av ,: . s ? � �. 3;- a- So w o�.� �' � � �t,a/�-P-tL � L�l� ,00 �3P ov ' - �'� :.]' . .�.� �..1,�. � �- � l C�o a-�i �-v j z -_}�: :�_�.� � ''�'- '�e-�-�. a-s nx "� ; �� .o-o a.,:�ro Y; - t - M: s_,-:;;�, ;. �" � . .�. - � �>�i�_, ;;:��-�-:�,� /��+-c.v� . . ~` � `f S4. `f� /7'S8. Zo -".:. .r� : ; � .-::... - :��:,,: :�:�.= - _ �:" .z'i . A��a.: ��: ' = e ,r.`� ,,' A o-r /� _�_'��".3: - .9:'.. �� .i � 4 �;' . �.a: ' � � i� ��6} - , , � /,S �. � � ` "y':'✓�" � - s� :2{��. . S •�°-e=i ' �:i�._. e� / � -I � ! W+� s��l.:;�i: � '1'ir.. �z' i/ e��JICl� �� `.t:�G'' d yT:.. � � ' ` ;f� :��•. „�#.�� i ` _ �"�.4� - - ` •�do- " • • y .�'-.��,.� = 1" �:::. °`:=`� ��., ,,.o .. . , -� _� . 4Se'_ � � t r�`�` ... .' �� .-. ii - • � . . . . �.: ;t =r :T'U`•-"f.".`4�LS' :�� • � :� ,�,,::: .�:: :�=.•�; =:. ,.�- ' = :.`�: . ::>:�Lu..��+�.asso � � C.�,.� �l �-i 3; - �;,;�, <,;.=• � �>.. . . 'v�-' `�'.. �[r' �S.-" I ' 9" ^. { . 1 . ^ .�'i"S ? c ' � s^ _� '�r°-'� -s5€::� . � : - _ ;�`''r'a� ' ;�.� _ �:�.,'.2M+ - _-�' - �. u . - .'Y.: K'=`i�,•, . -}�.' >eMy_��. . . . S � , ifc .�a>alC+:.v^ i�^ ` ..: :..�t,'`'o_'_%i=':'.sritl, . .,y:_s'. . -; � � F ' ' .- - _ _ y 'i�.�' : F�r.j..o.� S„�=�._ _ _ _ ��_�:' ' ' 2 ,... � �y'."^ri,;�:,..5::' _s t�l�':=�T.;; - . . '� ..i,;: '!' :�T; �.,�:.. � // F . ...`; - - , j i � ' '' - a: '<i; : i 1. .� � �i 'r7 � WT (Mac) McCelle, PE. 6600 75'� Aveaue North &ookyn Park MN 55428 �s�z> ssoaaas August 28, 2000 Mr. Thomas J. Klees Director of Operations Elter Media, Inc. 3225 Spring Street N. E. Minneapolis MN 55413 re: Siorm damaged sign Pord Pazkway & Kenneth St. Paul, Minnesota WTM Job No. 1075-D. Dear Mr. Kiees: This is to cerlify that I inspected the above in your presence today. We surveyed ihe structure for dimensions and section properties. We compared photos from June 18, 1998 to photos taken today: There has been no discernable additional deterioration over the 2 year period. --� � Using the dime�sions and properties noted above, I calculated dead load resisting moments and obtain 284.4K'l171_K' = 1.66 FS> 1.5 required. One bent 6 inch channel was previously ✓ replaced. ; In my opinion, this structure is structura!(y adequate as is. � Piease feel free to ca31 me should you have any questions. Very truly yours, �►i ' 6` �%/!i`" Z�G�i� W. T. McCa11a, P. Eng. Copy: by Fax, Frank Berg, P. E., City of St. Paul. Siruciural Conset/tanf Bridges � SVUCfural Concrete • Fxpart Teu;mony i hereby cerlify lFal ihisp�an, speeiirceiion nr rcpnrt xas prcpared by me or undm my dirccl supervision and that I am a duiy Regivtercd Gnginxr undtt Ihe la.� 9 ! �te�o( j M� n� [7/• ner� Regishation No. 10540 C�� o � -�� b0'd 91rbL 09S Zi9 '3'd `E�LE��W 1 M diE=60 00-6Z-6ny ° t� f t - ��$ti '"r'rsg r t` s �"< ��. � ; �r �' £c � . �� .: -^---..�� y, y�r� ��ar'i � �� .6 �`-� 3 ,s . �e� r,�,�n°',� "�'+zt3�� 2vi7 ""� o' x:�.� � � a s - � � "��" �`��i.`�"'f�.3�3,y1}' l � �'}��y,�� y�..�� a ��'-� ! � r`�v' . ..n � 1t�#� i "d �� y r' - u ' �?�'' .F� t 3 r � � 1<n- ! i x �PS'�°�Sq � ; ..x.:; ., ,"? S ) `+Sti�P' � ; . , . � � � . � � 3/ts �� f:.��.ec.. _ _ e ~ � ,�` '""z. Y.,I �'�""4°''` � ��i `•, � . „ � �.I r . . : y'��P ' � ,, � . 1 �:.�i -' ! �f I . _._. " , t �''*'"'. � "` - -„ _,;; .,eR . . . . . . �., .: �"� - . �"t� _ .. � . r'��. � . �:�:, ° .. �:. � ..::a _...r-.,._._.. .. � �' ` � ' i'� ' .F { � 4 � s f� • Y 4, a . .�.: �i••r ) — � rv � 1 �� f w.a� !�" __. . .. ' ' �� „ - r �,.,. ,� �: {, piCj(d�%�j i , f • :4�r ��„ „�.... , .. .. ` k � � �+�1��, � '��.. ��'�»' ` �� : s ' ' ,_. ..'.. z. nz. ,..,::. _ . .. .� . r � _. . A:- - `Ti�.�r-- � . � � : k�y,s�c. . . ._.-� ra�� r . ?a ' -�" t A9 v__ �� _� �� Y ; . C h .n 4y F '�'- 3.♦ i:-, SY I �.� � .-��.. _ . + Y 5 5 t � a+ � f x ' '� �. r ?� � „ �� i�� ni : }�l�', r `i� .� p I� ' �ix ' _ G�� „ rt° .� � 1 7 �9 - i' , :L tp7��" t � �.; �, �. ��, ,� �.: �:�`"t �. _ ; E y� .. . . �S � _:.};\to \p, _ . a� '.3 .. � . , ��4"t :. , _ `� �4.'i xa_ • _ .. I . . . . . . � :A, �. � _ ua . . . yvy��vr!��.�"]"Y'-i`q�ju rccY " 1 .. � .I � - t.w.rp.y^�d ��.� W+w' 3 "�'wxf. C�a.' i n y " �, e :ee r � a '` �.2 �� ' G�-' �`II . M ae.�.p �� 'M [ ; . � -T"�-` 4.,.7�:yx _' ^ �u i9v�`�:'i�-��.ti3.�..�£`. ��'.S��.v� '� � _ i..�,y ��``�`' � � �. ,, , � .,� .�...-�.TM...�..,a .:�, �:: �.� � � ;,,�t ; <�_�- , y _��. _ �....�� l - , : ,r�t ��,Q....:.?��! � `�..--' ..i `� � "s b ; ' � � � � >-`�, _y � ' ; � � , s j , �� E .�. ,.sa.n ',+'� �- � . �. �,' :�`-�� ''.� �' `�'�.:. �.�.. .�� ,..��.�:-._--• t�o "_ ,xm- .- -, � �� t-a�,rV ' ��.v"-r':#� S3 �. r y � ^ �: �� y _s.",^:?�� '.�.' �S� -: � _ }r �7 � : .r.-ea�vVa � �'t . , . . � ,+ � � � � � kp,Dar.� f � ' �� .. �.j� yla ��. . . `.. .. ... �� .. � 1 � . L� � t _ .. , . � ,. x . � - � -, �... _'`�. :.. � .: . . . . . ... . �:. . y � , �._ <. , �_ ._'.r:. �_ v .— . srcv� '� �-"-n � i� G�: . , = ._----- - .. L� �� -._.._._ . .: , . Y , '.:; . � i � � . .. „�- ;� � . r ?- _n n,. :e- . _ F rR . — _�� .,- B -v, .a,c:' ..::g� . .. . . 2�.:�I. � .�-... av P - ` � _ ' �. �._. � �..�_�_ '_ .. .fl ' . . � ' �� ..__...._. . T �' Y � F-��c' r 3 �. y F . .. ;. . r ` „_ v " . : . t ` > r I '" z . .... .. � . .. , �� l��f:•��.� -- - - ,; �` '— . ,� ...:a - � �;C..i:.;.ir-,�G � � , wy��%��..�! � .`�� - �+.r_c-.. .�.- -w: � � ! R � . . .. c s '� f`�.� 'L� � a " ',i r �_ � ' .�„ . t � ��' �y�,,. �.: �,�w��,�� ; / iC �r i lii:�!".1� R��4 . �.. .-. ;_ �� ' � �.., ,_ - ` ,� °: '- - W. � - -_ —�- - = �� xe. �'` .. ., �� Y n.,� �' �:, -�_ _ . .. _ .. ._..,�YGR.u:� ��.�,'. :. — � r : �',t r.r .'.�� ^w S'�' '� '`' i � :'s �w�' � �'�'" t �� i ' �. YC� it�: c-4V.� *�: 'r `� h .. � s • �.: .. �.. ' . . _:.::. :. _�...Y.�._..__.. . .:J ._. v rv _F�e . , � ....a ry -- , a .� \- t'< :�.- .. . , ,_.. ,.a ..'.:..., �.. .'.. • � : .. �..: . + �,. c5 ' .�.-�, �� 5' � -�� .! . �� . .... � . � � ' "0 1p •• _ . `� j. .. � � � t"ZeSYt.� � �`; �� my "�.."`_` _ ' � ._._� ' �-«,.=-_-- � ;�- � � � .>..;� n ;, .v�_.y � _'—�'" O 1-dS�� • �u��t� �6 �lAC�_ VaY !�+„�,'1�� G�t�.�C.Ge�. � � Z` � A � �� a 1-�s� �• � STORM DAMAGE OVERVIEW ELLER MEDIA COMPANY LOCATION Ford Road and Kenneth (Most FasterIy Structure Highland Shopping Center) DISPLAY 3 Poster Paneis A. DAMAGE Photos one, tc�o and three describe the piesent condition of the structure. The heavq suvctural steel wide flange beam roof frame and the upright towers are intact and structurally satisfactory (see exhibit four, McCalla, 3une 19, 1998). The damage �•as the loss of the [hree siga faces. � . .. . The minor reinforcements to the structure, the angle and "C" channel, and han�ng the ttu�ee sign faces 1ki11 require a tluee person creiv on site f'or a day and a half. The remainder of the time will be used in the shop for fabrication and preparation for the on site work. The elechical ser4ice for the shuccure and fixtures for the westerly faces are in place. The fia for the easterly face is in storage at our shop. C, NOTES AND AMEI3DMENTS • At the City's request we ha��e prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPLACEMENT COSTS LESS DEPRECIATION' ��•orksheet and materials list specificaliy for this site. In that process �ve discovered the cost of the idenlical replacement �vould be higher ihan �ve had estimated our on our originai "Storni Damage Worksheet". This change is reflected in our Storm Damage Worksheet dated 4/AJ200() 4l21/2000 � � - .. . . -. ,.:.-- . . __ . I L II . . _ . � .. . .';,.`, ' ' . R D. � - . . ?' �'�1 !' F . -. .. _.. � f �: l t .t . � � � ._ }� - 3. S � i ^ . . �� .W �� '�6� . Y � t � � : ''' .c ��1��•'_�a��1�� x�` y . _ . E f " ` �� r .e�,��G`�s � o' r:{' � � '- i�'-T � � � E�� e.. f 4� �- b� t a'� e � ' �ir _ - � FK �c F� t� - ' � r � . ' - <% E � f � .� e - � �: '9",...": 4 i � � ��v. C . � ► f` i'' r ' - �� ---�_' �. � . e►-li 0��.� _ _- - - �� i�' � . e � � �Y � _ r,.�� ` _ + � �-' °' , .. z `� f� � `t e i. • ` �_ � a � «�_ _ , �, i . a _� ; 3 b _ �' t� `�� ° t ° -' �+�w m "e"'_.. ` '�a- m �—� < ..�+��.. .. « " r-� a �. ; +`s� y .`*f�de� ` � � � �' � � [ � � . . . � - . . �. t : � �. e - t: � :� �. �� t -s t ' t�� - �c� u-.<,_� ��__ �'��`„t �� -^^" ` � � �� +-...,m"� � �-�� c� '�� ' , _ _ � ' � � � la�� ' � ` t� �-��' � . �� r E��, .. a,. � .�..' {6 � cse ��sx�,nsnia.n.�>-�a.�:ii �;`..,'?°i f .. t� . < .' w �.. � u�.� �.�. .��. � i: 8 IC��_:.._ . . ...� — . v.T.,_. ��:�.� - _ . ' ,� � � "° � i: , _ ' _ , ,,:d. = _ , - } � .. ..-_. a. - _ "'_ .. . 11 �� CcF.I �_ �•� m'a:�.i.�l. - - .. ,..... . z ` , ° " `�- 4. .�° . ` .... e ;� . .:. . . . - - �: �.-„n... - . _._ u __ � � -a. : � -- : . r .�.- . .. r , ��.�T—. - iAr°.