03-1046Council File # 3" f U
Green Sheet # J06� -r'j`�j g
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
Presented By
Referred To
WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
the appeal on January 16, 2003, after having provided notice to effected property owners and
where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard, and submitted its
recommendation to the full Plamiiug Commission; and
/7
2 WIIEREAS, the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester Groveland Community Council
3 and Scenic Saint Paul, in Zoning File 02-247-939, filed appeals from a decision of the Zoning
4 Administrator to issue building permits for an advertising sign located at 1278 Grand Avenue (at
5 Syndicate Street on the southeast corner) on November 21, 2002; and
6
7
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
WHEREAS, the Commission, by its Resolution No. 03-08 dated January 24, 2003, denied the
appeal based upon the following findings and conclusions:
On October 28, 2002, Clear Channel Outdoor applied for sign permits far
both 1670 White Beaz Avenue (all four sign faces) and 1278 Grand
Avenue (a single sign face) to replace the sign faces, trim, and stringers on
the rooftop billboards.
Committee: Date
2. On November 21, 2002, Jeff Fischbach of the LIEP staff issued a permit
for each of the two applications. The White Bear Avenue permit was
subject to the following conditions, which are written on the permit:
"Height of sign faces must not be increased. The sign structures have
only wooden stringers. All repair materials must be of the same type as
the original materials, no addition or substitution of rrcaterials allowed.
The only structural work authorized is the replacement of the wooden
str�ingers. No other structural work permitted. No electrical work
proposed or authorized Any electrical work would require the billboard
owner to obtain a separate electr�ical permit. "
The Grand Ave. permit was subject to the following conditions, which are
written on the permit "Height of sign face must not be increased. Only
structural work authorized is the replacement of inetal stringers. No other
structural work proposed. "
Clear Channel crews worked at both sites and replaced the sign faces, trim
and stringers.
b3- /o��
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
On December 20, 2002, the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester
Cnoveland Community Council, and Scenic Saint Paul appealed the
issuance of the sign permits by LIEP on the grounds that. (a) The permits
were contrary to provisions of the zoning code, including but not lunited
to section 66302 and the prohibitions against replacement of structural
elements in the Greater East Side Special Sign District [section
66.2169.5(e)(1)(e)] and Macalester Groveland Special Sign District
[section 66.21693(e)(1)(e)]; (b) repairs were made prior to the issuance of
the permits; (c) repairs were made beyond what was authorized by the
perxnits; and (d) the billboazds aze illegal land uses.
The Plamiing Commission's responses to these claims are given in
findings 4 through 8 below.
4. The appellants claim that the permits aze contrary to section 66302 of the
zoning code, which states that advertising signs to be replaced, relocated
or renovated must be on zoning lots where advertising signs are a
pernutted use. City staff have followed a policy that replacement of old,
but undamaged sign faces is a maintenance activity as permitted by state
statute, not a replacement or renovation of the advertising sign.
Section 66.302 of the code refers primarily to the previous "Move to
Conformance" program with sign credits for the relocation of billboards, a
program which was eliminated in 2000 when the most recent billboard
amendments were adopted. Although the "Move to Conformance"
program is dead, there is a plausible argument that the replacement of a
sign face is the same thing as replacement or renovation of an advertising
sign. The city staff argued that sign face replacement is different from
advertising sign replacement because:
(a) billboard companies haue far decades done sign face replacements
every ten years or os as a routine maintenance activity; and (b) the cost of
the sign face panels and the surrounding fiberglass trim kits are cheap
(approximately $800) in compazison with the sign structure (bed pan
secured to building rooftop, angle A-frames with bracing, electrical
service, catwalk, stringers). The city staff do treat sign face replacement as
renovation, which is prohibited under this section, when a sign face has
been damaged beyond fifty percent of its replacement cost. This treatment
is in accordance with the Ramsey County district court decision about
storm-damaged signs on Grand Avenue.
The city staff's position is that sign face replacement is perxnitted as a
routine maintenance activity, but it is not permitted in the case of a badly
damaged sign face. While this may appear inconsistent, it has a logic
based on the agent causing the damage. The state statute on
nonconforming uses refers to destruction "by fire or other peril." In the
Page 2 of 5
03 - /o��
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
case of fire ar wind damage, the nonconforming use cannot be replaced.
