The URL can be used to link to this page

03-1047Council File # O� �/� Resolution # Green Sheet # �-/�� Presented By Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA i Committee: Date WHEREAS, the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester Groveland Community Council and Scenic Saint Paul, in Zoning File 02-247-939, appealed the decision of the zoning administrator to issue billboazd permits for advertising signs located at 1670-1680 White Bear Avenue, (on the southeast corner at Larpenteur Avenue) and legally described as set forth in the said zoning file; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee conducted a public hearing on the appeal after having provided notice to effected properiy owners and where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard and submitted its recommendation to the Planning Commission, and 10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. 03-08, dated January 24, 2003, decided to deny 11 the appeal based upon the following findings and conclusions: 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 On October 28, 2002, Clear Channel Outdoor applied for sign permits for both 1670- 1680 White Bear 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. 2. On November 21, 2002, Jeff Fischbach of the LIEP staff issued a permit for each of the two applications. The White Beaz Avenue permit was subject to the following conditions, which are written on the permit: "Height ofsign 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 materials allowed. The only structural work authorized is the replacement of the wooden stringers. No other structural work permitted. No electrical work proposed or authorized. Any electrical work would require the billboard owner to obtain a separate electrical 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. On December 20, 2002, the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester Groveland 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 limited to section 66302 and the prohibitions against replacement of structural elements in the Crreater East Side Special Sign District [section Page 1 of 4 D 3 -l0'-17 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 84 85 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 pernuts; c) repairs were made beyond what was authorized by the permits; and (d) the billboards are illegal land uses. The Planuiug Commission's responses to these claims aze given in findings 4 through 8 below. 4. The appellants claim that the pemuts are 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 permitted 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 66302 of the code refers primarily to the previous "Move to Conforxnance" program with sign credits for the relocation of billboards, a program which was eliminated in 2000 when the most recent billboud 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 renovarion of an advertising sign. The city staff argued that sign face replacement is different from advertising sign replacement because: (a) billboard companies haue for decades done sign face replacements every ten years or so as a routine maintenance activity; and (b) the cost of the sign face panels and the surrounding fiberglass trim kits are cheap (approxunately $800) in comparison 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 secfion, 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 stafP s position is that sign face replacement is permitted as a routine maintenance activity, but it is not permitted in the case of a badly damaged sign face. While this may appeaz 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 case of fire or 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 claim that the billboard repair permits violate the Crreater 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 structural elements of billboards. In their testimony Clear Channel asserted the rights they hold to repair and maintain their signs under MN statutes 462.357 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. Page 2 of 4 63- �o�f� 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 6. The appellants claim that some repairs were made to the billboards before the repair permits were issued. In the Crrand Ave. case, the appellants say that the old face panel was curled upwazd from the bottom and was tacked back down to a wood siringer that was added to the structure last sui7uner. Although such temporary repairs were made by Clear Channel, the unauthorized repair was entirely removed as part of the sign face replacement done under the LIEP pernut that is the subject of this appeal. There is no claun that work was done at the White Bear Ave. signs before the building pernut was issued. The appellants claim that Clear Channel made repairs tUat went faz beyond what the pernvts allowed. Far 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 aze 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 ar 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 Clear 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. billboard. On the White Bear Ave. signs the new horizontal angle irons appear functionally to replace the wood stringers, although wood replacement stringers were also installed. LIEP staff testified that they have not yet determined whether the new face panel system is consistent with the nxles for repair and maintenance of nonconforming 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 haue not found a building permit. Clear Channel testified that they have building permits far 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, a11 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 hauing been built before 1956. Old building permits at LIEP are stored in chronological order, not by address, or by applicant, or by type of construction. Therefore, the City staff have difficulty retrieving old building permits. 132 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 64.300(k), the District 2 Community Council duly 133 filed an appeal from the determination made by the Planning Commission regarding the billboard at 1670- Page 3 of 4 03 - 1�f� 134 1680 White Bear Ave. (Zoning File #03-255-970) and requested a hearing before the City Council for the 135 purpose of considering the actions taken by the Commission; and 136 137 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Leg. Code §§ 64.206-.208, a public hearing was scheduled for March 5, 2003; 138 and 139 140 WIIEREAS, the Mazch 5, 2003, public hearing was laid over to March 26, 2003; and 141 142 WHEREAS, on March 26, 2003, the duly scheduled public hearing was again laid over to Apri123, 2003; and 143 144 WHEREAS, on Apri123, 2003, a public hearing in the above-entitled matter was duly conducted where all 145 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and 146 147 148 149 150 151 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 Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby RESOLVE, to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter based upon the following: 152 153 The Planning Commission misinterpreted the restrictions in the District 2 sign plan regazding repairs to 154 advertising signs and the extent of the repairs were not permitted under the District 2 sign plan; and be it 155 156 FURTHER RESOLVED that the appeal of the District 2 Community Council be and is hereby granted; and 157 be it 158 159 FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the District 2 Community Council, Clear Channel Outdoor Inc., the zoning administrator and the Planning Commission. Adoption Certified By: Approved by May BY: Council Secretary Requested by Department of: Plannin & Economic D e m� t By: Approved by Financial Services By: Form Approved by City Attorney By: � � .,�!.: '�f• . Adopted by Council: Date /V/Jv ,� �1d//-3 , p�- eaf� - � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � �:,,._ Departme�/office/councii: Date Initiated: pE — P 1 ��g��aomicDeveiopment 06NOV-03 Green Sheet NO: 3007557 CoMact Person 8 Phone• Deoartrnerrt Sent To Person Initia D te Larry Sodefholm � 0 Iannio & Economic Develo L. Soderholm (�,, ,,/ 266$575 p�j 1 lannin & Economic Develo De artmeutDirector F L�' Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z ttorne Warner ASAP (Council voted 4/23/03 For Routing 3 a or's �ce Ma or/ASSistaut Order i 4 ouncil D. Bostrom 5 C7erk Ci Clerk Total # of Signature Pages 1 (Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Adoption of resolution memorializing the CouncIl's decision on a billboazd appeal at 1670-1680 White Beaz Ave. (SE comer at Lazpenter). 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 grant the appeal of the Dishict 2 Community Council, thus reversing the Planning CoCnmission'S deCision that approved Clear Channel's repair permit application to replace the sign fac�and stringers Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: �_ Planning Commission �� 1. Has this personlfirm ever worked under a contrect for this department? CIB Committee � Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current 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): Cieaz Channel applied to replace the sign faces and stringers on four rooftop billboards at 1670-1680 White Beaz Ave. LIEP issued the repair permit, consistent with their understanding of state law. The District 2 Community Council and other appealed. The Planning Commission upheld LIEP's issuance ofthe permit. District 2 then appealed to the City Council. The Council voted 5-2 (Blakey, Reiter) to c-- n t the neighborhood's appeal and rescind the billboazd repair permit. Now the resoluUon'-is reaay for tne Council to memorialize.its decision. Advanta9eslfApproved: The decision the Council made is reduced to writing. �� DisadvantapeslfApproved: rr.a. NOV 10 2003 ��! ��`�� Disadvantailes If Not Approved: N.A. Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: G°�� Transaction: ��t�Lf Funding Source: ActiviW Number: Financial Information: �y�� (Explain) DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEI��T' Martha G. Fuller, Director CTTY OF SAIN'T PAUL RandyC.iCelZy, Mayor 25 Wesl Fourth Street Sa(ni Pau1, MU 55102 D3 - laf�7 Te[ep'none. Facs�mde: 6/ 2-228-33/9 February 19 2003 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Samt Paul, Mmnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Ande*son: 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 the Hillcrest Shopping Center at 1680 White Bear Avenue Applacant District 2 Communiry Council File Number. #t 03-255-970 Pumose. 