�c-�.et�►��'�`r°;_.'' :�_. — � -- �- ee��a` ' . . �� .. � � "+f ` �.3_.. �:a � _ � - - . q . '- •. - �.,��,.�� . _ � � :.�:i��.'t_= .na - �, — - � � �� • � � � i i � I • � STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET ELLER MEDIA COMPANY LOCATION Ford Road & KennethDISPLAY 3 Poster Faces A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS 1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS {1) 44 ft 2.5x2.5 angle iron @ 1.6� per ft 8 ft 6 in. °C" channel @ 4.19 per ft Ciips and bolts 2. SIGN FACE AND TR1M (2) 3 sign fiaces C$499 per face 3 trim kits C$220 per face B. LABOR 60 hours @ $22.00 per hour COS7 OF REPAIRS Estimated cost of new identical structure(4) Estimated cost of new replacement structure(4) Estimate of cost of securing, stabilizing and ciean up on May 3i (3), 21 hrs at $44.04 per hour (1) See note 2c (2) See notes 2 a& b (3j See note 1 (4) See note 3 All costs are direct costs 4/4/2000 $70.40 33.55 38.00 $i497.00 $660.00 $1320.OQ $3620.00 $48�,339� $23, 660.68 $35, 000 $924.00 o � - 3�'�i �� .�'u.e i'!� wy f :[�i�r.��.Lli�- � �� -asa ' °IiV-PLACE" I�F.PL.A , . COSi L• .SS D .PFt�'C'IATIQN ,�4iTF,�ROCtTRFMENT: - � faces @ 5�v face. � • Total site procurement - - - ��,� _� ' �1 BA IC �TR 7CTLIRx A. TAT.c - Purchase of basic suvcture, inclvding ugrightS ead fatcia: -Fstiinatedcost------------------------ �°�), 5 7 -Deliverycharge- ---------------------- S �/A -SalestaxQ,�,�%-------------------- $sz3.oq .. SUBTOTAL------------=----------------------- �S7•GG �,l IN-SHOP fi�,BRCATION; - T.aboz to remove bavic materials &om avck; in-shop fabricabion aad aasembly; ia-shap P��B -�. man crew @ 3 c� houzs @ 2z , a,> _ -------------------------- S /32u.vo . $ITBTOTAL----- S /3u.� 4Lxai n� RiLiGA F�071W ,S S'IRt tCT[ TRF TO/ON SITF �Nl� DI�HOLE; - Procedure includes (a) c:ew & equipmentnecessary to haul strvcture & material to ' site aad -(b) employ aa aager to dig hole and haul dirt: (a) _ man ciew Q . hours @ S� -_' /hr _to dig hole and haul � --------------------� N/ (b) use of auger for '__ hours Q . T��• -- --------- ��L - - -- - Labor to febricate �ootings at site and pour concrete footings at site. _ man czew @ hours Qa SJ1u:------------------------- � N/� •.�yazdsconccece��_IYd• ------=--- S �"/19 : - Equipment required: . (a) one truck Q _ hours � ---------- lU s? @ �J1R'- - - - - - - - �—_-� (b) oae truck @ ____ hotus Ca3�_/hr.----------------- S N/� svBrQrar ------------------------------------- �! � Pagc 1 • .'_ . '�!� . � o i -a-� � •APPRAISAL # . • . LOC 4'I?flPT # �� - � "T?�?-PLACE" RFPL•ACEMF'NT A TS L•ESS DEP FCTA'�ON tGONTINL�DI � � � u�: 1' ': �' yl 1: •♦ �t � � - Includes essembly of fasci� suingen, platforms, ladders, brackets, etc. Qn site. -� man cccw � 3 v hours � ;�"'� • ----- ----------------,S�c - Ec�uipment required: (a} one �UO rs� truck (03 3 L hours @ ��.�_hr•----------------- >�..�'� (b) one ��T� ttuck @ � houts @�_�fac. � �Coo�ot� (� pz•L Ti2Al �-!_ /2. � t (e �'^� �t .�r . � � � �S.Pv�N� Si.�TOTAt.-------------------------- S �5�/G•uU � e n z e • . � • '.:iG: . ..^ . `�✓. .... page 2 of ` � • . APPRAISAI, tt � � �.00ATION # _ o�-as� m t • . • : ul �y � e • � __' : __ • � • � 1►lJ � � • i: � tl Jull►: f � ♦ -.Purchase of bagic eiecrdcal matcrial iacluding Iight 8xtures, ballests, lamps, boxes, hangess, bieakers, clocks, miscellaneous items snch as conduit and conaectocs, ctamps and clips, eu. @ S isso • � _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ s o . cp. -SalestaxQ G�� %foraiaterials-------- o-d.�� - Load and unload equipment at site = a 2 man crew @ � houcs each (a3 S 7 � /hr. - - - S �� - Install e(ectrical panels, iun conduit, pu[i wire, instalt 5xcures and batlats: - �' maa cnw (q� � �. � $ �� l�li. "_"'__^""^___"' 70<�O.d� • - Equipment required: (a) one G�a�iu-�. 'truck � a � hours @� so /hr. 9d-a.vz� ' (b) one tzuck @ hours �; n..,----------•----- � (a) onc truck @ hours @�_�------------------ �.____.____. S TU'I' L------------------------------------ SSSS�/�oo � . - -;. . - � .. �� . � . APPRAISAL #1 . . . . b I — �� LOCATTON # �• °IN-P •�tCF" �P .A .FR�T COS7S L.F.SS DEPI�F.GIATIOlY (CONT,[N,�T � 1 II; yl l: :': hli�:�� - Crew to paint uprights inciuding s�uctiusi steel, laddezs, sd�engers, trim, etc., a11 items txC�gt fascia. � - �� man crcw @ � bouis @ S 2-�.rrz� /hr.---------- ---------- a�� - Equipmeai required: � (a) one panel uuck zequirod for ��,'�� / (� hours � �,?? /hr• - - - - - - - - L_L_.=`� O Si1RTOTAL------------------------------------ S�I07�J0 �1 • � : �t� • Permitcosta-------�------------------- S Soilstests ---------------------------- iS v/-1 SI7RTOT�-----------�------------------------ �3b?.o?7 � DIRECT/HARD REPRODUCTION CO5T (1TEMS 2-� - - - - - �� L lo ►� : •► A 2he above costs are for ]abor nd jg�v mate ' Is oniv and do not include "indirect costs" including such items as (I staudard overhead altowaace and (2) entrepreneurial/grofit --- as explained in the nacrative of the report. • �� Page 4 of � �. ir;cnTTOrr �r � � � (1) Site procurement - • - - - - - - - - - - S/�, ��tJ• v0 (page 1J C1) In place rep2acement (dimt wst) = S 60 �G (PeSes 1, Z, 3& 4) � Subtotal --------------- ---- ----------Say, S3 /GO, G-� � OverheadJcon�accoz's allowaace Qa `f� � - - - - - - - - S /537� _J'.o- Entrepreneurialprofit@,f�°/----------- 5)z ' �v-O � REPLACE MEPITCOSTNEW---------------SAY, S� � ': : ��a �lu: �, After corisidering: (1) aetual age oFtfie in place outdoor advertising strueture and - t2) �coSa�zing ttu stcict maintenancc schedule appIied to outdoor advertising struciures and - C3) the condition and quality of consCuc�on end - (4) the Iocation and �conomic life expectancy of the outdoor advertising structure ---= � We have ar�ived at the conclusion that the overall depreciation estituate of ___ �°� ` should be app(ied or as follows: TOTAL DEPRECIATIpN ESTtMATE - - - 3S(�+ * NOTE: DEPRECIATIOAi IS LS�°/. OF DIRECT COST (DEPRECIA$LE ASSETS) S�NC— L— U3ION.�: . . TO�'AL REPI,ACEMEPiT COST NEW - - - - - . ; S G . � � LESS DEPRECIA�'ION ALLpWANCES ---- 3 Sy9 1 REPLACEMENT COST LESS DEPRECIATION V.ALUE - Sny, WAtuwawpd ' �,.,. �� - � �„�.� �-� _ �' . � �� , �-L SG ��.'��' .. �� ' ot a s'� � � . Page 5 0� � , � . . � �- -- -��?�,�..� d ( -a-� � — �/j� �u � � IC�i�� - �-, - �— 2 �. 3 � G " C��-�.c� _ .__y,,g ^ .- _. . _ . . _ � � G' l� f � L/��_rJ�.�. 21 z��7__ - �" _ ! G" lu � �—�_ ------ - -- --- � . Z-�l ». �xi� �,.�_ j�r.� -� Z c� 2�G o�p 7-- _.. �. X Z . `f'� � J, �o . (-------- �. _.._�.--�---- -- .. _ a" Z�C 7i ft/ Cit7.d�0�i�0�Gei- � 9 �� G c� __ —�� , � _.._ - ---- -- • --... �-___.� a � y � � _ - ?�'3�.3.� - s S/. Zp ,_3Y 3- Za �5_ L o _ dt7 3r3.G o __ x z L /�%L �� _� .Piw�--_ 7� /. G o zo . cro -- -------- ---._. . . . . � � _ � . _ ..--�-- -- (u �GaT �-�n.r,_. -- -�'Q,c?o._-- `f `av' °� � �. ___ _ . . ... _... - ---.. . 3 ` a D `� (� �°� —.� �.--- . . 2 SD. � � _ 7Sv . �-t� --- --�--- - - -- �- --- - .—....... -- , _ - - _-- -. _ � ___...__— �- ' L vc1? �aiz-2 �? Yo. v� - � 4/v � u� . �. ----_ - - - --- --.,. _.. . _.. . - _ ___._.. __ -�.l_S ..�� T � ! �oti+� wl �� - �f ,, � ��' ybo , �O 9ov , az? ____ _ _- _�S�%Lyu''`_�%._ . .: . _ . . _ 3 - .�-5 u wcr-� �-� ?C�u�-e-o �;� aYL.a�v � ----- - - -- - - L �?.1.G�J�q �.C(J .—..-- -� /frr�-� � t� _G� _rC1st_'%✓�30_/, or� , � a �v � � � �t.c�- , 3 ._ �mfn,�� .�o ---_..—_ ---- --- ---� = `� -- - -- ---_... _ . --- ----- � i r � �_�� 6'.�-�J. ' o-z �rS 5• ��4 . ..� � , T� ova__ o-c d'�3&', sv �._..-----..._-- ---.- .., ..--- �-- _ I �ti.��,� a�...�.� .� s-.o� ___ `__...__ 'N�.R.c t..�n,c., t1�o,� Lw=Gi wf a�rs,�:� --}— - /---- - --- ---�- - -� - — ----- -.__. __ . .... ��__ 7'c>'�`o�..l� � -- — —• ---- - - - - - - -- __�__ �.(v✓� _ / 5� J -° - ----- - - -- -- - �'`�'�- � a �- : 36.crp .� �' � __z,6/,oa . . / �`S� 2. o `��7�00 as d-v ."� 3 , cl-p. ._ __ _.. _ :;.. _.. _ __ . _. _ �� 7,� .