But the City does not want itself to be the cause of deterioration through
preventing routine maintenance since the state statute explicitly permits
the maintenance of nonconforming uses.
5. The appellants claun that the billboard repair permits violate the Greater
East Side and Macalester Groveland Special Sign District regulations,
most obviously with regard to the replacement of the old stringers— 2 X 6
wood stringers on White Bear Ave. and angle-iron stringers on Grand Ave.
because stringers are shuctural elements of billboards. In their testimony
Cleaz Channel asserted the rights they hold to repair and maintain their
signs under MN statutes 462357 on nonconformities. In issuing the
permits, LIEP, after due consideration, determined that the work requested
in the company's applications was within the parameters set by state law
and local ordinances.
�
The appellants claun that some repairs were made to the billboards before the
repair pernuts were issued. In the Grand Ave. case, the appellants say that the old
face panel was curled upward from the bottom and was tacked back down to a
wood stringer that was added to the structure last suminer. Although such
temporary repairs were made by Cleaz Channel, the unauthorized repair was
entirely removed as part of the sign face replacement done under the LIEP permit
that is the subject of this appeal.
There is no claim that work was done at the White Bear Ave. signs before the
building permit was issued.
The appellants claim that Clear Channel made repairs that went far beyond
what the permits allowed. For all five sign faces in this case, a new face
panel system was used that is different from the old system in the
following ways:
a.. The interlocking sign face panels are horizontal instead of vertical as they
have been in the past;
b. The new face panels are clipped to each other and are secured by top-to-
bottom vertical sprits made of galvanized steel. Before, there were no
vertical sprits. The previous sign face panels were attached directly to the
horizontal wood or angle iron stringers by metal clips.
c. The vertical metal sprits are secured by bolts to horizontal angle irons that
look like stringers, but that are, according to Cleaz Channel, components
of the new face replacements kits.
d. The new horizontal angle iron elements replaced the old angle iron
stringers on the Grand Ave. billboazd. On the White Beaz Ave. signs the
new horizontal angle irons appear functionally to replace the wood
stringers, although wood replacement stringers were also installed.
Page 3 of 5
03 - /o��
130
131
132
133
134
1�5
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
LIEP stafFtestified that they have not yet deternuned whether the new face panel
system is consistent with the rules for repair and maintenance of nonconfornung
signs.
The appeal claims that the billboards are illegal. The White Bear Ave. billboazds
were erected legally under two building pernuts, the most recent of which was
issued on 2/24/75. City staff presumes that the Grand Ave. billboard is also legal,
although staff have not found a building permit. Clear Channel testified that they
have building permits for the Grand Ave. billboard. The appellants in this case
submitted no evidence that the signs at either location are illegal.
Since the adoption of the new billboard regulations in 2000, all billboards
in the city have become nonconforming uses. But almost all of the
billboards in the city are legal nonconforming uses that were either built
with building permits or were grandfathered by virtue of having been built
before 1956. Old building permits at LIEP are stared in chronological
order, not by address, or by applicant, or by type of construction.
Therefore, the City staff haue difficulty retrieving old building permits.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 64300(k), the Macalester Crroveland
Community Council duly filed an appeal from the determination made by the Planning
Commission regarding the billboard at 1278 Grand Ave. (Zoning File #03-256-242) and
requested a hearing before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by
the Commission; and
WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Leg. Code §§ 64.206-.208, a public hearing was scheduled for
March 5, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the March 5, 2003, public hearing was laid over to March 26, 2003; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2003, the duly scheduled public hearing was again laid over to April
23, 2003; and
WHEREAS, on Apri123, 2003, a public hearing in the above-entitled matter was duly conducted
where a11 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report
of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and of the Planning
Commission, the Coimcil of the City of Saint Paul does hereby
RESOLVE, to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter based upon the
following:
Page 4 of 5
03 - !o`�
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
The Planniug Commission ened in its findings and conclusions which had determined that the
replacement to the entire billboard face was a form of maintenance. Replacement of the entire
billboard face is a renovation of a nonconforming sign. Renovations are prohibited under Leg.
Code § 66.302, and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the appeal of the Macalester Groveland Community Council is
hereby granted; and be it
FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the Macalester
Groveland Community Council, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., the zoning administrator and the
planning commission.
. � .. 03-/0�{;6..
� Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet �
DepartmenUoffice/council: Date Initiated:
PE — Planning&EconomicDevelopment 06-NOV-03 Green Sheet NO: 3007558
Confact Person & Phone• Deoartrnent Sent To Person Initi / /D�
Larty SOderholm � 0 �laon"ne & Economic Develoo L Soderholm L V te /
266-6575 puj9n 1 lannin &Eco omicDevelo De artmentDirector
Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number 2 i Attome Warner
ASAP (Council voted 4/23/03) For
Ra ��� 9 3 a or's Office Ma odAssistant
Ordef 4 ouncil D.Bostrom
5 i Clerk Ci Clerk
Total # of Signature Pages 1 (Clip Alt Locations for Signature)
Action Requested:
Adoprion of iesolution memorializing the Council's decision on a billboazd appeal at 1278 Grand Ave. (SE corner at Syndicate). After
two or three layovers at Council due to a procedural lawsuit by Cleaz Channel Outdoor, the Council concluded its public hearing on
4/23/03 and voted to gant the appeal of the Macalester-Groveland Community Counqil, thus reversing the Planning Commission's
deCiSionthat approved Clear Channel's repair permit application to replace the sign face and stringers.
Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contracts Must Answer the Following Questions:
R Planning Commission
1. Has this person/firm ever worked under a contract for this department?
q6 Committee ' Yes No
Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee?
Yes No
3. Does this person�rm possess a skill not normally possessed by any
cur2nt city employee?
Yes No
� Explain all yes answers on separete sheet and attach to green sheet �
Initiating Problem, Issues, Opportunity (Who, What, When, Where, Why):
Cleaz Channel applied to replace the sign face and stringers on the single-faced, roo8op billboard at 1278 Crrand Ave. LIEP,staffissued
the repair pernut, consistent with their understanding of state law. The Mao-Groveland Community Council and other appealed. The
Planning Commission upheld LIEP's issuance of ffie pernut. Mac-Crroveland then appealed to the Council. The Council voted 5-2
(Reiter, Blakey) to grant the neighborhood's appeal and rescind ffie billboard repair permit. Now the resolution is reaay for tne
Council to memorialize its decision.
Advanta5�es IfApproved: �
The decision the Council made is reduced to writing.
�
Disadvantat�es If Approved: � Q � j O Zu�3
N.A. (� pt
V'�� ���1����d��
Disativantapes If Not Approved:
N.A.
Total Amou�t of CasURevenue Butlgeted: ��J� ��$8u�,fy^}� �Q��{Y�
Transaction:
Fundinq Source: ActiviN Number: ��� � �
Financial Information: ��U�
(Ezplain�
� • DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING D ! _ /� / �
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Martha G. Fuller, Direc[or
CITY OF SAIl�iT PAUL
P.axdy C. Kel1y, Mayor
February 19, 2003
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Citv Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
2� Nest Fourth Street
SmntP¢ul, MN 55102
7eZephane 612-266656.i
Factrmde: 612-228-3314
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday,
March 5, 2003, for an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to uphold a billboard repair
permit at 1278 Grand Avenue
Apphcant:
Ftle Number:
Puroose:
Macalester-Groveland Community Council
# 03-256-242
Appeal of Planning Commission decision to uphold a billboard repair permit
issued by LIEP and deny the request of two district councils to revoke the
repair permit for replacement of sign face panels and stringers on a rooftop
billboard.
Address: 1278 Grand Avenue (SE comer of Syndicate)
Leeal Descript�on of Pro_pertv. Stinson's Blvd, Block 4, Lot 12 (LIEP billboard ref. # 343, PIN - 03-
28-23-42-0048)
Previous Action:
Zonine Committee Recommendation: Deny appeal by the Macalester-Groveland Community
Council and the District 2 Community Council (co-appellants) and uphold billboard repair
permit that LIEP had issued; vote: 3-2; January 16, 2003 (As part of the same zoning case,
the committee also recommended denying the co-appellants' appeal regarding repair of
another billboard, located at 1670 White Bear Ave. on the East Side.)
Plannine Commission Decision. Deny appeal by the Macalester-Groveland Community
Council and the District 2 Community Council (co-appellants) and uphold billboard repair
permit that LIEP had issued; vote: 7-5; January 24, 2003 (The commission also, as part of the
same zoning case, denied the co-appellants' appeal regarding repair of four more billboards,
located at Hillcrest Shopping Center on the East Side. The commission's Hillcrest Shopping
Center decision is being appealed separately to the City Council.)