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 four rooftop billboards. Address: 1680 Wlute Bear Avenue (SE comer of Larpenteur) LeQal Descrintion of Propert� Hillcrest Center sub� to Ave; W'/z of Vac Gary Place accruing & N 85 ft of lot 1 block 4(LIEP billboard ief # 267; PIN - 23-29-22-22-0121) Previous Action: Zonin� Committee Recommendation: Deny appeal by the District 2 Community Council and the 1Vlacalester-Groveland Community Council (co-appellants) and uphold billboard repair permit that LIEP had issued; vote: 3-2; January 16, 2003. (As part ofthe same zoning case, the committee also recommended denying the co-appellants' appeal regarding repair of another billboard, located at 1278 Grand Ave. in the Macalester-Groveland neighborhood ) PlanninQ Commission Decision: Deny appeal by the District 2 Community Council and the Macalester-Groveland Community Council (co-appellants) and uphold billboar.d 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 another billboard, located at 1278 Grand Ave. in the Macalester-Crroveland neighborhood. The commission's Grand Avenue decision is being appealed separately to the City Council ) �3�/b�f7 Ms Nancy Anderson Zoning File: #03 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, Lazry S rholm Planning Administrator cc: File #03-255-970 Carol Martineau Paul Dubruiel Wendy Lane JeffFischbach Allan Torstenson Peter Warner , NO'F'ICE OF PUSLIC HEARINC� . The Saint Paut City Council will con- --duct a public hearing on Wedneaday, March 5, 2003, 5:30 �p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-Courthouse, P5 "West Kellogg Boulevazd, Saint Paul, MN, to consider � the appeal of District 2 Community Council to a decision of the Saint Paul Planning�Qommission upholding a biA- board repair pesmit issued by the Office of License, �Inspections and Environmen- tal Protection and denying the request of �two district councils to revoke Ehe repa'tr " permit for replacement of sign -face � panels and stringers on four rooftop bill- boards at 1650 White Bear Avenue (SE corner oP Larpenteur Avenue). Dated: February 21, 2003 � NANCY ANDERSOl�, _ - Assistant City Council Secretary - - .. (Febnrary 241 . _--__= S7: PAUL LEGAL LEDGER —___ 22060789 � - _ - L\Amanda�Zon�ng\CCdocs\03-255-9'70 anderson memo confurtung p�ployer 03-/a�7 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNI�IG & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Maz[ha Fuller, Dfrector CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Ke1[y, Mayor February 26, 2003 Ms Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE. Zoning File # 03-255-970: 25 WesiFour[h Sbeet Samt Pass1, MN 55102 DISTRICT 2 CONLNiLJNITY COLJNCIL TeZephone: 6� I -2666655 Facsrmile 651-228-33/4 City Council Hearing. � . March 5, 2003 at 530 p.m., City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to let stand a billboard repair permit issued by LIEP for replacement of the sign face panels and stringers on four billboards at 1670 White Bear'Avenue. The District 2 Community Council claims that the Planning Commission erred in deciding that replacement of entire billboard faces is a form of maintenance that is protected by state law even though it is contrary to the Greater East Side sign regulations. LOCATION: 1670 White Bear Avenue. Rooftop billboards on Hillcrest Shopping Center. Southeast corner of White Bear and Larpenteur. LIEP' S ACTION: Issued billboard repair pernut for replacement of four sign faces and the wood stringers behind them on 11/21/02. PLANNING CONIMISSION ACTION: On 1/24/03, denied appeal filed jointly by the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester-Groveland Community Council (which objected to a similar billboard repair at 1278 Grand Ave ), and Scenic Saint Paul. Vote 7-5. ZONING COMNIITTEE RECOMIVIENDATION: On 1/16/03, recommended denial ofthe appeal by the community organizations on a 3-2 vote. PED STAFF RECOMIvIENDATION Denv appeal and uphold LIEP on issuance of sign face replacement pernut; grant appeal and reverse LIEP on replacement of stringers; r�ant appeal regarding structural upgrades to sign faces and require sign face replacements to be done without upgrades in design or materials. SUPPORT FOR APPEAL BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS. Four persons spoke representing the appellants. 03 - �o�� • Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Secretary February 26, 2003 Page 2 OPPOSTTION TO APPEAL BY TI� NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Two persons spoke representing of Clear Channel Outdoor. Dear Ms_ Anderson: The District 2 Community Council has appealed a decision by the Planning Commission to uphold a billboard repair pernut issued by LIEP for the replacement of four sign faces and the stringers behind them at the Hillcrest Shopping Center LIEP's permit was appealed to the Planning Commission by District 2, Macalester-Crroveland, and Scenic Saint Paul. Among billboard cases you have heazd, this one is most similaz to the Merriam Park 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. • Macalester-Groveland was involved because the appeal to the Planning Commission also covered a sign face replacement pezmit issued on the same day for 1278 Grand Avenue. At the Zoning Committee, Cleaz 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 at issue were identical. Therefore, District 2 and Macalester-Groveland 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 permit 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 Council's University Avenue decision mentioned above, a decision that would relate to the replacement of sign faces. The Zoning Committee held a public hearing on 1/16/03 and received testimony from four representatives of the three co-appellant organizations and from two representatives of Clear Channel. The committee voted 3-Z in favor ofupholding LIEP's issuance the permit. They did not reach a conclusion about whether the new construction system for sign faces was a violation; instead they simply advised LIEP to make that deternunation and, if there was a violation, to enforce conditions listed on the pernut strictly. The Planning Commission's resolution ratified the committee recommendation on a vote of 7-5. • Ms. Nancy Anderson 03 �oy7 • City Council Secretary February 26, 2003 Page 3 The District 2 Community Council claims in its appeal that the Planning Commission ened by deciding that the replacement of entire sign faces is routine maintenance that is pemutted by the state law's protection for legal nonconfomung uses. They argue that upgrading nonconfornung signs is inconsistent with the White Beaz Avenue sign district ordinances. Clear Channel Outdoor contends that, under state law for nonconfornung uses, the City must pernut 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 District 2 appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 5, 2003. The companion appeal by the Macalester-Groveland Community Council is scheduled on the same agenda. Please call me (266-6575) ifyou have questions Sincerely, • �`°---� Larry Soderholm Planning Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members Dennis Flaherty, Deputy Mayor Chris McCarver, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Marvin Liszt, Atty.for Clear Channel Chuck Repke, District 2 Community Council Laura Gutmann, Macalester-Groveland Community Council Jeannie Weigum, Scenic Saint Paul Brian Bates, Scenic Saint Paul and Scenic MN Martha Fuller, PED A1 Torstenson, PED Peter Warner, Asst City Attorney Wendy Lane, LIEP JeffFischbach, LIEP • 03-10�7 � Attachments Page L Appeal by District 2 Community Council � II. Planning Commission resolution # 03-08 Z��j III. Pla.suiiiig Commission minutes for 1/24/03 �p� � IV Minutes of Zoning Committee public hearing on 1/16/03 '� ��°� V. Written testimony submitted at Zoning Cte. public hearing '� �� VI. PED stafFreport written 1/9/03 for Zoning Cte. with photos and mapsyg.i �� • • L��Amanda�Zoning\CCdocs\03-255-970Feb26-CC Nancy Mderson rtiRehG�9adEE0 Employer 7 APPLICATION FOR QPPEAL '�j� Depanment of P[anning and Ecenomic Development `��f Zoning Seciion II00 Ciry Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN SSIO2 166-6589 APPELLANF City Zip �� Daytime phone ZzLC� PROPERTY Zoning File Name/��1t/kaf �ao`fa��cCC(d�e�g LOCATION Address/Lccation ��07� (,J� �"� Q�A� TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeai to the: u Board of Zoning Appeals 1�City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Secfion c�, Paragraph e of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the i'��"^f°^�� w�,ess�a�v on .T/�N � `- f , 19 File number. �d 2 -Z�f �- ° l3� (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zonina Apoeals or the Planning Gemmissior.. �� {�l�N,�� ,��55,�,� �r� �ti ��-S 1��, cr� fz�p��t�� '��e� �1�.� F�s �s'�o� ��ti� ,ec�,�'� �R-StS.r�n t c✓ef.� �d fa2.we� aES. U� � (� ��"9 G,c, � Sr Fi4�6S l� Rb �' �,�s c S t �t�- 7`G-E 4' U 5 E GJ�� c �ELI/1 A�� :� ti, C9,� �J � n. �l-��.5�`H'L� � 3"ffT � !G'fw �A� �'�wd �2��f�1QS �'�jo �5 /tio7rc;C,�c.�"c..�5�-e,� ��'-E G�� v �/ ��s � �o.v@�,u,F��v+�-� U3�, l E�CEIVED Attach addifiortal sheef if necessary) AppficartYs a'1�� c-��339 �so°= A�Ti�M� � 03 /oy�7 city of saint paul • planning commission resolution file number o3 - 0 8 date .7anuarv z4. Zoo WHEREAS, three co-appellants--fhe District 2 Community Councii, the Macalester-Groveland Community Council, and Scenic Saint Paul--under File #02-247-939 have appealed two sign permifs issued by the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Profection (LIEP) to replace existing biliboard sign faces arid trim with new sign faces and trim and also to replace the horizontaf stringers. that support the sign faces, under the provisions of §66.408(a); 66.101; 66.2169.3(e)(1); 66.2169.5(e)(1); 66.301; and 66.302 of the Sainf Paul Legislative Code, on two differenf properties with the following addresses, legal descriptions, and billboard reference numbers: 1670 Whife Bear Ave, SE corner at Larpenteur Ave. (PIN 23-29-22-22-0121) Hilicrest Center subj. to Ave; W'/z of Vac Gary Place accruing & N 85 ft of lot 1 block 4(LIEP biliboard �ef. # 267) 1278 Grand Ave., SE corner at Syndicate St.(PIN 03-28-23-42-0048) Stinson's Blvd, Block 4, Lot 12 (LIEP biliboard ref. # 343) WHEREAS, the Planning and Economic Development (PED) staff accepted the appeal with two . separate locations because the two permits were issued for the same billboard repair work, the permits were issued the same day, the applicable code requirements were identical in the two neighborhood special sign districts, and the grounds for appeal were the same at both locations; the Planning Commission questioned the propriety of handling two locations as a single case but proceeded with it because the pub(ic hearing had been advertised as a single case and several previous zoning appeals have dealt with billboards at mulfiple locations; WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on January 16, 2Q03, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code; and 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: moved by Field seconded by in favor � ag ains� 5(iohn on ramer ponnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Sordon) � � Zoning File #02-247-939 7anuary 29, 2003 Page 2 On October 28, 2002, Clear Channel Outdoor applied for sign permits for both 1670 White Bear Ave. (all four sign faces) and 1278 Grand Ave. (a singie sign face) to replace the sign faces, trim, and stringers on the rooftop billboards. 2. On November 21, 2002, Jeff Fischbach of the LIEP staff issued a permit for each of the fwo applicaTions. The White Bear Ave. permit was subject fo the following conditions, which are written on the permit: `Height of sign faces must nof be increased. The sign sfrucfures have only wooden stringers. All repair maferials must be of the same type as fhe original materials, no addifion or substitution of maferials allowed. The only sfrucfural work authorized rs the replacement of fhe wooden stringers. No other strucfural work permitted. No elecfrical work proposed or authorized. Any electrical work would require the billboard owner fo obfain a separate electrical permit." The Grand Ave. permit was subject to the following conditions, which are written on the permit: "Height of sign face musf not be increased. Only sfructura! work aufhorized is fhe replacemenf of the meta! stringers. No other structural work proposed." \ J Clear Channel crews worked at both sites and replaced the sign faces, trim, and stringers. . � On December 20, 2002, the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester-Groveland Community Council, and Scenic Saint Paul appealed the issuance oP the sign permits by LIEP on the grounds that: (a) The permits were contrary to provisions of the zoning code, inc�uding but not limited to section 66.302 and fhe 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 SigFl District [section 66.2169.3(e)(1)(e)]; (b) repairs were made prior to the issuance of the permits; (c) repairs were made beyond what was authorized by the permits; and (d) the billboards are illega! land uses. The Planning Commission's responses to these claims are given in findings 4 through 8 below. . 