�: 2 --- -- --- �� o�-a� STORM DAMAGE OVERVIEW ELLER MEDIA COMPAIVy LOCATION 1142 W 7th @ Bay DISPLAY i poster Face � A. DAMAGE The damage to the sign face ailotved the three uprights to bend at ihe base, see "Site Visit Report" of Frank Berg, 7une 24, 1998, photos one and tsro indicate rhe i��o verticais have been straightened the third vertical rvas pu(led at the requesT of Mr. $erg so he could inspect it It was not replaced and is stored on site K�ith the platForm that was removed for safety. I: ' •� The repair «-i11 be as recommended bp our consulang en�neer, W. T. McCalla in his letter of September 28, 1998. The Z,S x 2,S angle iron will be used to rebrace the staucture, and the "C" channet tc>i11 pruvide tfie weIded patches over the corrosion and frachu�es noted bp Mr, $erg and Mr. McCatIa. The work �vill be accomplished in one day bp a thrce person crew, w1th most of the day spent on site, The electrical sen-in� the structure is in place, and the fixture is in storage at our shop. C. NOTES / AMENbMENTS At the Ciry's request w�e have prepared the attached "IN-PLACE REPT.ACEMENT CpSTS LESS DEPRECIATION" worksheet and materials list specifically for [his site. In that process �c�e disco�•ered the c.ost of the identical replacement c�rouid be]ugher U�an we had estintated our on our originat "5torm Damage WorksheeY'. This change is reflecte.cl in our Storm Damage Wori;sheet dated 4/4/2000 a!arz000 >� • • 1 Y�� _--�� ' ' � r _ . z,.� - -.` _ . w'A`'� �( �,3'my.�r�i`�'�',�S'„_-t � � s-' _ � ��°.�-�s.r . _ ,� .,,. _-� ,� � ►,�� - � _�.� � 6 � .. i ��t.� � . � ,_�._,s� ��-�' �� [t � _ ::;,:� �_ _ wa.ae� i � �-5 � 1� 4 � -,_-wn. ' -. F �'„ . R 5 �.: � � � � „t � �� . . N 54 V,�ay �' � "SK .y M � � W �.. . �; �� ' T JHf 3 �`�f , ��..s.. .i'� �' v ' . 2 ' ,�. . �� . . ..>.. , s .. ,�. `.. �. . . {... . . . � �� ; . � �� , `� . � ', -ce.a' ��..� , ,_cc- _ ,. _ c^ '�".:. "'", . . _ . -..-�. . . � .. .... +s�L �$ �,. � r " , �� _' � � � _ � _ . i � � �:� ; = �... . _ _ _ � �, �� d�-as� SatN7 PAUL � ARAA � OFFICE OF LICENSE. INSPECT[pNS AND ENYIRONMENTALPAOTECT[ON Rabert Kusfer; Director CITY OF SAINT PAUL Narm Colemars, Mayor 7u1y 2, 1998 Thomas Klees Director of Operations Elter Media,.Inc. 3225 Spring Street, N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 telephone; 612-266-9001 Facsimife: 612d669099 " RE: Engineering Report by W.T. McCalla, re: four damaged signs, W, 7ih Street, Saint ' Paul, Minnesota, dated 7une 19,1998 - Dear Mr. Klees: I perfo�ed my own observations of the sign at 1142 West 7th Street. Based on the results ,_ of my observations, ihis Office is requiring that your engineer be retained to loolc more closely at ihe condition of the wind damaged sign structares, and that the report be � resubmitted. The engineer's report must indicate his procedures, explicit facts as to his observations, and then his �engineering opinion. A copy of my site visit report pertaining [o the sign shucture a[ 1142 West 7tfi Street is attaclied. i may be reached at 266-9072. SincereIy, �---�--� " �-�-- Frank Herg, P-B- Staff Structural Engineer Acting Building Official Enc1 cc: W.T. McCaIIa (with enclosure) B UlIDING INSPECIION AND DESIGN 350 St Pue� Strnr Suite 310 SaintParaf, M'vu�crata SS702-ISIO � � � • a I -a� � i ,� u BX: DATE: Frank Berg, P.E. City of Saint Paul, June 24, 1998 SI'TE VISIT REPORT F� �� Office of LIEP PBOJECT: Wind damaged sign at 1142 Wesi 7th Street, Saint Paul, Minnesota PUR�OSE OF VISIT: The purpose of my visit was to observe for myself the condition of the sign structure becavse of conflicting reports from 1) this O�ce's own inspectors, Mr. Dave Kenyon and Mr. 7ohn Hazdwick, and 2) Mr. W.T. McCalla, engineering consultant to Eller Media, Inc., report dated Iune 19, 1998. BACKGROUND INFOI2MATION: A suong wind storm occurred during the evening on May 30, 1998, that caused considerable property damage. On or about June 8th the sign suucture was inspected by Mr. Kenyon and Mr. Hardwick and it was detemvned that this sign (along with some other signs they inspected) needed to be observed by an engineer and evaluated for structural integrity. PROCEDURFS: My qisit was performed at about mid-day and was approximately 35 minutes in duration. I took twelve photogtaphs. I did not take any measurements. i OBSERVATIONS: . � . .. . .. The sign structure consists in part of three vertic�lly cantilevered columns each made''up of a double, cold formed, steel channel (channels positioned back-to-back). The base of each column projects up and out of a sand base contained by a steel pipe se[ into the ground. � The column nearest West 7th Street was observed to be signi£cantly bent at the base with the middle column bent slighdy less, and the .column furthest from the street bent hardly at aI3. The steel pipes into the ground appeared to have not ro[ated. Corrosion was obsecved. The corrosion was most severe where the channel shapes penetrate the sand base. l�� a as� The flange of one channet (in the column nearest the street) was observed to be completely � fractured straigh[ across its entire width. This fractuced flange was on the "tension" side of the column considering the direction of the bending. Significant flange buckting and web crippling was obsetved at the base of both channels comprising each of the two columns most bent. Newly chipped paini was observed at these locations. CONCLUSIONS: = The sign must be moce closety observed by ihe engineer, and then re-evaluated. The channel that has fractured has essentially no load carrying capability at aIl. The steet, wheze it has deformed, has exceeded what is called the "elastic limit". Prior to reaching the e[asfic limit steei wilI deform under Ioad, but then retum ro its normal shape when the load is removed. Once the load is enough to result in the steel exceeding its e[as[ic limit, the sieel is permanently deformed. These columns cannot simply be straiahtened out without having lost some load carrying capability. • m � � m i t o� . � W.T. (Mac} McCalta, PE. 6600 75 fiAvenue Nonh, Brookym Park, MN 55428 (672) 560-74-06 September 28, 1998 Mi�. Tfiomas 3� IClees DirectarofOpera6ans - . Eller Media, Inc. ' 322i E. Minneapolis MN"55413 re: Storm damaged Builil sign 1 I42�FVest &trEet St. Paul; Minneapolis W'CM Job No. 1075. Dear Mr. Klees: This is to certify tliat I" inspectied' the atiove June 1 S, 1998 in your presence and' again $y myself 7uly 31, 1998 to establish material in formed channels. • The 1 West• 7-`� &freet structurtis a single� pos4er- grvun�- buHd- with- the-light- steel- panels • missing. The 3'vertical supports are formed from l0 gage gaivanized steel tapered channels back to bacR forming 3" I beams. T;�e beams are set in 3 steel that-contain The�3� beams were tilted varying amounts but were not damaged"by the storm. Correction required is to lift out � the-3 beams, leaving the eacisting cans nrthe-ground: Wel�patehes onto- the�cans where corrosion • has eaten ttirough at the ground� line. .We3d� patcties on the tapered beam tliat has corroded through at grovnd-]ine: Yamt.the welded� areas, replace t�e sigrr beams and replace the paneIs. You may wisfi to replace the top one foot of sand witfi concrete, "doming" to sHed water. Tn my opinioq•this structare-wit� be adequatewith-the abovenominal repairs. Please feel free to call me s}iould you }iave any questions or want furtHer details. Very truly yours, • - � �1��:�.a//`�``�\./.� 1%l � W. T.McGalla,_P..Eng. � I hae6vcatifythatthisplam,spai[icaEimorreport wupcepaedby meor�mdc mydir�svpmision md�thaz t azu�a duly Regsttred Fngci� vadeyffia , lawsofttr of. ' •• . , Date � • Re�c#im No.105<0 Copy. Frank Berg, P. E., St.�PauI City. Structural Engineer Struet�ral Consulfant 8ddgee • SUUCroraf Concrere • Experf Tes7imony � �� R -�$ O � �� STORM DAMAGE WORKSHEET ELLER MEDIA COMPANY �OCATiON 1142 W 7t6 @ Bay � DISPLAY 1 Poster Face A. REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED MATERIALS 1. STRINGERS AND SUPPORTS (1) 72 ft 2.5x2.5 angie iron @ 7.60 per ft 20 ft 8 in "C" channel @ 4.59 per fi 2. SfGN FACE AND TR�M (2) 1 sign face @$499 per face 1 trim kit @$220 per face B. LABOR 24 hours @ $22.00 per hour COST OF REPAIRS Estimafed cosf 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), 8 hrs at $44.00 per fiour (1) See note 2c (2) See notes 2 a& b ;3; _ Ses_note 7 (4) See note 3 Ali costs are direcf costs Qnr_.. �; $115.Q0 81.00 $498.OQ 220.Od $528.00 $1453.00 �$4�$8032.35 $13,000 $352.OQ � . r L� r� � l��z � r�- w��- .. � � s��s� �e ��-K-�f3�� .. � lS� _aso � � "IN-P ,AGF." IZ�PL.AC�. � COSTS FS D,PRF. rTIQN � � IT .PRO f'iiRFibtENT_ � - � faces p. �l�ce. , • Total site pzocurement - - - � � � . : : s 1!: �t i. �i�1•`��7/_�� ,.- . .: , „ . .. . •, :,. _Fet:mats.iCASi----------'^-'---'---" �� .30 - Delivery chaz e- /� - -------------------- � -Salestax(a(� �S %-------------------- S )39• 1 SUBTOTAL------------------------------------ 6 .o '}� IN-sxop�AA SC�,T[ON: = Labor to zemove basic materials from �uck; in-shop fabrication and assembly; ia-shop P��B - �- man crew @ � hours Q �_/hr• ---------- ---------- �2&8•� $�.,TRTOTAL--^--�--�- ----------- SZ8'8•� _- Procaiuze inclssdes (a) c,�ew �t equiQmeat necesssry to haul struciure & matezial to site and -(b} employ aa auger to dig hole and haul dirt: (a) 3 man crew Qa � hours (a3 a a-ov _ w dig hole and haul dist--------^-----�-------^----- S.2GS��YJ (b) use of auger for � hours Q s�• •------------------- Saad.60 - Labor to fabricate £ootiags at site aud pour coaciete £ootings at site. -,� maa crew @ _� hours Qa �r.