�
D3 - �o y�
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Zoning File: # 03-256-242
Page 2
My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda for the
March 5, 2003 City Council meeting. Please call me at 266-6575 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Larry o rholm
Planning Administrator
cc File # 03-256-242
Carol Martineau
Paul Dubruiel
Wendy Lane
Jeff Fischbach
Allan Torstenson
Peter Warner
NOTIC& OF PUBIdC ffi;9RiNG �
The Saint Paul City �otiaal w�71 con-
-duct a pnblic hearing on Wedngsdag,
Mareh 5� 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in the City
Eouncil" Cfiambers, Third Elqor, City
�Hall-Courthouee, 15 West Kelingg
Bouievaxd, Saint Paul, MN, to consiiler
the a¢peal of Macalester-Groveland
Commnnity Gouncil to a decision of the
Saint Paul Planning Commissibn up-
holding a billboard repair permit issued
by tkie Of&ce of Licenae, Inspections and
Environmentai Protection and denying
the request �of two diatrict councils to xe-
voire the repair permit fOr x2placement
df sign.face panels and�stringers on a
rooftop billboazd at 1278 Grand Avenue
- (SE Corner of Syndicate Street). �
Dated: February 21, 2003
NAN�CYANDERSON, �
Assistant City Council Secretary.
� � (Februnry24) . �
—_ — S7: PAUL LEGAT. "r:m��a c _�
22060782 .
I. �Amanda�Zomng\CCdocs\03-256-242 anderson memo confimung p ployer
03 -�oy�
DEPARTMENT OF PLAt�`NING
& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MaRha Fuller, Dvector
CTTY OF SA1NT PAUL
RandyC Ke11y,Mayor
•
February 26, 2003
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
RE: Zoning File # 03-256-242.
City Council Hearing:
25WestFourthStreef TeZephone:651-2666655
Sa�ntPaul,lvlN55102 Facsnm1e:651-228-3314
MACALESTER-GROVELAND COMNIiJNITY
COUNCIL
March 5, 2003 at 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to let stand a billboard repair pernut
issued by LIEP for replacement of the sign face panel and stringers on the billboard
at 1278 Grand Avenue. The Macalester-Groveland Community Council claims
that the Planning Commission erred in deciding that the replacement of the entire
billboard face is a form of maintenance, which is protected by state law, whereas
the commission should have found that sign face replacement is a renovation of a
nonconfornung sign, which is prohibited under Section 66.302.
LOCATION 1278 Grand Avenue. Rooftop billboard on a one-story commercial building at the
southeast corner of Grand and Syndicate.
LIEP'S ACTION: Issued billboard repair permit for replacement of the sign face and the
angle iron stringers behind them on 11/21/02.
PLANNING COMMTSSION ACTION: On 1/24/03, denied appeal filed jointly by the
Macalester-Groveland Community Council, the District 2 Community Council,
(which objected to similar billboard repairs at Hillcrest Shopping Center), and
Scenic Saint Paul. Vote: 7-5.
•
ZONING COMNIITTEE RECOD�IIVIENDATION: On 1/16/03, recommended denial of the
appeal by the community organizations on a 3-2 vote.
PED STAFF RECOMIvIENDATION: Deny appeal and uphold LIEP on issuance of sign face
replacement permit; ra�nt appeal and reverse LTEP on repiacement of stringers;
grant aQpeal regarding stnxctural upgrades to sign faces and require sign face
replacements to be done without upgrades to design or materials.
U3 - /o�f�
. Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
February 26, 2003
Page 2
SUPPORT FOR APPEAL BY TIIE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Four persons
spoke representing the appellants.
OPPOSITION TO APPEAL BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Two persons
spoke representing of Clear Channel Outdoor.
Dear Ms. Anderson:
The Macalester-Groveland Community Council has appealed a decision by the Planning
Commission to uphold a billboard repair pernut issued by LIEP for the replacement the sign face
and the stringers behind them at 1278 Grand Avenue, which is across from Kowalski's
Supermarket at the corner of Grand and Syndicate. LIEP's pernut was appealed to the Planning
Commission by Macalester-Groveland, District 2, and Scenic Saint Paul. Among billboard cases
you have heard, this one is most similaz to the Merriam Pazk Community CounciPs appeal of a
• permit for sign face replacement and stringers at 1926 University Avenue. In that case the
Council invalidated the repair permit and decided that sign face replacement constituted a
renovation of a nonconforming advertising sign, which is prohibited by citywide zoning
regulations.