4. The appellants claim that the permits are contrary to section 66.302 of the zoning code, which stafes that aiivertising signs to be replaced, relocated or renovated must be on zoning lots where advertising signs are a permifted use. City staff have foliowed a policy that replacement of old, but undamaged sign faces is a maintenance activify 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 Conformar�ce" program with sign credits for the relocation of billboards, a program which was eliminated in 2000 when the most recenf bifiboard amendments were adopted. Although the "Move to Conformance" program is dead, thera is a plauslble 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 � a3-�o�7 Zoning File #02-247-939 • January 29, 2003 Page 3 advertising sign rep/acement because: (a) billboard companies have for decades done sign face replacements every ten years or so 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 comparison with the sign structure (bed pan secured to building rooftop, angle iron A-frames with bracing, electrical service, catwalk, stringers). The city staff do treat sign face replacement as renovafion, which is prohibited under this section, when a sign face has been damaged beyonii fifty percent of its replacement cost. This treatment is in accordance with the Ramsey County disfrict court decision about storm-damaged signs on Grand Avenue. The city staff's position is that sign face replacement is permitfed 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 destructio� "by fire or other peril". In the case of fire or 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 expiicitly permits the maintenance of nonconforming uses. � 5. The appeilants claim that the bi{lboard repair permits vioiate 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 structural elements of billboards. In their testimony Ciear Channel asserted the rights they hold to repair and maintain their signs under MN statutes 462.357 on nonconformities. In issuing the permits, LIEP, after due consideration, determined that the work requested in the compariy's applications was within the parameters set by state law and local ordinances. The appellants claim that some repairs were made to the billbaards before the repair permits 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 summer. Although such temporary repairs were made by Clear 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. 7. The appellants claim that Clear Channel made repairs that went 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 sysfem in the following ways: a) The interlocking sign face panels are horizontal instead of verticai as they have • been in the past; b) The new face panels are clipped to each other and are. secured by top-to-bottom �� Zoning File #02-247-939 January 29, 2003 Page 4 vertical sprits made of galvanized steel. Before; there were no vertical sprits. The previous sign face panels were attached direct(y to fhe 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, accord'ing to Clear Channel, components of the new face replacement kits. d) The new horizontal angle iron elements replaced the old angie iron stringers on the Grand Ave. billb9ard. On the White Bear Ave. signs the new horizontai angle irons appear functionally to replace the wood sYringers, aithough wocd replacement stringers were also instailed. LIEP staff testified that they have not yet determined whether fhe new face panel system is consistent with the rules for repair and mainfenance of nonconforming signs. 8. The appeal claims that the biilboards are illegal. The White Bear Ave. biliboards were erected tegai(y under two buifding permits, the mosf recent of wfiich was issued on 2/24/75. City staff presumes that the Grand Ave. billboard is also legal, although staff haue not found a building permit. Clear Channel testified that they have buifding permits for the Grand Ave. biilboard. The appellants in this case submitted no evidence that the signs at either location are illegal. Since the adoption of the new biHboard regulations in 2000, ati biflboards 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, Oid buifding permits at LIEP are stored in chronological order, not by address, or by applicant, or by type of construction. Therefore, the City staff have difficufty retrieving old buiiding permits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESO�VED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on findings 1 through 5 and 8, under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, that the appeai by the District 2 Commuhity Councif, the Macalester-Groveland Community Councii, and Scenic Saint Paul of two sign permifs issued by the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) to replace existing billboard sign faces and trim with new sign faces and trim and also to replace horizontal stringers at two properties at 1670 White Bear Ave. and 1278 Grand Ave., which are Iegally described above, is hereby denied because: (a) the biAboards are Cegal nonconforming uses; and (b) routine replacement of sign faces is consistent with state law for nonconforming uses and with LIEP's long-standing policy; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, thaf the Planning Commission, based on finciing 7, takes no position on the question of whether work was done that exeeded what the permits authorized and sees fhaY as an enforcemenf issue rather than a cause for revocation of the permit; fhe Planning Commission, as an advisory body, recommends that LIEP enforce the conditions of billboard repair permits strictly if LIEP finds any work that is nof in compliance. � � • \VJ ` ` '� 11 a3�o5�7 • Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Minutes of January 24, 2003 � • A meeting of the Pl annina Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, January 24, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, and Morton; and Present: Messrs. Alexander, Alton, Anfaug, Dandrea, Field, Fotsch, Gordon, Johnson, and Kramer. Commissioners Absent: Mmes. *Zimmer Lonetti, *McCall, * Shortridge, and *Trevino; and Messrs. *Gervais, *Kong, *Mardell, *Mejia, and Rosales. *Excused Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Allan Torstenson, Rich Malloy, Patricia James, Yang Zhang, Marcus Martin (PED Intern), and Carol Martineau, Department of Pla.nniug and Economic Development staff; and Wendy Lane and Jeff Fishbach of LIEP. I. II. III Approval of Minutes of January 10, 2003 M01TON: Commissioner Fotsch moved approval of the minutes of January Z0, 2003. Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton reminded ffie commissioners of the Fifrh Friday Retreat on Friday, January 31, 2003. The guest speaker will be Mary Lethert Wingerd, author of Claiming the Ciry. The book is a history of Saint Paul from its earliest days through the 1930s. Chair Morton thanked Commissioner Alton for his witry letter in xesponse to Mr. Darling's opinion piece in the Star Tribune. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Larry Soderholm passed around a sign-up sheet for the Fifth Friday Retreat He reported that it is appointments time and the Mayor's o�ce is looking for candidates for the Planning Commission until February 14`�. The application is available on the City's web site. � 0 � Commissioner Field agreed that the motion was just to get an opinion from the ciry attorney as respect certain things and Commissioner Fotsch makes a reasonable request. Commissioner Alton stated that with regazd to the facts the Plaimuig Commission should have the minutes of the Zoning Committee meeting and copies of the eachibits wluch were entered into evidence at that committez meeting. 'I'hat is the extent of the additional information they should l�ave. Any other testimony or statement made by staff would be additional facts. We have to use the photographs and evidence that was used at the comnuttee meeting and norhing further. Motion carried on a unanimous vote �#02-247-939 District 2 Communi Councih Macalester Groveland Communi Council• Scenic St. Paul - Appeal of the issuance of billboard permits issued by the City's Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protecrion (LIEP) to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. for the repair of roo8op billboards in two different neighbonc�ods—one at 1670 Wt�te Bear Ave. aud the other at I278 Grand Ave. The appeai was fiied joindy by the Dishict 2 Community Council and the Macalester-Groveland Community Council. Their appeal claims that replacing billboazd faces is contrary to their neighborhood sign ordinances and, moreover, that Cleaz Cbannel made structural upgrades that were not allowed under the pemnts that LIEP issued. (Lcrrry Soderholm, 651/266- 6575) Commissioner Field stated Districts 2 and 14 aze co-appeliants in this case. Four persons spoke for the co-appellants. Two persons spoke for Clear Channel. Hearing was closed. The motion is to deny the appeal and refer the enforcement question to LIEP on a vote of 3-2 (Kramer, Faricy) Commissioner Kramer stated this billboazd case is sunilaz to a case of a few weeks ago on University Ave. in Merriam Park where a sign face was replaced and appazently upgraded. Cleaz Channel got pernuts for face replacements and stringer replacements for all four billboards at White Bear and Lazpenteur and for one on Grand Ave. The company came in and under the pemuts for face replacements they totally rebuilt not only the faces but also the pieces that hold the face onto the angle iron structures. They claimed at the Zoning Committee that standardized face replacement kits include not only what we call the face panels, but also the metai "sprits" that connect the new horizontal style of face panels together and the horizontal angle irons, which appeaz to be horizontai stringers. This is another case where the life of the non-conforming use is being grea$y etrtended by a total rebuild of most of the billboazd. If you accept the argument thzx the pieces thaz hold the face together aze part of the £ace and the pieces that hold the face to the upright structure aze also part of the face, then, carried to the logical extreme, you could make the argument that the building is part of the face, too. Commissioner Field stated that the mohon from the Zoning Committee provides that LIEP will deternune whether or not the work done by Cleaz Channel exceeded wi�at the pemuts allowed and that the Planning Commission expects LIEP to enforce the conditions of the pemnts. At the Zoning Committee meeting the LIEP staff was not able to answer the committee's questions about whether the work exceeded the permit. Commissioner Faricy supported Commissioner Krarner. She noted the only structural work authorized under the pemuts was replacement stringers, which were wood on the White Bear 10 • \ J • O 03 �0�7 billboards and angle iron on the Grand Ave. one. All repau materials, according to the permits, • were to have been of the same type and materials as the original; no addition or substitution of materials was allowed. Commissioner Alexander asked aboutthe structuralintegrity ofbillboards. With v-shaped billboazds, if you take away one of the signs or sign faces, does this make the structure weaker or unworkable? What happens if the City wants to dictate specifications to a sign company that certain parts cannot be used, but in the company's best judgment, the prohibited parts aze needed to maintain the structural integrity of the sign? Does the City staff have the expertise to make these types of judgement7 Ms. Lane stated that LIEP has a structural engineer on staff and that whenever LIEP has a pemut application that comes in where there aze questions about the physical integrity of any kind of a structure they l�ave the engineer review those plans and possibiy consult with the engmeer for the applicant. Once construction has been completed, then the building inspector is one who follows up to make sure that the construction was done properly. If there were questions at that point, the structural engineer would be brought out to the site to answer them. Commissioner Anfang stated that the argument about whether conditions on these pernuts were exceeded is really about how "sign face" is interpreted. If the sign company just tacked those sign panels together with angle irons, which were then bolted onto the stringers there would be no problem. Commissioner Field stated LIEP is responsible for enforcement