____,Jhr: ------------------------ - � Yatds concrete � S._..._JY�1- - - - - - - - - _. - Equipment reqatted: (a) one �T��uck Q � hours Q ��_�- ---^------------- ro� �� ho� a�"o �.vA �dd` �fl c�s^_� ----------------- s � �UBTQTAL--------------------- � • . . � Page 1 of a�-asa APPRALSAL �i . ' � • . LOCATI01+t # . ` . � � 1� ' : �1 ; �1 ul � � � • : �1 : M • ► • ►1�t►1) 1 ut: 1' ' : �• 9l /: • • y� - Iacludes Assembly of faseia, stringers, platforms, ladders, brackcts, eic. p�s�. -� maa cxew �� hours Q-- --- S S` 2-�. U� ��u'.--------- ---� - �cluipmmt required: (a) one govr. truck (a3 � hours @ 5 � — � J�------------------ s yor� (b) oae ��T�" truck Q � fiours @�_�'------------------ 5 S�d't� SiTATOT 1.-------------^-------------^-------- �3�� UY7 -. . . . . . - -- - - - � --- _ �1:. '� ; :k: '�� . :� . :i . k � . . . � . . . . . . .. . . � • Page � nPPxars�u. # . � . o � -�-sa . iocaTTOx� - . :' �'T�* pL,ICF�' R�,p CF14"�NT CQST ES- DFpIZF.�TATiON fCON'[71Vi7Fi)1 . �, : 11 luti► : � � ► - Putchase of basic eleccrical material i.ncluding Jight fixtures, bsliasts, lamps, boxes, 2�aagers, bzealcezs, clocks, miscellaneous items such as conduit and rnnneciocs, clamps and clips, eu. Q S. -- - - - - - - - �� •. � _ G2�?- - Sales.tax @ � • 5 % for materials - - - - - - - �—Z- - Load and unload equipment at site = a 2 mau � �,� ctew @ �._ houts each Q �• � - - � � - Install el� cal panets,� mt, P� wite. install fixtures and ball�cu: �r �� lus. ��/hr. -------------------5 GGY7•v-O _ gquipm.ent required (a) one /.An�.u.. truck Q � houzs v ------ 5 ��.�rZ'? @�__I1�r. ---------� (b) one truck Qa hours @�-____.—�hr. --------------- � (c) otte tru�k (a3 ho� Q$.�,,_/hr. --------------- '�.�-- SL�TOTAi_.- -----�------------ �,.�/?a•y7 � .. . �� .. Par � APPRAiSAL # LOCATIQN # - o�-as� � 1 ► ' : �1._ : ' v� �� • . � • . � .rn.� � � 1 1; bt 1: � ': h/� +- - Czrw to paiat upzi8ht4 including strucriugi steel, laddas, strinBccs. trim, etc., a!i items y� fasci� � men cxew @ O houis @ : �ff �-�.v� /br. �3 sl•�tJ - Equipment required: (a) oite Faaef uvck re4uited foz � hours� 3 �1�- --------S�� S �.� fuif.�� : il � rercnicaosts s 3G2.u� Soilstests ---------------------------- � S L IR TOT� T . ----------- --------------�----------- $ �6� `°a ' • DIRECT/HARD REPRObUCTION COST (ITEMS 2-� ----- S� �� : �� The above costs aze for lahor �„d raw materiale o�iv and do aot iaclude "indirect costs" including such iieau as ( standard ovezhead allowance and (2) entrcprenenrial/profit --- as explained in the narrative of ihe rcpozt_ _., , . _ �� Page 4 � nrrxataAL ii I.00ATION N V � 0 � -�c Il ' : �t : �1 ul�f� • � t ' : �l : r � ► • �MYhI 1 � lvlu : : • : �I' : � � y� 1 � • (1) : Siu proctuement - - - - - - - - - - - - S 3 SoO.c� (p 1) (2) . In ptace neplacemem (direct cost) : S S� 3Z �3� (P88� 1 2, 3& 4) Subtotal -------------- ---------------$ay, S S3 .3S•'� • OverheatVcontractoz's allowance @ � % - - - - - - - - S �/'O; ofl. . Bntrcprcneuiial ptofit Qa /� o�� - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,S/�25,� -. , � REPLACF.MEM'COSTNEW---------------SAY,. yS".3� ': : I�♦ tl��: � Rer considering: (1) acival age of the in place outdoor advertising structure and - _( reO°E�°8 �° �� tnaintenauce schedule applied to outdoor adveztising s4ruct�ues and - (3) the condition atid quslity of construction and - (4) the location aad oconomic life expectancy of the outdoor adveztising stxucture ---- • We have atrived at t}ie conclusion that the overail dc estimate of �v %* s}iould be applied or as follaws: TOTAL DEPRECIATLON ESTTMA2E --- d oG. + * NOT'E: DEPRECIAT1pN IS Z� % OF D7RECT COST (DEPRECIABLE ASSETS) !�� ox.ni, x�rrac�l►�ivz� cosr �w - - - - - - ,�ys/ , 3 � LESS BEPREC7ATION ALLOWANCE5 - - - - (,� �.� ) REPLACEMEPiT COST LESS DEPRECIATION VALUE - 5ay, 'PVao.rawpd � (� 1 /� C //� , L / y � ( l � . �� f1Y3�3� Page 5 of 5 � � � � c�[—a5� ; _---- l.t'`—''-,Q,--7�f --2 i5`� . . � ��--Q -- -- --��.e-�`.cQ� • . • - - -- -- _ � _ - ---- -- --- /� / � I � G-��s .. � r ��..�L__ �_ _._Tou...��. a�_� a- �y��.. =_�63.? � � _— � _.__ � _�f8� ---= - -- � � • � �� .� %L k Z� � _�1.bo �,% .-.r-- �---. .� /4�� 2 /y_ �?--� J n.� _'c�'J ;:_. �– ) _ � � , r n �'.e7�� c � - --�1c1S0, OJ �Sa,SrU_ _. (__ a o-�" ?�G..�a _ . ...a..y � 1 cro v4 t��. /�v>�.e.E' i5G'� w �� . ..._ ,..- --._._...__� . _- --. .. - _.. _ .�.�- �t�-c, -� � �� - �----..-_ ------.. �� _, __ -�;--- - �- -- - -- -- �„V,.,.�. . ,,� — .�. - ��r _ . I o-r G L ---xa `—�---------- - � - -� °-7° '- �� ,. 1 �� S�-c.t- �'/'cX - ��.'•. St�....--- - _ r z fzE ,� s. �.�`.. � a � 4, s � _ ----- --... . _ �� _ _ � � �,<,c -� �-z�t i 3 ? o — — _. � —__. .. ---, _. _�.��-- -- T 3 7. �j O ,_ .. . ��a y��3d . ,_._. . --- -- _.. _. __ - - ..._ .. , - M�� - - - �-- -� ------ �u� ,�� , - - _ --- ____�",.t.,�'�i5 �,_�_-_�r__—_---- , .— -------- -- - _ I • --- -.. __ _ — ----�— — — / j . _. .. �� I � �— . � � � CITY UF � _. Refernd To �so�.t�orr PAUL, MlNNESUTA .....� i. O � -�-5 � � i � 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lI 12 13 i5 I6 ? 19 2U 2] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 • WHEREAS, Scenie Mumesota, in Zoning File 98-154 and pmsuant m Saint Paui Legislative Code § 66.408 made application to the Saint Paul plaaniag Commissipn (Comrnissionj to appeal ihe decisicra of the Saim Pavl ZoniaB Adminis�atar to allow repairs #o storm damaged adverEising signs located at ! 820 Grand Aveaue and at the southeast comer of Ford Fm'kway and Sovth Cleveland Avrnue; and ub&c �� on August 6, 2998, the Commission's Zoning Cuauaittee conducced a P hearia8 where all intetested persons were given an oPP�ty to be heazd and submitted its recommec�dation to deny the appeal to the Commission; azsd WHERF 48. in its Resolurion No. 98-45, dated August 14,1948, the Commission decided to deny the appeal based upoa the findings in Resolution 9&-45 which is attached hereto and incmpomted hezein by zefereuca; and R'AEREAS, Scenic Minnesota, in Zoning File 98-241 and ptusvant to the prm of Saint Paul Legislative Code §(q.206, f�ed an app�� e by the Commission and requesced a hearing before the Saini Paul Ciry Councp (Council) for the Purposes of considering the aerions takea by thc said Commission; and WFIEREAS, on October 7, ] g98 aad acring pursvant to Saint Paul Leg�siative Code §§ 64.206 - 64.20& with notice to affected parties, a public hearing w� dyiy �o�s�d�� by the , Counci] whore all imecested parties were given an opporhmity to be heard; and WI�REAS, rhe Council having heard the statemrnts macic and tiaving cottsidered the application, the reporc of staff, the reconi, minutes and resalution of t6e Zoning Committee and of the Planning Cummission, does hereby; RESOLVE, to affirtn the dc�ision of the Cominissioa. The Council {�ds no etro�. in at�y PPU�� noa-� �'amede by the Planning Commission aad that Zoning Code § 66.3QT rming advertising si�s : and be it _ _ l�i bVY!(Y13 GllG M _\� � ,� —��_Z Grear Sheet # ��L�� l� ��--- �� ?. FIIVALLY ItE50LVED, tkat the City C2ak shaiI mait a capy of this resotution to Brian p(-c�S � 3 Beces. Esq. oa behatf of the appetiaat, Marvin Liszt, Esq, on Behalf of tfic sign comPanY, the 4 Zoning Administratvr and the Ptanning Cvmmission. • � � � � Aequested by neyartaaeat oE: A60pked by Cauncil: Dnle xdoyti4n cezcilied 6y Colmeii SeczeLary �= Apysoved by Mayor: pste 8Y: u Sy: —_ Fesm d by clLy Ateetney e �'!' l✓c�'wrNC.