The District 2 Community Council was involved because the appeal to the Planning Commission
also covered a permit issued on the same day for sign face replacements on four billboards at
Hillcrest Shopping Center. At the Zoning Committee, Clear Channel objected to having two
separate permits at two different locations as the subject for one appeal, although the basis for the
appeal and the code language in dispute were identical. Therefore, Macalester-Groveland and
District 2 have this time submitted separate companion appeals to the City Council, which will
both be heard on March 5, 2003.
After consultation with the City Attorney's Office, LIEP issued the repair pemut on 11/21/03,
which was before the City Council decided in the Raymond Avenue billboard repair case that the
prohibition in special sign districts against replacement of structural elements should be
interpreted strictly, a decision that would relate to the replacement of stringers Both LIEP's
permit and the Planning Commission's decision also preceded the CounciPs University Avenue
decision mentioned above, a decision relating to the replacement of sign faces.
The Zoning Committee held a public hearing on ll16/03 and received testimony from four
representatives of the three co-appellant organizations and from two representatives of Clear
r �
�J
03-�0�
�
�
�
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
February 26, 2003
Page 3
Channel. The committee voted 3-2 to uphold LTEP's issuance the pernut. They did not reach a
conclusion about whether the new construcrion system for sign faces was a violation; instead they
simply advised LIEP to make that detemunation and, if there was a violation, to enforce the
conditions listed on the pernut strictly. The Planning Commission's resolution ratified the
committee recommendation on a vote of 7-5.
The Macalester-Crroveland Community Council claims in its appeal that the Planning Commission
erred by deciding that the replacement of the entire sign face is routine maintenance and is
therefore pernutted by the state law's protection for legal nonconfornung uses despite whatever
Saint Paul sign ordinances say They list four rules of statutory interpretation and argue that the
City staff and Planning Commission have improperly supposed that state law conflicts with and
trumps local ordinances. Criven their understanding of statutory interpretation, the citywide
prohibition against renovation of a billboard and the Macalester-Groveland Sign District's
prohibition against replacement of structural elements, clearly including stringers, are fully
enforceable.
Clear Channel Outdoor contends that, under state law for nonconforming uses, the City must
permit any repairs that cost less than fifty percent of the value of the signs. They submitted
evidence that sign face panels are inexpensive in relation to the replacement costs of the signs
The Macalester-Groveland Community Council appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City
Council on Mazch 5, 2003. The companion appeal by District 2 is scheduled on the same agenda.
Please call me (266-6575) if you have questions
Sincerely,
Larry erholm
Planning Administrator
Attachments
cc City Council members
Dennis Flaherty, Deputy Mayor
Chris McCarver, Cleaz Channel Outdoor, Inc.
Marvin Liszt, Atty. for Clear Channel
(continued on p 4)
03- /a�f�
�
•
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
February 26, 2003
Page 4
Martha Fuller, PED
Al Torstenson, PED
Peter Wamer, Asst. City Attorney
Wendy Lane, LIEP
JeffFischbach, LIEP
Chuck Repke, District 2 Community Council
Laura Gutmann, Macalester-Groveland Community Council
Jeannie Weigum, Scenic Saint Paul
Brian Bates, Scenic Saint Paul and Scenic NIlV
Attachments
Appeal by Macalester-Groveland Community Council
All of the following attachments are the same for this Macalester-Groveland appeal at 12'IS
Grand Avenue and for the District 2 Community Council appeal at 1670 White Bear
Avenue (Zoning File # 03-255-970). The Planning Commission dealt with the two locations
in a joint appeal. The following documents are incorporated by reference into the
Macalester-Groveland appeal file. Piease find them by referring to the packet for the
District 2, which is also on the City Council agenda for 3/5/03.