issues, not the PIanning • Commission. Fundamentally the committee's motion denies the claim by the district councils that sign face replacement permits aze contrary to the Zoning Code. The committee then went on to advise LIEP go up there on these rooftops and detemune if, in fact, the work that was done violates the conditrons of the permit. Commission Kramer stated that the appeal basically challenged LIEP's decision that complete sigi face replacement is pernutted under the code and then went on to challenge that, even if LIEP is found to have been right in issuing the permits, the quality of the face replacements is an illegal upgrade to extend the life of these nonconforming uses. The appeal asks the commission to find that the replacement of those enrire face panels is a renovation of a billboard, not just a repair and not just maintenance. Renovation of nonconforming advertising signs is not permitted by the code. Then there is the issue of upgrading. The appeal says that the "Cadillad' face sign kits were not what LIEP meant to approve or had the power to approve. Comxnissioner Alton stated that the LIEP staff detemuned that it was appropriate to grant the sign face replacement permits. The PED staff recommended denial of the appeal because sign face replacement is a form of routine maintenance. It is appropriate for the Plaznung Commission to deny the appeal. It's not appropriate to grant an appeal on the grounds that the work that was done exceeded the pemut because that can be corrected through enforcement. Chair Morton closed the debate and asked for the vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: The motion to deny the appeaL passed on a vote of 7-5 (Johnson, • 11 � J Kramer, Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon). V VI. VII. Comprehensive Planning Committee Commissioner Gordon reported the next Comprehensive Planning Committee meeting will be Tuesday, January 28, 4:00-5:30 p.m. where they will discuss the Downtown Plan and tax exempt properties. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee Bridgecreek Senior Housing Redevelopment Plan - adopt resolution. (Patr James, 651/266-6639) MOTION: Commissioner Faricy moved approval of the $ridgecreek Senior Housing Redevelopment PZ¢n. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Communications Committee Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen reported the next meeting of the Communications Committee will be Friday, January 31, 20�3, where they will discuss the annual report and recommendations for cable tv projects for next year. VIII. Task Force Reports Commissioner Anfang reported the Universiry Avenue Transit Oriented Study (TOD) second draft was released last week. Mr. Soderholm reported that the District 16 Summit Hill Association is updating their district plan. He stated that tomorrow morning there will be a visioning workshop that will take place at the Saint Paul College Club. IX. Old Business None. X. New Business Chair Morton appointed the nominating committee: Commissioners Faricy, Kramer, and Field. The committee will contact all the commissioners to make sure that everyone has an opportuniry to indicate their level of interest in serving. The election will take place at the Annual Meeting on Febmary 14, 2003. Ballots will be sent out with the regulaz packet for the meeting, but the by-laws allow for additional nozninations to be made at tha meeting. MOTION: Chair Monon moved on behalf of the Steering Committee to set the annual meeling for February I4, 2003. The motion carried unanimously. 12 • � u � , , , , �, �� MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 3:30 p.m. • City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Haii and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: r �� J Anfang, Alton, Faricy, Field, and Kramer Gordon, Mejia, and Morton EXCUSED: Carol Martineau, Larry Soderholm, and Peter Warner STAFF: 03 /oy7 District 2 Community Council, Macalester Groveland Community Councii, Scenic Minnesota, Z.F. # 02-247-939. Appeal of billboard permits issued by the City's Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection (LIEP) to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. for the repair of rooftop billboards in two different neighborhoods—one at 1670 White Bear Ave. and the other at 1278 Grand Ave. The appeal was filed jointly by the District 2 Community Council and the Macalester-Groveland Community Council. Their appeal claims that replacing billboard faces is contrary to their neighborhood sign ordinances and, moreover, that Clear Channel made structural upgrades that were not allowed under the permits that LIEP issued. 1278 Grand Ave., SE comer at Syndicate; 1670 White Bear Ave., SE corner at Larpenteur. The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. Larry Soderholm presented the staff repoR on the district councits' appeal with a recommendation of denial in part; approval in part. Chair Field wanted to know why the staff accepted this case as a single appeal, since the two billboards are on opposite sides of town. Mr. Soderholm explained that the permits were issued on the same day for sign face and stringer replacements, and the code language under which the permits were challenged was identical in the two special sign districts. Some previous billboard cases have involved multiple sites, and combining the sites meant less work for the staff. There was discussion. The committee decided to proceed with one heari�g since that was how the hearing had been advertised, but the committee reserved its prerogative to make separate decisions depending on the facts surrounding each location. Mr. Soderholm said that, based on the committee's preference, the staff would not in the future accept applications for multiple sites where LIEP had taken separate actions on the sites. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm explained that this case raises some of the same issues as the Merriam Park appeal last month at 1926 University Ave. about the replacement of stringers and work exceeding the permit. Commissioner Kramer questioned the legality of granting an appeal of something that was not permitted by the permit, i.e., upgrading the billboard face structurally with the new method of construction. Mr. Soderholm explained that the staff recommendation responds to each of the stated bases for the appea{. The permits did not permit replacement of wood stringers with angle iron stringers. ft is not clear whether the permit allowed the new structural system for the sign faces and tFiat was also ambiguous in the Merriam Park case. � Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes Page. 2 At the question of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Soderholm explained that the state law says that owners of nonconforming property have a right to continue the use of their nonconforming property including through maintenance and repair; however, if it is destroyed by more than 50 percent of its market value it has to become a conforming use. Municipalities have the authority to adopt reasonable regulations for nonconforming uses to promote the public health, safety, and welfare. This leaves a legal grey area for the City regarding billboard repairs. Does the state law mean that any repair that is less than 50 percent of the market value of a nonconforming structure is automatically permitted, which is the way Mr. Liszt reads the law; or does it mean that local governments can enact reasonab�e limitations on the types and extent of repairs so that nonconforming uses will not remain in place forever. In the Raymond Ave. billboard repair case, the City Council decided by a five to two vote that the City's special sign district ordinance prohibiting replacement of any structurat elements of nonconforming signs— even low cost elements--is a reasonable regulation and is within the authority granted by state law. The Raymond Ave. decision came after LIEP issued the permits in today's case, and the Council's Raymond Ave. decision is why the staff is recommending that LIEP issued these permits in error to the extent that the permits included repiacement of stringers. � Chuck Repke, District 2 Community Council, testified about the White Bear Ave. site. District 2 representatives understood that the effect of the Greater East Side Special Sign District would be to leave billboards intact and, as billboards in the neighborhood became antiquated, they would eventualty have to be removed. These specific biliboards are at a lucrative location at • the intersection of Larpenteur and White Bear and they woutd probably remain there for a long time because the sign owners would keep them repaired by cannibalizing ofher signs for replacements parts for these signs. When District 2 learned that LIEP approved a repair permit, they assumed initially that a little maintenance wouid be done on the signs. But in fact, the repair work consisted of a total replacement of the sign faces. They are now entirely different signs which have horizontal instead of vertical face panels, angle iron stringers and other new metal parts. Furthermore, alI the work was done during the night, on a Friday night. He felt that the special sign district ailowed for a"1964 Chevy Impala" to be maintained until it couldn't run, but now the company has switched the sign into a"2002 Cadillac". Under state law biilboards are not even classified as real property; they are personal property. The City should follow the special sign district regulations and allow only basic maintenance, not major replacements. Mary Wiimea, Macaiester Groveland Community Council, testified about the Grand Ave. site. She commented that she has not previously been to a hearing on billboards but she now sees that it is an arduous process to sunset billboards. She stated Ciear Channel started repairing the billboard before the permit was issued and the appeal shouid be granted. Brian Bates, representative of Maclaester Groveland Community Council, District 2, and Scenic St. Paul, testified about both sites. He stated that there are several layers of applicable law and therefore it is important to understand how they are supposed to be interpreted in relation to one another. State Law 462.357 contains the provisions on alI nonconforming uses: the one year abandonment rule; the 50 percent damage clause; and the power of municipalities by ordinance to impose reasonable regulations on nonconformities to prevent � and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. There are also the pre-existing zoning ordinance sections: 66,301 and 66.302 that go back to the mid-1980's; 4� 03 /oY7 Zomng File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes . Page: 3 66214 prohibits new advertising signs; and also special sign districts. Mr. Bates submitted a paper on Rules of Statutory Construction for the record. He stated that, as a general rule, all of the laws must be harmonized a�d none of the laws can be excluded unless there is a direct and unavoidable conflict. He elaborated four points: (1) Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all of its provisions, Minn.Stat. 645.16; (2) Whenever it is possible, no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed supertluous, void or insignificant; (3) It is presumed the Legislature intended to favor the pubiic interest over the private interest, Minn.Stat. 645.17(5); (4) Specific provisions of an act prevail over prior, generaf provisions, Minn.Stat. 645.26(1). (See "Rules of Statutory Construction" in Results of January 16, 2003, packet as mailed to the Planning Commission.) Mr. Bates continued by challenging the City staff's interpretations. Section 66.302, which prohibits renovation of adveRising signs, is dismissed by staff even though it is more specific than 66.301, which applies to all types of signs. The Ramsey County district court held in a storm-damaged sign case that face repiacement is a renovation. The staff interpretations routinely favor the private interesis of bifiboard companies--in today's