—., ��/zT/9S Appzwed by Haym toz Sabm3ssioa to [rnmcil By: u � �� r . .. _. .. ... .. .._- . .,: ... -,aa ��N�� T OTFICEOFLi , _ , q�p EIVIRONMI:NTALPR07ECT70\ � Robe�t Aessleq Director • CITY OF SAINT PAUL Non�e Coleman, Aluyor August 18, 2000 Chris McCarver V.P./Real Estate Ivlanager Eller Media Company 3225 Spring St. N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 Re: 1209 W. 7"' St. 1184 W. 7` St. 1142 W. 7` $t. I.OLIRY PROFESSIOd'A7.6UILDhCG Telephonee 6�1-266-969p 3SOS1.PeterSfreer,Smitc300 F¢csimile: 6.i1-366-9G99 SnintPnrrl,A4innesataS51G3-7510 651-?GG.g!?J 2014 - 2018 Ford Parkti��ay • . Dear Mr. McCarver: In response to your_appiications for building permits received June 22, 2000, to repair the advertising sign structures that sustained storm damage in1998 at the referenced sites, I am extending the deadline for response an additional 60 days. In reviewing the costs of repairing these signs, it appears tl�at the figures are based on proposed structural repairs that �i�ere never approved by LIEP's structural engineer, Frank Berg. Before we can verify the exact costs we need to make sure ali proposed work is acceptable to Mr. Berg. He needs to meet with you and Mr. McCalla to discuss Mr. McCalla's recommendations for each site. Please contact Mr. Berg directly at 651- 266-9D72 to arrange the meeting. Sincerely, "l�r��. :�a�� Wendy Lane Zoning Manager c: Frank Berg l'� CITX OF SA1NT PAUL Norm Co7emart, Mayor October 17, 2000 Chris McCarver V.P./Reai Estate Manager Elier Media Company 3225 Spring St. N.E. Minneapotis, MN 55413 Re: 1209 W. 7"' St. I1S4 W.7i°St. 1142 W. 7`" St. 2014 - 2018 Ford Pazk�vay Telephone: 65l-2G Fauimife: 651-26 651-266-9�2q Dear Mr. McCarver: We have reviewed your applications, received June 22, 2000, for pezmits Yo repair the advertising sign structures at the referenced locations that sustained storm damage on May 30, 1998. On August I8, 2000, the deadline for the City to respond was extended for an additiona160 days. As we previously discussed, the zoning code does not give us clear direction in how to process this type of application and we ha��e had difficultly reaching a decision. The sign at 1142 W. 7"' St. is no longer there and you indicated ihat you did not want Yo pursue fhis'permit appiication. Tne otner signs arz a�:-i�ga1 ner_�enfoa�?�ing ___ advertising signs, Iocated in areas where new advertising signs aze ciurently prohibited. Section 66.301(2) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code zegulatas nonconforming signs and sfates thaY "Should such sign or sign structure be destroyed by any means to any extent ofmore than fifty-one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." There aze riro distinet damage hurdles that must be met, one for the sign and one for the sign structure. A sign structure is de�ned as"Any structure �i$ich supports or is capable of supportin� any sign as defined in this chapter. A sign structure may be a single pole; it may not be an integral part of a building." The information you supplied indicates that the si� structures had damage of less than 51 % of their replacement cost. A sign is defined as "The use of words, nurnerals, �gures, devices, desigas or trademazks the purpose of which is to show or advertise a person, firm, profession, � �`!. �� o� �� - E, INSPECTTONS AND ENVIRONMENTAI, pROTECT[ON Robert Kessler, Direcm. LOWRY PROFESSIO�`ALEUILDING 350 St, Peter Saee{ Suitz 300 SairtlPaul,Mirsnesom 5�/02-ISlO • . a � -�-s� Chris McCarver � October 17, 2000 Page 2 business, product or message." In this case we can only conclude that a sign refers to a sign face. No information was supplied regarding the sign face. It appeazs that 100% of the sign faces were destroyed for each of fhese sites. Section 66.301(2) spzcifies that if the nonconforming sign is destroped to more than 51 % of 9ts replacement cost, it may oniy be reconstructed in conforn�ity with the rest of the chapter, which, in the case of nonconforming advertising signs, �vould mean Section 66302. None of these signs couid be renovated under Section 6b302(a)(5) because all of the signs are roof top signs of more that 400 squaze feet. If you want to bring the signs into compliance with 66.302(a)(5) by reducing the size to less than 400 squaze feet, you may reapply for repair permits, indicating how each of these signs would meet the other provisions of 66.302(a). We are hereby denying your applications for permits to repair these signs: If you disagree with this interpretation, you may file for an administrative review before the Planning Commission within 30 days. If you choose not to appeal this decision, these signs and sign stnictures, must be removed w�ithin 60 days. � Sincerely, �� a� Wendy Lane Zoning Manager � �� i ' ` • , ,, - .� ._.� of saint pau! �ninq commission resolut+on file number 98-45 �te August 14, 1998 �;IHEREAS, SCENIC MIItiTNESOTA, file � 98-154, has filed an appeal, under the provisions of Section 66300(j) of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code, of the Zonino Administrator's decision regarding adveRising si�ns damaged in a storm on May 30, 1948, Iocated at 1820 Grand Avenue, the Highland Village Shopping Center, which is on the soutb side of Ford Park�vay bet�veen Kenneth Street and Cleveland Avenue, and at 1142, 1184, and 1209 N. Seventh Street (lzgal descriptions on file); and WHEREAS, the Zoning Commitcee of the Planning Commissioa on August 6, 1998, held a public heazing at �vhich all persons present �sere given an opportunity to be heard pursuant Yo said application in accordance witfi the requirements of Section 64300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and , � �VHEREAS, Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zonin� Committee at the public hearin� as substaniialty reflected in the minutes, made the followinQ findin�s of fact: A maj or wind storm hit the Twin Cities on May 30, I998, causing a great deal of damage to homes, trees, and po�ver 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 Jane 10, �Veady Lane of LIEP �vrote to Eller Media that, as a result of the inspection, rir�o of the dama�ed biiiboards, 1820 Grand Ave. and the middle billboazd structure at Highland Vilta�e had not received s[ructural dama�e; just the si?ns and poster panels, �vhich provided ihe baekin� f::he signs,_had blown down. Replacin� poster panels c3oes not, as a matter of standard City practice dating back many years, require a buiiding permit. Therefore, Eller could proceed immediately to replace the poster panels on those I��'O S1pR5. �Ss. Lane's letter said that the other four billboard locations--one at Highland Village Shopping Center and three on VJ. Seventh Street--were found to have structural dama�e. 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 damaged is that the renovation costs aze less than 51 � moved by Field seconded by in favor 10 (Field abstained) against i�� j � • ❑ � ��. dt-d ♦ � • percent of the replacement cost. � 2. Ail of the biilboards in question are owned by Eller Media, Inc. (formerly Naegele and then Universal), tivhich is a national billboard company. All of the bi1(boazds are in B-2 (Cotnmunity Business) zoning districts, �vheie ad� signs aze permitted if they meet certain size and spacing requirements unless an overlay spzcial sign district imposes stricter regulations. None of the billboards in question are conformin�; they are all legal nonconforming signs for one reason or another. The Grand Avenue and Highland Village signs are in Speciai Sign Districts adoQted in the 1980s where billboards aze prohibited. The W. Seventh Street bi116oazds are in an interim Special Si�n District approved by the City Councii earlier this year, tivhere ne�v construction and modification of billboards are prohibited until ne��• advertising sign regulations aze adopted by the City Council. 3. Scenic Minnesota, a nonprofit organization, in a letter dated June 16, 1998, appealed Ms. Lane's decision to ailoFV reglacement of the poster panels at t«�o locations (1820 Grand Avenue and the middle billboazds on the Highland Village Shopping 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 bilfboards �vill 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 (66.301)(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 are regulated by both sections and by appticable special si�n 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 ho�v the renovation cost information �vould be used. Therefore, since no decision has been made, an appeal of this issue is premature. 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 sion 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 paragraph on exemptions from getting building permits (66_405), tivhich refers to "display surface" and "poster replacemenY'. The latter terms are not defined in the code and, being subject to interpretation, are a responsibiliTy of the Zoning Administrator. The City Council is expected to amendment advertising sign regulations later this year and �vilt receive comments from the Planning Commission before doing so. Code amendments «�ould be a better way to clarify how sign faces should be considered than trying to reach a decision throu�h an appeals process. 