II
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
•
Planning Commission resolution # 03-08
Planning Commission minutes for 1/24/03
Minutes of Zoning Committee public hearing on 1/16/03
Written testimony submitted at Zoning Cte. public hearing
PED staff report written 1/9/03 for Zoning Cte. with photos and maps
{ °��
f ���
��
L\Amanda�Zoning\CCdocs\03-256-242reb2G-CC Nancy Mderson mQeholGJ�1tIEE0 Employer
03 - �o�
SAINj
�AL'L
�
ARAA
APPLICAT(ON FOR APPEAL
Department of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
II00 City Hall Anner
25 Wesi Fourth Street
Saint Faul, MN SSIO2
166-6589
APPELLANT
Gity ��.PCtul vv St. MtJZip 5516 Daytime
PROPERTY Zoning File
LOCATION
�—
�
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the:
❑ Board of Zoning Appeals �I City Council
under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section , Paragraph
�appeal a decision made by {he SaFn�- Pdui p�Q�,ni Gon
on Jqhuctr.�Z4 �03 ,�-g-__. File numbec: O
(date of dec�sion) —�
'
of the Zoning Code, to
3 �7—
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission.
��. ���J
sheet
signatu
City a
0 �-� �� -�`�
,� _.. ._ . rra Di
I. RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
a) Every law shaIl be cot�strued, ifpossble, to give effect to all its provisions. Mmu.Stat.
645.16.
b) Whenever it is possble, no word, phrase, ar sentence should be deemed superIluous,
void, or insignificant.
c) We mtended the Legis}ature mtended to favor the pubiic interest over the private
interest. bimn.Stat. 645.17(5)_
flmaraE v Saint Cloud Hosp., 598 N..2d 379, 3&4 (Minn. 1999).
d) Specific provisions os an act prevail over prior, generat provisions, Minn S�
645.26(1).
State x Corbin, 343 N.W2d 874, 875 (Minn.App. 1984).
EhPert x Graue,195 N.W.2d 823, 826 (Minn. 1972).
II PLANNIN� COMIyIISSION FINDIN�S.
FINDING #4 "City staffl�ave followed a policp that replacement of old, but uudat:iaged
sign faces is a maintenance activity as pernutted by state statute, not a replacement or renovafion
of the advertising sign. Section 66.302 of the code refers grimart`Iy to the previous `Snove to
conformance" pragram with sigII face credits for the Iocation of biIlboazds, a pmgram which was
eliminated 'm 2000 when the most recent billboazd amendments were adopted. Although the
"move to confomiance" program is dead, there is a plausible azgument that the replacement of a
sign face os tfie same as repjacement or renovation of an advertising sign. T'he city staff argned
tbat sign face replacement is different from advertising sign replacement because: a} bffiboard
companies have for some decades done sign face replacement every ten yeazs or so as a routine
maintenance activiry; and b) the cost of sign faee panels and the surro"ndina fiberglass trim kits
are cheap ... The cily staff do tceai siga face r�p��nt as renovation, which is grohibited uuder
this section, wfien a sign face has been damaged [�yo �, �e� of its replacement cost."
ResQoase: By this interpretation the Planning Comn�sion makes several 'urterpretation
errars. First, the plaiuung commission strauis to distinguish between advertising sign face
rePlacemeIIt and actvertising sign replacement, There is n� d���o� Sectioa 66301 speaks of a
sign or sign structure. Section 66302 then speaks of an advertising sign. It must foIlow that an
advertising sign can also be diS�tingulshed from an advert:sin si
to the advertis' s g 8� S��n'e• The �ndus�try refers
mg ign as an advertising sign face. Equating advertising sign and advertising sign
face is a natEUat reading of the zoning code sections. If the advertising sign face is IIot the
advertismg sign then it is incumbent of tfie P
lannino �mmission to say wbat is the advertising
sign. (It cannot be the pIastic or paper message or 66.302 would disallow the replacemern of the
messages - an absurd result.) Here the Planning Co��ssion draws an u�atural and twnecessary
•
•
•
�
03 - /a��
• distinction between advertising sign face and advertising sign to allow what the zonino code does
not allow - the replacement of advertising sibns in disizlcts which prolubit advertising signs.