case a Texas corporation--over the public interests of the city's neighborhoods. The staff only recently agreed to notify neighborhoods when they issue biliboard repair permits. The only reason a biliboard repair permit at the Green Mill building on Grand Ave. was not appealed a couple of months ago was because the neighborhood didn't learn about the permit until after the 30-day appeal period expired. • At the question of Commissioner Anfang, Mr. Bates stated that the real estate industry would acknowledge that there is a negative effect on property values when biliboards are present. At the question of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Bates explained that Section 66.301 applies to alI signs, whereas Section 66.302 appiies specifically to advertising signs. The Planning Commission should first look at Section 66.302; if the repair is not a renovation, then the Commission should look at Section 66.301. The zoning staff has reduced 66.302 to section 66.301. The renovation standard is being ignored. The only thing staff uses is the 50 percent rule. Upon further questioning, Mr. Bates explained that the public interest has been determined by the City Council in Section 66.214. Laura Gutmann, community organizer with Macalester-Groveland, reiterated that the Macalester-Groveland Community Council feels this is an important issue and they voted unanimously to appeal LIEP's decision about the Grand Ave. site. The Macalester-Groveland Special Sign District was adopted by City Council to provide sign controls. They aren't trying to get rid of every billboard in Macalester-Groveland; they just want the sign controls to be used. The Special Sign Plan for Macalester-Groveland states that no nonconforming sign shall be maintained through replacement of structural elements. But the LIEP repair permit states that the "only structural work authorized is the replacement of the metal stringers. This contradiction is a concern of Macalester-Groveland; another concem is that Clear Channel did repair work on the billboard prior to receiving the repair permit. Marvin Liszt, Attorney for Clear Channel Outdoor, stated there was a serious jurisdictional • issue that needs to be addressed. There are 1wo totally dififerent applications that Clear Channel submitted to repair the biliboards. They involve separate structures in separate parts �� Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Mmutes Page: 4 of the city and they have nothing to do with each other. The current process is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The appeal filed by the appellants is o�e application for two different unrelated mafters with an appticafion fee of $225, which is less than the fee Clear Channe( has to pay when it appeals a decision at one location. The appellants have not met the requirement of the ordinance to appeal an administrative decision. These appeals shouid be denied jurisdictionaliy. At the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Warner stated that the sign portion of the Zoning Code states in essence that any person aggrieved by an administrative decision can file an appeal and take it to the Planning Commission. It doesn't say anything about zoning fees; they are set by a separate City Council action. Certain procedural rules must be followed. The standing of the appeilants can be challenged at any time and the challenge may be reserved as an argument before a court if the matter ever gets there. But the Planning Commission can go forward with this public hearing. Going forward today won't prevent the Planning Commission from revisiting the propriety of multi-site appeals at a future date. Marvin Liszt stated that if an appeal were submitted without a check, the application would be returned by the City staff, and if it was not resubmitted with the 30-day appeal period, the ability to appeal would be lostjurisdictionally. • Peter Warner advised that the language in the ordinance is not particulariy clear, but the case • was at a point of no return and the appellants have already been heard. Larry Soderholm explained that fees for zoning applications are sef by a resolution of the City Council that was adopted in 1994. There is a new proposal going to the City Council to revise the 1994 fees. The 1994 fees distinguish between appeals filed by a business or institution and appeals filed by a resident. Appeals by residents have a lower fee; appeals by businesses have a higher fee. District Councils have always been charged the residential fee. Marvi� Liszt requested that if the matter proceeded, the Zoning Committee would consider as a part of the deliberation whether there is proper jurisdiction before the Pianning Commission. Mr. Liszt stated in the application for appeal, ground number 2 states that boards were repaired without permits prior to the repairs authorized by permits. That statement is false. The permits were issued on November 2�, 2002, and the work was done on November 22, 2002, and there was no work done prior to that time. There is no evidence presented that work was done prior to that time and Ciear Channel Outdoor objects to letting that aliegation color the matter. Ground number 4 states that boards are illegal, and are built without permits. There is no evidence behind that claim; in fact, they were built with permits. The State Statute 462.357 gives Clear Channel Outdoor the right to make repairs; the City staff did the right thing in issuing permits for repairs to the billboards. Repairs done now have to be made with parts that are available now. Mr. Liszt gave an example of a nonconforming gas station or house that was built in 1940. If a window needed repair, it would be difficult to find a replacement window from '1940. The owner could install a new replacement window in the gas station or house. Chris McCarver, Owner of Clear Channel Outdoor, submitted pictures of the 1676 White Bear � Avenue biliboards for the record and stated there are wood stringers going across the entire l3 03-/05�7 Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes • Page 5 length of the structures. The horizontal panels are a change in the industry standard and the change was discussed with Mr. Fischbach of LIEP prior to his issuance of the permits. The replacement wood stringers were connected to the steel uprights which were afready in existence. The horizontal angle irons are now part of the sign face kits. They are components of the faces themselves, they are not the stringers. He stated that the White Bear Ave. permit was valid for the replacement of all four sign faces and their trim and for replacement of the wood stringers. That is all the work that the company has done there. Mr. McCarver also submitted pictures for 1276 Grand Avenue, and stated stringers at this site have always be steel. The paneis were changed from vertical panels to horizontal panels which was discussed with Mr. Fischbach prior to the issuance of the permit. He suggested that the public interest is indeed spelled out in the ordinances, which provide that nonconforming signs can continue. He reminded the committee that Mr. Bates had a ballot initiative in 1999, and a majority of the public voted that signs were not an issue. That is the public interest. The City should get off this issue, let existing billboards be repaired, and stop the needless waste of taxpayer money and time. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. McCarver stated that the horizontal stringers were replaced at both sites and they did the repairs to the exact letter of the permits. The permits stated that the stringers could be replaced. O Upon a further question from Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Liszt stated that ground number 3 of the appeal alleges that the billboards were repaired beyond what was allowed by the permits. Some of the repairs may have been structural, but the state law says you can do repairs and maintenance to a nonconforming use. The law doesn't offer any distinction between structural versus nonstructural. To the extent that speciai sign districts talk about the repairs being permitted based on structural versus nonstructural elements without regard to the value of the sign, the special sign districts conflict with state statute and are illegal. At the inquiry of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Liszt explained that the special sign districts aren't illegal in and of themselves. The City Council can adopt special sign districts so that a neighborhood can have distinctive looking signs in its area and these sign districts are ordinances of the City. However, a special sign district ordinance that includes a provision that is unconstitutionai or contradicts state law would be invalid with regard to that provision. Upon a question from Commissioner Kramer, Mr. McCarver itemized the billboard components at these sites that were not changed: the steel bedding, the vertical angle iron or C-Channel towers, cross bracing, cat walks, illumination, access ladders, and top rails. Charles Repke, responded to the jurisdictional challenge. He stated that the co-appellants foliowed the City staff's instructions on how to appeal in a timely fashion within the 30 days and any minor mistakes can be resolved without the case being thrown out. If the City wants a second check, the District 2 Community Council will pay the additional fee. There is an important issue at stake that needs to be decided on its merits. • Commissioner Field asked why the appeal had only one signature. Brian Bates stated that in signing the appeal he was representing the Macalester-Groveland Community Council, the � Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes Page: 6 District 2 Community Council, and Scenic St. Paul, and that all three organizations had authorized him to file in their behalf. He explained that the grounds for the appeal are allegations. Where the appeal stated that "boards were repaired without permits prior to repairs authorized by permits", he meant the Grand Ave. biliboard. At that site, before any biliboard repair permit was issued a new element was added to the back of the structure, to which the old, bent, vertical panels were tacked down so that a new message could be posted on the sign face. These temporary repairs are documented by the photos and described in the staff report. Mr. Bates continued with his observation that If this same process of sign face replacement is followed, if the City issues repair permits for ali types of "minor repairs", then eventually all the biliboards in the city will be as good as new. At the question of Commissioner Alton, Jeff Fischbach of LIEP stated that a final determination has not been made as to whether or not the conditions of the permits have been exceeded. If the City does determine that the conditions of these permits have been violated, then LIEP will tell Clear Channel to remove the violations or make the repairs as they were approved on the permit. Upon the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Fischbach stated he has been out to the sites but has not been up on the roofs to do close-up inspections. Marvin Liszt stated that if there were any repairs that exceeded the permit, that doesn't invalidate the permit. That would be an enforcement issue in which Clear Channel would have to do something or suffer the consequences. Brian Bates cautioned that regardless of whether LIEP determines or fails to determine if the repairs comply with the permit, the neighborhoods have to file any appeal within 30 days or lose their right to appeal. They're caught in a dilemma. ThaYs why they had to file this appeal when they did. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kramer moved staff recommendations 1 through 3 as writteR and recommendation 4 with the following amendment: Strike the language saying, "the staff recommends granting the appeal with regard to..." and insert instead, "the Planning Commission finds that repair work done by Clear Channel Outdoor that exceeded ...etc.' Commissioner Morton seconded the motion. Commissioner Anfang stated he would vote against the motion based ort recommendation 4. He doesn't think that the Planning Commission couid find that Clear Channel exceeded what LIEP's permits allowed them to do. He felt this committee didn't have the ability to reach that conclusion without a report from LIEP on their inspection and enforcement measures. • • At the question of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Warner stated the enforcement recommendation • from fhe Planning Commission would not be binding. LIEP could choose to issue an enforcement tag, or use civil action. Any action by the Planning Commission would be coming � t�3 /o�{ � • Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes Page. 7 from an advisory body that lacks the power to dictate the way LIEP operates. He further thought that, since the appeal is based in part on a charge that Clear Channel did work on the biliboards beyond what the permits ailowed, the Planning Commission ought to address that charge. The motion failed on a vote of two to three. Commissioner Anfang moved the staff recommendation 2, which denied the appellants' claim that the billboards are illegal. He thought the evidence showed that all of the billboards are legal nonconforming uses. Commissioner Alton seconded the motion, but was concerned that the committee needed to go further and deal with the entire appeal. At the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Warner concurred with Mr. Alton that the committee's action should address all four of the bases for the appeal, especially number 1, which deals with the replacement of face panels in special sign districts. This is the difficult gray area where the City staff and the neighborhoods disagree. The Planning Commission and next, most likely, the City Council need to determine whether face replacement is going to be permitted or not. � Commissioner Alton staied that Commissioner Anfang's motion is generally that the appeai should be denied. The staff findings as written do not support denial on all four bases, but they support denial with regard to issuance of sign face repair permits and with regard to the signs being legal nonconforming uses. No testimony was given that the repairs at either site exceeded 50 percent of the signs' values. With regard to the charge that repairs were made at the Grand Ave. site before the City permit was issued, it is a moot point because any unauthorized repairs were subsequently removed when the face was replaced pursuant to the permit. With respect to the contention that the repair work at both sites exceeded what was allowed by permit, that is a question that the Planning Commission can't decide with the evidence that was presented at this hearing. WhaYs more, it's a question that LIEP has the authority to decide and act on regardless of what the Planning Commission recommends. Mr. Fischbach cannot state at this point whether the repairs went beyond the permits. The City has expressed its policy that the number of biilboards in the .city should be reduced over time, so repairs beyond what was legally permitted by LIEP should not be allowed by Planning Commission action. Enforcement is LIEP's responsibility and LIEP should enforce the law vigorously. The Commission should not intervene at this point either to grant or deny the appeal with regard to the allegation that repairs went beyond the permit. � Commissioner Alton offered a friendly amendment to include staff recommendation 1 and add a finding that there was testimony from Clear Channel that the repairs were done consistent with the permits, but that LIEP staff has not yet determined whether all of the repair work was consistent with the permits. Therefore, repairs beyond the permits are not appropriate grounds for granting the appeal. But if LIEP staff finds that repairs were done beyond the permits, enforcement action should be taken. So in essence the appeal would be denied based on staff recommendations 1 and 2. The LIEP staff properly issued the permits in � Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes Page: 8 accordance with the Iaw. Staff recommendations 3 and 4 are separate enforcement issues to be pursued by LIEP and are not proper grounds for an appeal. Commissioner Anfang accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed 3-2 (Faricy, Kramer) Drafted by: �ja��%�G�✓�w Caroi Martineau Recording Secretary �_'---.._ _, , \ J CJ • �A ',�'�� ' d' �' f l6 - � 3 n, ��r��rJ � (��..�� .�/`�- 03- 0 7 L RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ��'�mrn��2 ��vi (/h� �� • ✓!'1 iq'vo-t12�jt{. L�cN�'Cic�`�', a) Every ]aw shall be construect, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. Miun.Stat. 645.16. b) Whenever it is possible, no word, phrase, or senteace should be deemed superIluous, void, or msignificant. PR�"sJm� ` c} We i�-the Legislatiire intended to favor the public interest over the private interest. Minn.Stat. 645.17(5). Amural u Saint Cloud Hosp., 598 N..2d 379, 384 (Minn. 1999). r d) Specific provisions � an act prevail over prior, general provisions. Minn.Stat. 645.26(1). State v. Corbin, 343 N.W2d 874, 875 (Minn.App. 1984). Ehlert v Graue, 195 N.W.2d 823, 826 (Minn. 1972). II STAFF F'INDINGS � a) "City staff believe that replacement of an old, but undacnaged sign face is a maintenance activity as pernutted by state statute, not a replacement or renovation of the advertising sign." Response: By this interpretation staff deems section 66.301 to control. Staff is saying that if the sign face is damaged greater than 50% it cannot be replaced, otherwise it can. This interpretafion gives effect to section 66301 exclusively. This intetpretation violates the above cited rules of construction a, b, c, and d. This interpretation reads section 66302 out of the zoning code entirely, favors the private mterest over the public interest, and allows general provisions, those which pertain to all signs, to prevail over the specific provision wluch pertains to advertising signs. b) "Secrion 66302 of the code refers primazily to the previous "move to confonvauce" program with sign face credits for the location of billboards, a prograzn which was eliminated in 2000 when the most recent billboazd amendments were adopted." Response: Had the City Council meant to reject section 66302 m its entirety, it would have. Ratfier the Ciry Council specifically eliminated the entire "move to conforntance" program, since billboards were made a prohibited and use they cannot be made confomung, but kept wt�at remains of section 66.302. Staff s intetpretation gives no meaning to what rema.ins of section 66.302 violating niles of construction a, b, and d above. c) "The city staff do treat sign face replacement as renovation, which is prolu�bited under • this section, when a sign face bas been damaged beyond 50% of its replacement cost." 1 Response: The district court has stated that sign &ce replacement is renovation. The • district court was dealing with a circutnstance where the sign face was entirely destroyed. However, the district court did not qualify its mterpretation of the ordinance. It stated simply that sign face replacement was renovation. This rnting coutd be given a broad interpretation giving effect to the underlying public policy tbat bffiboazds aze an urban blight adversely affecting the public health, safety and weTfare or the narrow interpretation staff gives it. The narrow interpretation violates rules of intetpretaTion a, b, c, and d. As a practical matter, stafes interpretations have largely fa�ored the billboazd companies' interests over the interests of neighborhood residents. There was an infamous quote in the Highland Villager ttiat LIEP simpty ignored all special sign districts. LIEP, until recentty, refused to make public permit appfications they received from biltboard companies, now LIEP has changed tY�at policy and does routinely inform the relevant community council. We think it a better policy that neighbors neaz an� particulaz billboard be informed 'm addition to the Comunwity Councils. Untfl these recent appeals where the appeUant raised section 66.302, that section was routinely ignored. It is not difficult to discern a"lean" towazd private interests and away from public i�terPsts; toward the bi7Tboazd companies interests and away from neighborhood interests; toward multi-national, Te�s-based, corporate profits and away from neighborhood properiy vatues. If it is true that sign faces need to be replaced every 10 years, we would logically see all • boazds in the City slowly removed over the neact decade. That would be in keeping with the City's policy of disallowing any new buildings aud removal of e�sting billboazds by attrition. r � �J �� ..�-�,��-� 03-�0�7 ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT i FILE # 02-247-939 APPELLANTS: District 2 Community Council, HEARING DATE: 01/16/03 Macalester-Groveland Community Council, and Scenic Saint Paul 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Administrative Appeal 3. LOCATIONS: 1670 White Bear Ave, SE corner at Larpenteur Ave. and 1278 Grand Ave., SE corner at Syndicate St. 4. PIN 8� LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: White Bear Ave. property: (PIN 23-29-22-22-0121) Hilicrest Center subj. to Ave; W'/z of Vac Gary Place accruing & N 85 ft of lot 1 block 4(LIEP billboard ref. # 267) Grand Ave. property: (PIN 03-28-23-42-0048) Stinson's Blvd, Block 4, Lot 12 (LIEP billboard ref. �# 343) 5. PLANNING DISTRICTS District 2 and District 14 PRESENT ZONING B-2 at both sites 6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §66.408(a); 66.101; 66.2169.3(e)(1); 66.2169.5(e)(1); 66.301: and 66.302 • • STAFF REPORT DATE: 1/9/03 BY: Larry Soderholm 8. DATE RECEIVED: 12/20/02 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 2/18/03 A. PURPOSE: Appeal of billboard permits issued by the office of Licensing, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) for replacement of existing billboard sign face panels, trim and the horizontal stringers that support the sign faces. Appellants claim that replacement of sign face paneis and stringers is contrary to their neighborhood special sign districts, that the actual repairs made exceeded the conditions of the permits, and that the billboards are not legal nonconforming uses. B. PARCEL SIZES: White BearAve.: 30,848 square feet; Grand Ave.: 6,150.square feet C. EXISTING LAND USE: White BearAve.: 1-story, multi-tenant shopping center; Grand Ave.: 1-story commercial building occupied by an ethnic restaurant. The billboards are on the roofs. D. SURROUNDING LAND USES: White Bear Ave. North: Auto-oriented commercial strip in Maplewood South: Hilicrest Shopping Center takes the whole block (B-2) East: Senior housing (RT-2) West: Commercial across White Bear Ave., planned for redevelopment as a Walgreen's (B-3) �� Zoning File # 02-247-939 Staff Report January 9, 2003 Page 2 of 6 Grand Ave. North: Supermarket parking across Grand (B-2); 2 single-family houses kitty-corner (RM-2) South: Duplexes and single-family residential across the alley (RT-1) East: House converted to commercial use next door, then two more houses all in B-2 zone. West: Apartment buildings across Syndicate (RM-2) E. ZONING CODE CITATIONS: §66.408(a) of the Zoning Code, which is part of the chapter on signs, states that "Any person affected by the decision of the zoning administrator dealing wifh the provisions of this chapter may appeaf this decision to the planning commission within thirty (30) calendar days of the decision." §64.209(j), which is in the administration and enforcement chapter of the Zoning Code, provides that appeais of administrative decisions to the Planning Commission must be heard within 30 days. §66.101 states the general purposes of the sign chapter of the zoning code. §66.30'I Iists the purpose of the sign code with respect to nonconforming signs. §66.301(2) prohibits reconstruction of a nonconforming sign if the sign or sign structure is destroyed to an extent greater than 51 