6. Scenic Vlinnesota's third and fourth specific appzals ar�ue that the installation or • replacement of sign faces shotild require a sign (building) permit. On replacement of the sien face (poster panels), LIEP treated Eller Media the same as they have ireated al1 biltboard companies. For many years the Zoning Administrator has interpreted 66.405 to l�� `°" . �� .e��y - :A � allow poster panel replacement without a sign pemut. Poster panels come in kits of interlocking 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 Yhe set of billboards ai 1820 Grand Avenue and the middle set of billboacds on Highland Village Shoppina Center, LIEP inspectors determined that no structural damage had occurred. Ms. Lane's lztter of June 10, 1998, is clearly consistent �vith established practice; any other decision �vould have been discriminatory. The fifth specific appeal by Scenic Minnesota is that the �6'. Sevenfh bitlboazds cannot be replaced or renovated at this time because of the interim 3pecial Sign District for the �V. Seventh neighborhood. In February 1948, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance that created an Advertising Sign Legislative Advisory Committee to inake recommendations to the Councii. Dnring the study period, the ordinance provides that district councits may appiy for a special sign district by ��ziting a Ietter. In eariy 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 not rendered a decision about whether or not the �V. Seventh billboards can be renovated, and an appeal is premature. THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Plannin� Commission, that under tfie authority of the City's Legisiative Code, the appeal of the Zonin� Administrator's decision to a?!�sL ±he tepi_acement of the sign faces without sign permits for the billboards at 1820 Grand A�'enue and for the middle set of biilboards at Highlanc! Viliage Shopping C:enteris nere�y denied; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission renders no decision on this appeal as regards the eastern set of billboards at Highland Villaoe Shopping Center or the bitlboazds on W. Seventh Street; since LIEP has only asked for information from Eller Media on these storm-damaged billboards and fias not yet made decisions on �vhether the}• can be renovated, appeals about them are ptemature. �+ � l ��' � ol a � � • STATE OF b2IN1hESOTA • "`l� COLNTY OF RAbqSEX ` r--- SCENIC MMNESOTA INC., et el., . PLAI\'TIFFS, DEFENDA\TS. 1��I�Y�P�'� - D t-aS^ � DISTRICT COURT SECO\73 JUDICIAL DISTRICT Cn�n. Dn�s�o� - nio� u�.�, J. FILED COUrt Administrator OCT 1 I. 7999 ORllER FOR SUb�I Cot�xr FicE �o: C4-98-10951 This matfer was heard on 18 August 1999 by the Honorabfe M. Michaei Monahan, � CITY OF SAtNT PAUL, et al., District Court Judge, on cross motions for summary judgment pursuant to Minn.R.Civ.P. 56. Court Docket Nos. 1 S& 22. Richard B. Bates appeared for Plainfiffs. Peter W. Warner, Assistant City Attomey, appeared for Defendants City of 5aint Paul a�d City Council of the City of Saint Paul (the "City Council")(defendants collectively "the City"). Marvin A. Liszt of Diamond, Liszt & Grady, P.A. appeared for Defendant Eller Media, inc. ("Eller"). Based on the arguments o# counsel and the entire record in this matter: IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs' mofion for summaryjudgment is GRANTED. 2. Defendanfs' motion for summary judgment is DENIEd. 3. Judgment is granted to Plaintiffs and against Defendanfs: (a) declaring that the resolution by the Saint Paui City Planning Commission No. 98-45 was arbifrary and �pricious because it misapplied the provision of Sainf Paui Legislative Code § 66.405(1); and (b) declaring � I 1�J o�-asc� that the action of the City Council of the City o( Saint Paul in refusing to sustain Plaintiff's appeai from the decision of the P(anning Commission was arbitrary and capricious because the City Counci( fai(ed to set forth the basis for the deniai; an@ (c) awarding Plaintiffs their sfatutory costs and disbursements. 4. The following memorandum is a part of this order and constitutes the court's findings of fact and conclusions of Iaw to the extent required by AAinn.R.Civ.P. 52.09. 5. The automatic stay of Minn.G.R.Prac. 125 is vacated. 6. The maiting of this order by the court to counsel is notice of its entry for ail purposes. LET JUDG�SENT BE En'TERED ACCORDINGLY �VITHOUT STAY. � Dated: � Oh3o6 ct gg. ' ��.� �� The forago+ng shail corstitute the judgment of the Ce�rt. Mich el tvfonatian �`� / En � tered: �� (;�iC�?i;El 6. (:iQ° District Court Judge )q � ��• � �n �/�� FN� C iIL Yt�iilli�{ISlidiJ( - !i / �` . " [ ,� / `` • �� f �,�., D�b40RAI�DLJIi �,usiL ��..F/L 6y ��L'�-' �, ' FACTS. De�i:�� Cie;:t ��lf(1�G2'yf :�`.�` In this action Plainfiffs seekjudicial review of the City Councif's decision denying their appeal from the Saint Pauf P(anning Commission's decision' permitting Eller to replace the face panels on two of its outdoor advertising signs located within a spec+al sign d'tsfrict without a permit. !t is another case arising as a resuit of the wind sform of 30 May 1998. See Scenic Mrnnesota, Inc, v. Cify of Saint Paul, Second Jud. Dist. Court File No. C5-99-1900, It is also evidence of the decades long struggle between the City, its residents, and the outdoor ' P(anning Commission Resolution 98-45. 2 The signs are located at � 820 Grand Ave�ue and on the Highland Village Shopping Center at Cfevetand and Ford Parkway. -2' 1� u • l J � i -J-S� • adveRising industry over the proper place of biAboards within the City. In a series of enactments in 1984, 1986, and 1988, the Cify adopfed various measures that made virtualiy afi biliboards within the Cify a legal, non-conforming use. In so doing, the Cify articuiated a variefy of pubiic hea)th and safefy concerns supporking fhe notion it woufd nof permit fhe repiacement, relocation or renovation of billboards. SPLC §66.302. The specific biilboards at issue here are legal, non-conforming uses because they are roof top advertising signs. SPLC § 66.214(h). During the May 30`" storm, these billboards and ' several others were damaged. The City's zoning administrator determined that the biliboard at issue here had not susiained structurai damages. The administrator informed their owner, Eller, that it could repiace the bifiboards' face paneis without obtaining a permit. In reaching this decision, the administrator relied on § 66.405(1) of the City's Legislative Code (the "SPLC"), That provision provides, in part: The foilowing signs shall not require a permit. These exemptions shall not be • construed as relieving the owner of the signs from the responsibility of its erection and maintenance, and its compliance with the provisions of this chapter or any other law or ordinance regulating the same. 1) The changing of the display surface on a painted or printed sign only. However, this exemption shall apply to poster replacement and/or on-site changes involving sign painting elsewhere than directly on a building. ' Plainfiff appealed this determination to the Planning Commission pursuant to SPLC § 66.408(a) and § 66.300{j), The Planning Commission denied the appeai and uphe{d the Zoning Administrator's decision to permit the replacement of the face panels without the necessity of a permit. Planning Commission Resolufion 98-45. The seasons for the P{anning Commission decision were documented. /d. Among those reasons was the Planning Commission's finding 3 The special sign districts involved here wera crea:ed in 1P84 and 1986. SPLC §§ 66.2161 & 60".2763. u -3- �� o c �S � that the City had consistently not required that a permit be obtained in order to repiace the face paneis of billboards. Plaintiffs appealed the Pfanning Commission's decision to fhe Cify Council pursuant to SPLC § 64,20&(a). The record before me consisfs of fhe zoning appeal packet and the transcript of the hearing before the Cify Council. The City Council denied the appeal in a four to three vote on 7 October 1998. Tr. at 55-56. The City Council did not make �vritten findings expiaining the basis for its decision. The Plaintiffs argue that this failure is itself enough to reverse the City ' Council's decision. The City argues that the Council adopted fhe report of its Planning Commission as the explanation for its decision. The transcript reflects that the motion before the City Council was to susfain the appeal. Tr. at 47-48. That was defeafed. Tr. 55-56. There was no motion to adopt the Planning Commission's resolution. B. LA\Y. i. Rule 56. Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings and any other evidentiary submissions show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that fhe moving parfy is entitied to judgment as a matter of law. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580 (Minn. 1988)(citing Celofex Corp. v. Catretf, 477 U.S. 397 (1986)). The facts presented on a motion for summaryjudgment musf be viewed in the lighf most favorable to the non-rrioving party. Id. But, the non-moving party musf provide speci5c facts indicating that fhere is a genuine issue of facf. Hunt v. 1BM MidAmerica Employee's Federation, 384 N.W.2d 853, 855 (Minn. 1986}. 2. Standard for Review. The standard of review is whether the [council's] decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, with review focused on the legal sufficiency of and factual basis for fhe reasons given. Swanson v. City of Bloomington, 421 N.W.2d 307, 313 {Minn.1988). Absent indication of arbitrary and capricious conduct or manifest injustice, a court can, but does not readily, substitute its judgmenf for that of a city counci!'s. 7he subjective balancing of factors -4- I �� u � • o I -�-5 d � in granting or denying variances, for exampie, is a c{assic area where judicial deference is extended fo the executive branch. See Sagsteffer v_ City of Sf. Paul, 529 N.W.2d 488 (Minn.App.1995) G DECISLO\'. 1. Summarv Judament. The parfies agree on the factual record. There are no genuine • issues of materia{ fact. The only questions presented are le�ai. 2. Record on Review. The City Councii issued no findings or conclusions supporting or � setting out the basis for ifs decision in this matter. Accordingly, I have no way of ineasuring the reasonableness of its decision. This is particularly disturbing given the nature of the City Council's delibarations as evidenced in the transcript of the public hearing. At one point, one City Counci{ member went so far as to suggest that the Council had no idea what the issues were. In the face of the lack of a specificafiy articulated basis for the City Council's decision, the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment must be granted. Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N. W.2d 409, 416 (Minn.1981). This appeal was filed within 30 days of the City Council vote, one presumes in order to avoid the argument that the time for appeal had otherwise expired. The City has not argued that the appeaf was premature but rather only that its pendency precluded the making of the appropriate findings. lt cites no law in supporf of this notion, The idea that the commencement of this appeal inhibited the City Council from making the appropriafe findings is without merit. 3. lnter�retation of Ordinance. Assuming that Planning Commission Reso(ution No. 9&- • 45 fulfilis ihe requirements of Honn, the question becomes whether the City has properly interpreted the ordinances at issue. The sfandard for review is de novo. State ofMin�esota by Minneapofis Park Lovers v. City of Minneapolis, 468 N.W.2d 566, 569 (Minn.App.1991). A zoning ordinance must be given its plain and ordinary meanings, it must be construed in favor of -5- �� bl the property owner, and it must be considered in lighf of its underlying policy. SuperAmerica Group, inc. v. City ofLittle Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264, 266 (Minn.App.1995) (citing Frank's Nursery Sales v. City of Roseville, 395 N.W.2d &04, 608-09 (Minn.1980)). The zoning administrator's interpretation of SPLC §66.405(1) is du6ious af besf. The plain and ordinary meaning of the provision is fhaf fhe replacement, relocation, or renovation of the adverfising matter placed on a biflboard may be done without a permit. 7his is clear from tne reference to "cfianging ffie display surFace on a painted or printed sign"(emphasis added) and � the reference fo "poster replacemenY' and "sign painting". The distinction made by the provision is befween changing the advertising content to be placed on the panels of a billboard and changing or replacing the panels themselves. The first is permitted without a permit. The second constitutes a renovaiion of the billboard and requires a permit. There is no ambiguity in the ordinance requiring that it be read in favor of fhe property owner. Further, this interpretation is wholly consistent Svith the ordinance's �nderlying policy. That policy unmistakenly contempiates the removal of nonconforming billboards in special sign districts over time. A billboard withovt face panels ceases to Function as a biliboard. tt tacks a biUboard's essentia! functionality. !t is nothing more than a colfecfion of timbers, braces, and uprights. Once a biliboard ceases to function as a biliboard, fhe policy underlying the ordinance, as well as the ordinance's plain meaning, requires a permif before the bilfboard's funcfionality can be restored. M.M.M. -6- �� t . • • / � Pam Wheelock City Planning & Economic Development 25W 4�` Sffeet Saint Paui, MN 55102 Dear Ms.Wheelock, �i�u1��e�' b o, �� o West 7th/Fort Road Federation 974 West 7th Street Saint Paul, Minnesota 56102 (612)298-6599 RECEIVED APR 61998 ZONING Tf�e West Seventh Federation request that a special sign dish be created for the �Vest Seventh Street Area. The boundaries shouid include all of district 9. The special sign dish would prohibit any additional s atrns, modification af existing signs, or the replacement of any damaged signs advertising signs, except bus stop signs. If you have any questions please contact Betty Moran at 298-5599. Sincerely, • � . Richazd Mi er. � c.c. Roger Ryan Chris Coleman John Hazdwick U _- � ` : • �t( - , �� . . u.. _ .-.. - .. !� :��:�_r. .. �-::_; - : . _ ` ~ -. ;v. � fF ?:r `..r,� ' - � a• `• � � M1 �'. a - � . � . .�. . . Y �•%^}� � �� .- .. `° _ .i ■� � � .z =y��t:•.,.� ' w�i� �r �i` .x�o�Y�t4:' r • —i^ '. " - us3�"�m loyer:. ��<�t:��, '-:�%' '"�-;. - �Y'c�:E'Si�l Presented By ./�'/y1�7717�t� �//2��/� p, o�-a5'c5 Council fiile # � 3 3 RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Green Sheet# /�� Referred To _� � Coznmittee: Date � , ) 2 WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Saint Paul, in Council File 97-1568, as amended, �� 3 adopted an interim ordinance prohibiting the establishment of new advertising signs and the 4 modification of e�sting advertising signs, pending the City's study of the need to establish 5 special district sign plans pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code § 66.216; and 7 9 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 WHEREAS, Couucil File 97-1568 provided tliat applications for special disiriot sign plan applications may be initiated by filing an application with tke director of the Deparhnent of Planning and Economic Development; and WHEREAS, Councii File 97-2568 furtherprovided that only duly recognized neighborhood disirict councils may apply for a special district sign plan; and WF�REAS, the following neighborhood district councils: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,10, l I, 12, I3 (Memam Park and Snelling-Haznline azeas only), I S and 17, submitted appIications for special district sign pians pursuant to Council File 97-15�8; and � WHEREAS, Councii File 97-1568 further provided that any objection to the filing of a speciai sign dish application must be written and would require a public hearing. The pubiic hearing would allow the Council to determine whether an application was reasonable, not over inclusive, not discriminatory, and would further assist the planning and legislative process necessatiy for the adoption ot speciai districi sign piazts forincu��sa4:a:. i��tc th� Sai: ::?aul Zoning Code; and 'WHEREAS, in a letter to Councilmember Dan Bostrom dated May 21, 1998, DeLite Outdoor Advertising Inc. (DeLite) specifically objected to the special sign district application from District 4 Community Council and generally objected to all other special sign district applications. Delite requested that the matters be schedaled for public hearings; and WHEREAS, pursuant to DeLite's request, the Council of the City of Saint Paut duty scheduled a public hearing for July 8, 1998 with notice ta affected parties; and 33 WHEREAS, on July 8. 2998, a public heazing on special sign district application as 34 provided pursuant to Council Pile 97-1568 was duiy conducted by the City CounciI where all 35 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heazd; and 36 37 38 �i i � �� ( �}-�� 6 7 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 � 7 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 • WEiEREAS, the Council, having heazd the statements made and having cansidered the applications, the report of staff and the testimony produced during the public hearing, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: That all the special district sign plan appiications aze reasonable. Although each application is geographically broad in that it encompasses the area of the enrire district council boundary (except for the District 15 applicarion that includes only the boundaries of the Shepard -Davem Forty Acre Study Area which is presently undenvay) the applications aze nevertheless narrow in scope in that they address only advertising signs which aze those signs located off premises as opposed to business signs which are on premise signs. 