Second, it must be recognized that 66.30I refers to non-conformiug signs. Section 66_302
refers to nonconforming advertising signs. The Planning Commission's inierpretation reads
section 66.302 out of tfie zoning code entaely. The Planning Coanwission's interpretation meanc
that if the advertising sign face is damaged greater than 50% it cannot be replaced, otherwise it
can- This interpretation gives effect to section 66301 exclusively. Stated differently, the zoning
code has created hurdles wIuch must be cleared 'm order to repair nonconfonnmg signs. The
section 66.301 hurdle is the lower and applies to all nonconforrr�ino signs including advertismg
signs. The section 66302 hurdle applies only to advertising signs and is higher because
advertising signs, iwl�lce other signs, are prohibited. Tfie Planning Commission's interpretation
reduces the 66302 hurdle to the height ofthe fi6.301 hurdle. Ifthe 66301 hurdte is cleared ttie
advertising sign may be repaired. This interpretation reads 66.302 out of the zoniug code, giving it
no affect whatever_
Thirci, had the City Cauncit meant to reject sectioa 66302 in its entirety, it woutd have.
Rather tIie City Council specifically elin�inated the entire "move to confonvance" progtam. Since
billboards were made a prohibited ]and use they cannot be made conformumg. But the City
Council specifically kept what remains of section 66302.
• FourtB, �he onfy way that state statute can controI is if the state statute directiy conflicts
with a provision of locat law. There is no findiag that the state statute directty conIIicts with any
particular section of the zoning code.
Fif�h, the district court has stated that sigu face replaeement is renovation_ The district
court was deating with a circumstance where the sign face was entirely destroyed. However, the
district court did not qualify its interpretation of the ardivance. It stated simply that sign face
replacement was renovation. This rulivg should be given a broad-interpretation giving effect to the
underlying pnblic policy that bilIboards are an urban blight adversely affecting the public heatth,
safety and welfare. The Plaun�g Commission's interpretation undeFmiues the pubtic policy
established by the City Coizne� in 2000.
Sixth, as a practical matter, the Ftarnvug Conunission's interpretations have }argeIy
fa�ored the billboazd eampanies' �terests over the interests of neighborhood residents. It is not
di�cult to discern a"lean" towazd private interests and away from publie interests; toward the
billboazd companies interests and away from neighborhood interests; towazd multi-national,
Te�s-based, corporate profits and away from neiglibarhood property values. If it is true that sign
faces need to be replaced every 10 years, we would Iogically see atI boards m the City slowly
removed over the nest decade. That would be in keeping with the City's policy of disallowing
any new buildings and removal of e�sring billboazds by attrition.
Conclusion: The Plannuig Comnvssion's interpretation violates the above cited rutes of
• 2
�
statutory construcrion a, b, c, and d. This interpretation reads 66302 out of the zoning code .
entirely, fauors the private interest over the public interest, and allows general provisions, those
which pertam to aIt signs, to prevail over a more specific provision pertaining to adverfising signs.
Further, the Planning Commission's iFrterpretalion does not
s aQns wluch may be made confo �t�g�itsh between non conforming
rming and non-conforming advertising signs which aze a
prolnbited use in this city. These signs cannot be made conformuig.
h7NDING #5: "In issuing the permits, LIEP, after due consideration, deteruuned that the
work requested in the company's applications was within tiie paz.a�e�� �� by sta#e Iaw and local
ordinance."
Response: In 8nding #2 the Planning Commission states: "The Grand Avenue pern�it was
subject tot he following conditians ... OnZy structural work crzrthorized is the replacerreent of inetal
stringers." The permit specifically allows structural work. The Macalester Groveland snecial
district sign plan does not allow auy structural work. The Planning Commission and staff again
give no effect to controiling provisious ofthe zoning code. Again, state stahrte does not control
unless there is a direct and unavoidable co�tlicY between the statufe and locat ]aw. Here, the
repairs allowed by state statute can be easily distinguished irom the replacement of structuxal
eTemenfs disallowed by local law.
ConclusioII: The Plannmg Comwission faited to uphofd zoning code provisions �
disaltowing the reptacement of structurat elemea�s.
•
�
---- - - 03 -�oy�
--- - -
- � -
�
�
�
��
V!
�
Z
�
D
�
TT7
'7 �
�o n� ���oo
�
�-�� [ �
�
- --
S
>�
i
�'�
\ :
z
�
0
�
r_
z
�
Address: 1276 GR.4ND AVE ST PAUL
IRIS Picture Printout
OPropertyKey.com, 2000
Printed on 02/18/03 at 02:5�
.
r �,
u
�
lnformation deemed reliable but nof g�aranfeed.
D1/96 STREET VIEW -- REMAP