percent of its replacement cost. §66.302 refers to the �revious "Move to Conformance" program with sign credits. and §66.2169.5 and §66.2i69.3 give, respectively, the regulations for the Greater East Side and Grand Ave. Special Sign Districts, with restrictions on nonconforming signs listed in each case in paragraph (e). F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: For each location, LIEP issued a sign permit on 11/21/02 for replacement of the existing sign faces and trim with new sign faces and trim (the fiberglass "picture frames"). The permits also approve the replacement of the horizontal stringers that support the sign faces. In the White Bear case the old stringers were wood and could be replaced only with wood; in the Grand Ave. case, the old stringers were angle iron and could be replaced with metal. in both cases, district council representatives called the City with questions and complaints about the work being done on the billboards, and in particular why new angie iron was being installed on the White Bear Ave. billboards. There is no other zoning histary on these two billboard locations. However, this same issue of biilboard face replacement in a special sign district was recently brought to the Planning Commission in an appeal by the Merriam Park Community Council regarding a roof-top billboard at 1926 University Ave. On that case, the Zoning Committee and the Planning Commission were evenly split on whether to grant or deny the appeal. G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS: Both district councils are co-appellants in this case. H. FINDINGS: On October 28, 2002, Ciear Channel Outdoor applied for sign permits for both '1670 White Bear Ave. (all four sign faces) and 1278 Grand Ave. (a single sign face) to ��i1 • r u r� � J �3-�oy, Zoning File # 02-247-939 Staff Report January 9, 2003 � Page 3 of 6 replace the sign faces, trim, and stringers on the rooftop biliboards. 2. On November 21, 2002, Jeff Fischbach of the LIEP staff issued a permit for each of the two applications. The White Bear Ave. permit was subject to the following conditions, which are written on the permit: `Height of sign faces musf not be increased. The sign sfructures have only wooden stringers. All repair materiais must be of the same type as the original maferials, no addifion or substitution of materials aUowed. The only structural work authorized is the replacemenf of fhe wooden stringers. No other structural work permi#ed. No electrical work proposed or authorized. Any elecfrical work would require the biilboard owner to obtain a separafe electricai permit." The Grand Ave. permit was subject to the following conditions, which are written on the permit: `i of sign face must not be increased. Only structural work aufhonzed is the replacement of the mefal stringers. No other structural work proposed." Clear Channel crews worked at both sites and repiaced the sign faces, trim, and stringers. 3. On December 20, 2002, the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester-Groveland � 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, inciuding but not limited to section 66.302 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 66.2169.3(e)(1)(e)]; (b) repairs were made prior to the issuance of the permits; (c) repairs were made beyond what was authorized by the permits; and (d) the bilfboards , are illegal land uses. The City staff responses to these claims are given in findings 4 through 8 below. 4. The appellants claim that the permits are contrary to section 66.302 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 permitted use. City staff believe that replacement of an old, but undamaged sign face 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 plausibie argument that the replacement of a sign face is the same thing as replacement or renovation of an advertising sign. The city staff regard sign face replacement as different from advertising sign replacemenf because: (a) billboard companies have for decades � done sign face replacements every ten years or so 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 comparison with the sign structure (bed pan secured S�ttV Zoning File # 02-247-939 Staff Report January 9, 2003 Page 4 of 6 � to building rooftop, angle iron A-frames wifh bracing, electrica! 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. Thus, the city staff position is that sign face replacement is permitted as a routine maintenance activity, but it is not permitted in the case of a badly damaged sign face. While this may appear incoRSistent, it has a logic based on the agent causing the damage. The sfate statute on nonconforming uses refers to destruction "by fire or other peril". In the case of fire or wind damage, the nonconforming use cannot be reptaced. But the City does not want iiself to be the cause of deterioration through preventing routine maintenance since the state statute explicitly permits the maintenance of nonconforming uses. 5. The appeilants c{aims that the biliboard repair permits violate the Greater East Side artd Macalester Groveland Special Sign Disfricf regufafions, The City staff find that the permi#s in this case were issued in error with regard to the repfacement of the old stringers--2 X 6 wood stringers on White Bear Ave. and angle-iron stringers on Grand Ave. The language on nonconforming signs is identical in the two special sign districts. It � says, "No nonconforming sign shall be: ...(e) Mainfained through replacement of structu2l elements." in 2000, at the time of the biliboard zoning study, the Planning Commission recommended that stringers should be treated as structural elements, but sign face panels should not be treated as structural elements. The City Council neither adopted fhe Commission's recommendation, nor fashioned an .alternative definition of structural eiements. In 2001, the state law was amended to give owners of nonconforming property the right to repair and maintain it. In light of the new state law, the Planning Commission decided to allow minor structural repairs in the Raymond Ave, billboard repair case, notwithstanding the speciai sign districYs categorical prohibition against structural replacement. LIEP staff relied on thaY decision in issuing the permits to repiace stringers on the White Bear and Grand Avenue biliboards. However, the Planning Commission's Raymond Ave. decision was then overtumed by the City Council. The Council determined that a categorical prohibition against structural replacement could be harmonized with the state law's protection of property owners. 6. The appeilants claim that some repairs were made to the billboards before the repair permits were issued. In the Grand Ave. case, the appellants say that the o!d face panel was curled upward from the bottom and was tacked back down to a wood stringer that was added to the structure last summer. LIEP staff confirms that this is true. Photos attached to this staff report show the repair that was made without a building permit. 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 ciaim that unauthorized work was done at the White Bear Ave. signs. � ��VI� O 3-1 oy�7 Zoning File # 02-247-939 Staff Report • January 9, 20Q3 Page 5 of 6 7. The appeliants claim that Clear Channel made repairs that went beyond what the permits allowed. Staff agrees that this claim is true for the White Bear Ave. repairs. For alI five sign faces in this case, a new face panel system was used that upgrades the billboards structuraliy and will extend the useful lives of these signs. The new face panel system 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 two top-to- bottom verticai struts made of galvanized steel. Before, there were no vertical struts. The previous sign face panels were attached directly to the horizontal wood stringers by metal clips. c) The vertical metal struts are secured by bolts to the vertical angle iron A-frame structure. d) New horizontal angle iron stringers were added to the White Bear Ave. signs. As an apparent gesture toward the condition on the permit, repiacement wood stringers were installed, but they are redundant and cosmetic. The wood stringers appear to have no function. � By changing the materials and adding vertical metal struts and horizontal angle iron stringers, Clear Channel has violated conditions of the White Bear Ave. permit that "All repair materials must be of the same type as the original materials, no addition or substitution of materials allowed. The only structural work authorized is the replacement of the wooden stringers." The appeal claims that the billboards are illegal. The White Bear Ave. biliboards were erected legally under a building permit issued on 2/24/75. City staff presumes that the Grand Ave. billboard is also legal, although staff have not found a building permit. Since the adoption of the new biUboard regulations in 2000, all billboards in the city have become nonconforming uses. But almost all of the biliboards 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 stored in chronological order, not by address, or by applicant, or by type of construction. Therefore, the City staff have difficulty retrieving oId building permits. The appellants in this case haven't submitted any evidence that the sign is not legal. 9. The Sign Chapter of the Zoning Code provides regulations for nonconforming signs. Section 66.301(a) on nonconforming signs reads: "No sign sfrall be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity except for temporary extensions on billboards as permitted in paragraph 7 of this section." The Greater East Side and • Macalester Groveland Special Sign Districts provide that "No nonconforming sign shall be: (a) Altered or enlarged in any way,� or (b) Replaced by another nonconforming sign, though a change in the message wil/ not be deemed to be a �1� ✓ Zoning File # 02-247-939 Staff Reporf January 9, 2003 Page 6 of 6 repiacement;" The changes in the method of construction described in finding 8 violate these provisions. They are alterations of the b+llboard that are designed to extend the Iife of the sign. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on Findings 1 through 4, the staff recommends denial of the appeal by the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester-Groveland Community Council, and Scenic Saint Paul with regard to LIEP's issuance of biliboard repair permits for face panel replacements and trim kits at 1670 White Bear Av�. and at 1278 Grand Ave. Based on Findings 1, 2, 3, and 8, the staff recommends denial of the appeai with regard to the legafity of the billboards. All of the billboards in this case should be treated as legal nonconforming uses. 2. Based on Findings 1, 2, 3, and 5, the staff recommends granting the appeal with regard to LIEP's issuance of billboard repair permits for repiacement of the horizontal stringers that support the bitlboards af 1670 White Bear Ave. and at 1278 Grand Ave. • 3. Based on Findings 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9, the staff recommends granting the appeal with regard � to repair work done by Clear Channel Outdoor that exceeded what LIEP's permits and Chapter 66 of the Zoning Code ailow. PED staff recommends that LIEP require that biliboard repairs be made in ways that do not upgrade the designs and materials of nonconforming signs. • �� V� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL �[�� Deparrment of Planning and Economic Development ��TJ Zoning Sectio�r II00 Ciry Hall Annex 25 West Fou'rth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 � APPELLANT Name ��:5 St.�ih rG �A'i /i i City St._ Zip :zn�;€�� = �;ie :Y�o_�+�;�;;r FSe c� � �8£i�tltf$ �3P.�3 � ��_ �� L : ALA��fR l -to�� _ - .. ' i_? �� ' . Daytime phone PROPERTY 2oning File Name �'1�b� ��`��CA��r� ; ln�h�'rLl5trf2 N�L. ��Q�n-ra LOCATION Address/Location � TYPE OF APPEAL. Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: _ � Board of Zoning Appeals ❑ City Council I� ��nG ��^'�+55 e� under the provisions of Chapter 64, S p �� ( on , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the ��' ��" '�� L L�i- i� o n �� °� , 1 9_ F i l e n u m b e r. (dafe of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Planning Commission. 