2. The prohibitions against the construction of new advertising signs or the modification of existing advertising signs aze also reasonable in that the special district sign plans aze designed to prevent consttuction of advertising signs under today's regulations which might not tie allowed if advertising sign regulations are amended. 3. The prohibitions of these special district sign plan moratoriums aze consistent. The council finds that the prohibitions apply only to prohibit the construction of new advertising signs or the modification of exiting advertising signs. It is implicit that these prohibitions exclude bus shelter and bus bench advertising devices as well public skyway advertising devices allowed under franchise agreements pursuant to Saint Paul Legislative Code Appendices I and J; and 4. Implementation of these special distract sign plan moratoriums wili further assist the planning and legislative process. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the interim regulations in effect by virtue of this resolution and as required under Council File 97-1568 shall be deemed to expire at such time as either new regulations aze enacted by the council, or on December 31, 1949, whichever may come fust; and Z� Page 2 of 3 � 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9� - �}�3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that for the above-stated zeasons, the specific and pL � general objections to the said applications by DeLite aze not supported; and BE IT FINALLX RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution be delivered to the Saint • Paul Planning Commission, the Legislative Advisory Committee reviewing current advertising sign regvlations, the Zoning Admicristrator and DeLite Outdoor Advertising, Inc. � � i�'� Adop[ed by Certified BY= � / V Approved by ty yor: Date Requested by Department of: By: Form Approv by City Attorney By , ��✓�✓�vrc—� P/�7`�� Approved by Mayor for SuLmission to Council BY: By: n � ��.J�� <�� -tr-.�. Y • S �,ti�.,��L �� 0 � -3�� ATTACHNIENTS A. Appeai form and explanatory brief by Marvin Liszt !�, '`\ 1/ B. Planning Commission Resolution and Planning Commission�minutes for 1/26/Ol � t�7 �� C. Zoning Comtnittee minutes for 1/4101 (pubtic hearing and letters of testimony) and 1J18/Ol (recommendation) �.� `� D. Staff Report of 7l25l98 with many attachments sent to the Zoning Committee including e�ctensive documentation by Eller of their estimated repair costs �.- }� f.2-, }�. � � � t/ ` � �� E. Location and zoning maps ��J�} �- _ � \_ J • K:�Shazed�Ped�SODERFIOL�ZONING\O1-180.504CCL1R.wpd ` (' o � -�s� ` ��.�I�Cl� ! _a� l -� _" `. `"�� a o .� � : Iu � � \ ,� ��` �� '� � C O � O O O'O.O�O'O O�O � O p� .j I O O�O O'O � O C O -p- 6 � �c+� �. . . . a :�,U:O�O O� a a, i,_00 •�.�� 000� 'tS�p'O.¢ O Q ` 'S� �1f • . p � : — � — y 1 ♦ �+ �`� � � 1 0�� .�J . ' t � '� . �•�1 .7 � ¢ � l��Ji O j . Q . C+ O G• . � I i i �: G? P � � F-32 z?- , ' [� � . "� I . � • " � . O � p\� t . ; .: � • .` � . 000 0,0'OSO00�0,0_ �.�LQ-0 p �p � 9► `� ` . - _� ° Q : ; � • - � . � �': ; ; . — 1 �.. -• � cio� 1 i --� v �R'1 00 0�000�00 O Q '� � O�O � ¢ �¢ O� i0:0'�.J�.'� O D--� tr, . O ' • ' ' p� ' . . _ _ '_`_' - � -- O tTl • ; � � ; , , ; ..: . : . — Q . i . r . p _ . , ' `�"�.__ -� : ti cn .00OU00�?�� ' �r� � °,C`�'nt�i �Q: ��+ � r 'o j0� �'��I v . � , �.�nS{*o :4� �'Q Q t � p �' 4 � 1 i.: ze 3 1� 1� t�� v ��' � � i � . ' : �/ ~ ~ . � � ; ; ° : ; : : ; , t� ''• " : ; � 1 i f { j � � ' � , � � 4,000yo� �� i: fi' ' � , �"',�� i ��av „ p �c i ¢ � '' r vOC'.�C��'J��7 � (; "J�i� • �i /� �^D ' 'J! � `� ' ' '?J' `� �IIO��O�O�C1 f � 7; i: w7 O � U� Y{Yl � �� . __._ + � � `, 1 I � a � : v T : ; � I I E � ; .'9 �� ' � i�� l, , .' I ! . s - ��.¢��U.•�0.� .3� Qfl .ti Ip i i j f f i a .� � �o� y �� a o �°�i � f 4 . :e - - � o M�� •�, •�:�b• o l�.� ta ii� ,. r \o F��.� Na. 2. ,. : o � > �� ' � • _� � o� �'., o o , � ' � .. . . . . . � �. o , � � j�I�'�' �'1'� �� . ' �, b �o �a,a.v�i3�^?Lo.o, � � P � BAYaRO ' �. - � °. � � �./�� i�� i�i' � S- :-�i.��. `�` /'�� -- ---•-�—} �PLICANT �I j�R. � G�� nwP�rt� LEGENO 1 OSE �'��1�-" �� zoning district boundary - V� �� DATE � subj=d properiy n� onh'� NG. DIST�__ MAP ��/ V�� o one tzmily •�^ ccmrr.>.:;�;'. � �=� � n �,.i�„� � hvofamily 1 r., ir,dus!:ia! � �� 1, Q multipW_ (amity V vzczr.; f � e�°�:::.-.. � , � ��2tOSt��O��O�0i0 t3�� a� oto 9 a� , ;o!o�o�o o�o�oio ��fl ��TF � ► : ii ( -- ,P _ 9�� q �E s � � . . , : f�% j d OO�L3:3; � ': : ' '�s_�' � � � . '� i� ° e , ; o�', i, �' > > 1 p �O�;t)dfl'• .L� ;L) � .fil+!1:•i � r�;oio?o o�o o} o o�o�o�o�o�o � " � + ! � z � � i , . . • � � � � � ' ; ' � O JI ; 1 � � i I t � � 1 ' �� PKWY � ♦ ' l'�- � � � [� � � �t- , � .. i'� ' 0 � . � � r7' � �� Q� . 1� , �' •� •� � � ..� �� _ .� F a. �: �lKt � j: . . . . , �!1 �,.� ___�- O � o � « t6 I6O .d� O 2B � � r 2�8 V O16 i4 O � �� _ �- - otas�� _ `---_ o i �_ � � o '' 0 6 - � ��O�O O.O � O O� O'ic , , �) ' � �, .� a � ,oO O�o;o O jO�p'�O ,�� NOTE �� , � I . . o �: � � ,! �.r �� . � P � � • . �� I 4 .` w � r�HILLCREST f � f �w 1 --Ba��.arvD t \ � �� \ � �� 4PPLiCAM � �� '�"•-'�� LEGEND � 'URPOSE �� zoning Bistrict boundary =1LE � �` �� 6 `�g DATE � subjzd property ?LNG. DIS7�� MAP # � � o one family ��,,� � c.vo family "�� G�-"-�: .:.�.� j�, muttipte family � -.. � Q ��_ - '-\ .: . , ,. . -....: r�,orth�• • • ^ comrr.>_cci;! � ,..., indus::ial V vaczr., � v �... . . ... , _ .. !-, `�_ � � � �'. : �.� � i � (;. i ;tr�� ( 7. f-' '•i �l�� w ��_�a Z � �:; �: Y �: : �j, f- ' �.. /: f": ' 'I � di-�S� � i � DISTRICT 9 � °°° . • �� o�- ZO�� F�L� — � t�� y ��ti -- v �-�s�� , ! Z��'��,� �-��.� � ! - /�� o/ . • �� : � HIGHLAN� DIS7RICT 15 O .., _ ,a. �� -a sa �TIZEN PARTICIPATIO DIS RICTS � � . • 1.SUPJRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGH' 2.GREATER EAST SIDE 3.WEST SIDE 4.DAYTON'S BLUFF 5.PAYNE-PNALEN 6.NORTH END 7.THOMAS-DALE SUMMIT-UNIVERSITY ES7 SEVENTH .COMO 11.HAMLINE-MID4IAY 12.ST. ANTHONY 13.htERRIR�M PK.-LEXINGTON HAMLIP�E I�.GROVELA4D-MACALESTER (TS�H I GNLA!(D T.SUt1t1IT HILL 17. DO'rtPlTO'.1�1 y �" �a• t�� -6� � - 50� D� �� Ss� CITIZEP� PARTICIPATION PLAN�YING DIS7RICTS _ _ �_ _ _ _ __ _. Nancy_Anderson-01-180-504mar7-01cchn�wQd _ _ .. . _, _ ._,. . __ __ _ _. Page 1 STPAiII.QTYCOTJNCII, clrroesnu+rewtn, DcpcafPl�agmd Ecwo�cDCVdopmmt Phavr. (fi51J 266di89 Fax: (65t)22&32IA PnbGc aearing xo8ce FII.E # O1d8a504 PURPOSE: Appeal of Planning Commission°s decision to deny buildiug permi7s for t6e repair of seven bil@oard faces da in a storm in 1998. PROPERIY ADDRES5=1184 W. 7 SL,1209 W. 7" St, and 20142015 Ford Pazkway. APPLICnNT: Eller Media Compauy HEARINGDATE: Wednesdav azch7 2U01 at530 .m. All public heazings are held in City Council Chambe�s, 3 f7oor City Hall - Cmvt House, 15 �'. Kellogg Boulevard You may send written comments m the Zoning OfLce at die add*ess listed on iherevene side oftivs cud Please call Latcy Sodefidm , PED, az (651)26b66554, or your District Cwmcil Representative W.7 Fedeation at (651) 298-5599 or Highland Area Community Council at (651) 695-4005 at ( ifyou have auy questions. w:ua:zavao STPAULCITYCOUNCII. CITYOPSAWTPAUL Oepc ofPlamwg md EconomicDCVdopmev[ P6on¢(651)266d569 Paz (651)2283220 Public Hearing Notice FII,E # Ol-1S0.504 PURPOSE: Appeal of Planning Commissian's decisiou to deny buiiding permits For tLe reptir of seven biliboard faces damaged'm•a storm m 1998. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1184 W. 7'" St.,1209 W. 7t St.� and 2014-2018 Ford Parkway. ° APPLICANT: Elfer Media Company , � HEARING DATE: Wednesdav March 7.2001, at 5:30 o.m. - All public heazings aze held in Ciry Council Chambers, 3'� Floor Ciry Hall - Court House, 15 W. Kellogg Boulevazd. You may se¢d wtitten comments to the Zoning Office at ffie address listed on the reverse side of tttis cazd. Please calt Lazry Sodarholm , PED, at (651)266-66554, or your Disaict Comcil Representative W. 7'" Federndon at (651) 298-5599 or Higiiland Area�Communiry Council at (651) 695-4005 at ( ifyou have any ques[ions. Ma1IM :22N00 �a: K.,.,. ear1� ��`��.'-'.if'�, . ... �.. �,G p g��$ � � � i�ci i3`Y �v� � 6.�J f