1�r-� �anrnb � nac��c��r��y ��q nar Lm�i�To � lrl�o 3�Z ��QMI'( IS5csR1�L� �i�L.R'T2S : T , z1 ` �' �� G�,z��g� 3(e � �cKR85 i.� ��+7��LalTHo�fi ��rn��S ��b,d, io �G4h�Q-5 �Tr! f �,� �ytm,r5 3> �asFaAS i.t9�°-RZ �� 7on� "1R�+ 1`1L�ow�' Pj� �1e'�l-nnr� S, �4 ��r-�5 ��e i�f�+- � Attach addifional sheet � Applicant's signatur� _ L �isrL� i�i1`rfttrrUT ��x�TS p� i f �u��+n � �+�n=T-s , � F t� - LC.CaNI ��-� N�r in d-an�rsf.mr�»� ° ZCity _pb �n ( i LJ '�� )��; 7�.ZO �� c �� (�(�� :_�.� � . .. . .�� --- � � 0 < D Z �' � m � �I � i � � I � � I _ � � � ! ' � �I �� i a� __ � � � , � �� D3 10�7 97 Screen Print - 10:41:21 AM 30 Dec 2002 N PROPERTY ADDRESS - 29 - 22-22-0121 1680 WHITE BEAR AVE N, EE OWNER LARRY M SALITERMAN SEE COMMENT C/0 5005 PROPERIIES INC 5005 OLD CEDAR LAKE RD ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416-1621 AX PAYER MARION LEVINE ROBERT LEVINE 5005 OLD CEDAR LAKE RD ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416-1621 QMESTEAD NAME - HIT ANY KEY TO CONTINUE � 55106-1610 PLAT NAME HILLCREST CENIER DESCRIPTION SUBJ TO AVE; W 1/2 OF VAC GARY PLACE ACCRUING & THE N 85 FT OF LOT 1 BLK 4 ��/ ; �-* � �� '�`r� ��, �+.� ��^�. � E a'�L�'' :t+ �� GRAND (48 � • � �I� � � 0 � � m LINCOLN _ _ I. � � � � i �, I ❑ � � I , L23 �0�7 Screen Print - triton IN PROPERTY ADDRESS `3 1276 GRAND AVE, EE OWNER GREGORY T ROTTER 3653 COLFAX AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55409-1021 :46=23 AM 30 Dec 2002 55105-2604 PLAT NAME STINSON'S BOULEVARD DESCRIPTION LOT 12 BLK 4 AX PAYER ESTEAD NAME - HIT ANY KEY TO CONTINUE �� ^ � srLLBO�nisiGrr CITY OF SAINT PAUL � Offi<e of License, Inspection & Environmenfai Protection 350 SA Peter Street, Suite 300 PERMIT #20 02 237078 Saint Pauf, MN 55102• 70 ��., Issued Date: November 21, 2002 PHONE: (65'I) 2 FAX: (651) 2 CONTRACTOR: OWNER: CLEAR CH�'NEL OUTDOOR LARRY M SAI.ITER�IAN SEE COMri IENT 3225 SPRLYG ST NE 5005 OLD CED:1R LAKE RD bIPLS NL�i 55413-2908 ST LOUIS PARK DL�' S5416-1621 PERIVIIT ADDRESS: 1670 WHITE BEAR AVE N ST PAUL MN 55106-16t0 SUB TYPE: Billboazds WORK TYPE: Commercial Repair/Alter Yermit is valid Tor the replacement of the 4 sia faces, and their trim, and the wooden strineers of the structures where the siF Estimated Vatue of Work I0776.62 Estimated Start Date Nov 1S, 2002 Estimated Completion Date Billboard Sq Ft Billboard Length Si�n Credits Nov 16, 2002 300 25 Billboard Type Bill'noard Width Billboard Height Sign Credits Used FEES Fee Roof 12 i 36 0 207.77 TOTAL 207.77 Hei�ht of sign faces mus[ not be inereased. The sign shuc[ures have only wooden shmgers. All repair matenals mus[ be of the sazne [ype � the original marerials, no addition or substitution of materials atlowed. 'Che only struc[ural work authorized is the replacemeni of the wooden smneers \o other structural work pertnitted. Yo elechicai work proposed or authonzed. Any electrical work woutd require [he bitlboard owner to obtsm a separate electrical pertnit. The inspector assigned to this Permit is Dave N. who can be reached at 651-266-9027 behveen 7.30 AM and 9.00 A_v1 Monday throu�h Friday � �� CITY OF ST. PAUL OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION � 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102-1510 A /!3 - . - Ave. Blvd_ Etc. N S F. W BILLBOARD PERMIT APPLICATION 03 �0�7 Visit our Web Site at www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/liep ;..I?� lu '��,�J_��- J�-� W�1� Gr ,�Y�( ._� r C /- �� n/ nl�/ Q� / 0�� G, Cty ss 3ZZ� (Permitw�llbemai <e C��u �� State, Zi 4 SP � i �tact Personl C�-.t �'I �C�d �r � � �nz..o., /, c _ MJJ �,.�_ Include Contact Person' New Billboard Alrer Bxitting ❑ Biltboard � /Ptac � r �`lE..c.�. .,..,, ��i z� �O� SIOp 2 rann.Gl C/�-`°uea �L.L. C: _-_ ruone ry �m2 c.1 G�Oi^,C. ' � S �� State, Zip+4 ard Estimaced Start Date . Estimared Finish Dare ESTIMATED VALUE OF PROJECT ition ❑ �� /1��D7i g �� ,�, �Z Billboard (Advertising Sign) Information ied Lease AereemenL a Site Plan, and Structuraf Plans must accomoanv this ermit a lication. Type of Billboard (Check appticable box.) Billboard Total Square Footage Billboard Dimensions Free Standing � Wall ❑ RooF� / zO o {,� Width Len2th Heieht (Abo�e Grade) � /z i x zS _ i 3 ' 7 � �Pr�X Fill out this section for Electrical Billboard. Note: A separate Electrical Permit is REQUIRED when the Billboard is electricai! Electrical Contrector. Phone *: Approvals lonfngDistrict j�. � r„rz,,.�.,J, �! Review . ,. Yeacnpuun oc rro�ecc llistance toNearest Bdlboard ��,�/M �,_ on the same side of che strezc (In Feet): EwS� 5�9^ Pt" � a,S�. �� d Sl.��e� �/ Plan Review Remarks SU3i�[�Y OF FEES � Billboard Permit Fee 5 OA .�E � ��1" �"l� t`i%r � `�/�YaF '�. tL-. �i'e5I /, n � / f✓� i LirG�'Ti,. :a�rs PIV qi�L.a'�.� .3 Q� - �.� 7 � � � Applicant certifies [hat all information is correct and J�at ail pertinent state regulations and city ordinances will be complied with in p�t��ie work for which this permit is issued. ApplicanPs Plea:e complete [he (ollowing inCormation for credit card payment. Date �� Zd �E BY CREDIT ( Circle the Card Type —/ t�TER YOUR ACCOGNT NCJtSER I\ THE BOXF.S: u For O�ce Use Only Required Approved Plan Check Fee 5 Total Permit Fee � FAX IT? Would you like your permit faxed to ' YES o NO If yes, enter fac = / 2 - S/.S�o terCard Expira[ionDate: Month Year v:._ 1 1 n 1� dai�/sn•uw•�ned;s•i�•nnrnnn �e a�ig qaM ano �isin �� unnF-oo7-rco ne� `aa�iin �nruo� i�eiuo� oT � U � � �L1 L � / `y : ��_. , .,= � � ..( }�i�""�� `i �rY`,?N."'�^', _ �� °°iJ' �� -.' � ( `J.�.� �-�i_ �--:�r'"' :�+ �� .;i l� ? '�=' C.4 � '� V fi !-� _,r ' O l: �' �� 7 � JLz'.a�.l.`,f .p`� : --��'= c ; S . " s ` ,r.�i ' .. , • -�� , . - . �`<r,J�.�r �.%��J � �� -/ 3_. . ' °"-=- � i� !` 4 %: � � i^i-ii v = a {:'.:' C.._�C6�._ i � �- L _ �F � f.1 � y '`'s �-c . .- �v.. /,!. G='G ��,� � � e _ ._ �� j ,%{ ` . . _- Cd' - - � _, � ,. - % TG�- J-�.�..3` a=''� ; �� —� ; . _;Y-1'' /G ;u; 1 � j � eG� , � ?. �' ' ; �, _ L7�^G�,� w __ ' -- L�;_ ,-/ 7• /� � � '!�� -%=�: G'�1 -_ - _ `'°'—'"��-___� �i ..'.' '' ``� � �� _ . ,°� � _.. _<., ! � ,v'o > ��,'; � 1 `. r ' y- ^ ;� �" i v. � ' w� � �� i U , � T � 1 . �:.."� _ �_ r , .r . .�'y � f, f__.: � .�. � � t ±-f�: d t .. �.. .� �4':_,y�� '_� � v � , , , _I .�.��e � ` �: , S�t + 1 ` :`�� t S�� u � � j /� 7� i''� .�:.';'-:� ;�w :, �1.;� �?..�: <;� .._ �i /'= �� ` /G � f7 ` t. s � ._ � : • ; •11 STTF pR0 _ iRF.�NT: L� faces @ �.�^'s fact_ Tcta1 site procurement --- 5� �;� o• �°� 'Jl BA T�TR TRF ATFRTAT S: - Purchase of basic s�ucture, including uprighu and fascia: -Estimatedcost------------------------ S/D��v=� -Deliverycharge- ---------------------- S o�d��=' -Salestax@�•=%-------------------- $ Gd`S SUBTO'i'AL �//)z$.c� 31 IN-SHOP FA�RGATIO�t: - Labor to r=move basic materiats from truck; in-shop fabrication and assembly; in-shop P��B - .3 man crew @ 4�� hours @ �/ku'. -------------------------- 3 31dE,:t�J SUBT�JTAL S3lG�'�Y� R lF,�RRt�TF FOOTIN �� ND S tT[' TRF TOJON Si DI HO F: - Procedure includes (a) crew � equipment necessary to haul strvcture � materiflI to site and -(b) employ an auger to dig hole and haui dirt: (a) _ man crew @ hou�s @ �lhr_ to dig hole and haul dirt (b) use of auger for _ houzs @ ��r�--------------------- 5 - Labor to fabricate fcotings at site and pour concrete £ootings at site. - _ man czew @ fiours @ S/br:-- S - � yazds concre:e @ �_Jyd. - - - - - - - - - - S�,_ - Equipment required: (a) one huck @ _ haurs @ �—Ihr.------------------ �_ (b) one uuck @ _ hocus nlj�� /��°'�� ' @ �lhr.----------------- � STRTOT 7 . ------------ -- -- --------•----------- 5 � Page 1 �` � APPRAISAL # Lt3CATI{3N # /G 7G —cci Cv6-!�i e /�2�= ,si Lri'iL�•�'•�✓ %�_° �'-�- . � .'., ; �1. C. '. .: E.. - �-- _'. . � .` �. - � f � [A1 ) ut: l' ': �: l J: • y� - IncIuues assembly of fascia, s�inge;s, platforms, Iadders, brackets etc. 9II_S1tC. 1,�CGu � ��vS /2 o a? ; i%e� J�L^-�1 Y%u.�-�tuo2/�. - `� man crew @ '� � hours @ � b'� /�r•--------------------------SS��r'-'f�� - Equipment required: (a) oae �`�%� =: truck @ �� hours @ �� ------------------ S�%�-'�•�� (b) one ?� �`f�-�e:� �uck @ ; hours @� �fo /br_ SlSao,�� S TOTAT.-- - SE� � u P�o3 - - �- 1� 03 -/0 �7 � � ��5� � � Z.L'�AT�ON # /> f� -�`�' til��-�'�- ��= r':-� • :, - _P p '+ RF�T ACEt`�iFi4'T C(3ST$ ��,C TiT+P^Ff'7�'Y'i�?I fC0?`+'TTtYCiF.T)1 • �: . : tl lulf : � • - Purchase of basic eIec�ical materiaI incIuding light fi.miras, balIasts, lamps, boxes, hangers, breakers, ctocks, miscellaneous items such as cnnduit and cannectozs, clamps and clips, etc. @ 5 - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ 2� c'GG. � � - Sales tax @ / , J % for materials - - - - - - - - � /s'-` , =; - Load and unload equipment at site = a 2 man crew @ �� houis each @ S �'� /br. - - - S 7 Lu .�`, - Insra2l electrical panels, run conduit, pull wire, install nxtures and ballasts: � - � man crew @ �U hrs- . (a� i � �'O /hr- ----- ---------------5� l, �?� -- J - Equipment required: (a) one !�?�r<,� truck (a3 1-' � hours @5 � u Ibr. � ia-�:J,��J (b) one!% t�ti��' truck @ a``� hours @� � /hr. .. SGc�1GYJ (cJ one truck @ hours @S /hr.----------------- -�_ SUBTOTAL ------------------------------------ S 73,3�,�. � �i �� I� - APPRAISAi. � LOCATIDi�'# /� 7G �� /��C ��Gs,_ 1 `�-- :_' e � s g4rrn �_ E - - --- --- - -- -_—� �.. ll:a '�[.!� :_ - Crew to paint uprigfits including shvctu�ai stesl, ladders, srringe:s, �im, etc., alI items �� fascza - Z— man crew @� Y hours @ �?i lhr.-------------------------��7C,cr-.i - Equipment required: (a) or�e panzl u�uck mquized for !G hours� Zc� Ihr. --------5 3�o.c� SUB'i'flTAL S �SC �WJ � s � � Perntitcosts--------------------------- 5�� Soilstests ---------------------------- $ /'✓✓,' SUR"TOTA 7 . --------- -------------------------- 5 /3�,0� S � Dif�e CTIHARD REPI20DUCTION COST (I'IEMS 2-'� ----- 3 3� s� /- =�' �(il y�ifCi7`.� The above costs a:e ior labe* and raw ma!erial� �niv and dfl not include "ind'uect costs" including such iter.is � standazd overhead allowanc� and (Z) en�cnreue:L*iaUprofit --- ag explained in the namtive of the repor[- CJ S�? ��z c]Ta"1SASJiii. iF Lt3�A3'ION # /G �G fJ !v,/.�.;%,;�'�<<:-,=:�.,�' 0 3 -/a�7 - � � �I �t_ ! ► — __ _ '._�F- 1t� atE t�t f �. � � ..�� • � (1) (2) Site procuremeat - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ � /��.�i, �� ; In-piaca realac�ment (direct cost) = S �� '�,�� '� (page 1) (pa3es 1, 2, 3 & 4) Subtotal ------------------- S?/7'c% �' �J Overhead/conhactots allowance @ S�� / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S �15, f�,� � . / Entrepreneurial profit @ I S %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � /6 � z 7� �= a REPLACF.�'13EN'T COS1' NE4'Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SAY, S !� io c �� .� 'C �t� �lu• ! Afte: considering: • (1) acrial age of t�e in-place outcioor advertising s�ucture and - (2) recognizing the sirict mzintenance schedule applied to oatdoor adyer[ising sizuctures and - (3) the condition and qvaiity of constn!ction and - (4) the location and esonomic life expectancy of the outdoor advertising s�ucture ---- We have arrivefl zt the canclusion thaz the overail depreciation estunate of �� °lo' shouid be applied or as foliox5: TOTAL DEPRECIATION EST3i-IATE - - - � ?:�o + '� 1`dflTE: D'EPRECIATI�N IS c� t% % OF DIRECT COST (DEPRECLABLE ASSETS) �DNCt t rsIpN : B'OTAL REPLACEME2V�T COST NEW ------ 5 75�� '. �PPiuwbwpd � LESS DEPRECIA'TIO�' ALLOWAi`ICES ----{5 G 7; �„n� FtEPLACEMENT CL35T LESS D��RECIATION VALUE - Say, $ 7�a:�%,� �� Pzge 5 oi' S�- �3 _.. � �_ 1 �,. ��r.'=..� L i`�%�_ _ , � , _?� �° �r'n.;;.%%-''-,�2:a.,.-:-.7- p°��r.. -- • _� ._ `�, t:.'�- � , _� ; ____ -r r vu�;-z.��, - �-`" ;- -' ; . -_" -_.._._C��:. L�". "' j.�,'-' ,.{�C'*�--f�t— wl «s`�.Y _ ' _ ' "-'_._. ,_"'C'__"-dO ':_.bc..,r�Y ` � - .-, ; --« _ , — = = r. � ,, , ) .',� 'C � 3 `�, ? x_ 'ia,� �.--��E� ,�°' �°,. — .. _ .: �r� _ _ _ V � � � l�'J r _F,r'Y�"_ � : �-`%� - �PwV`�:�� _ � / ' L ."� /' �L� u� ��p � � wF.. ._ ____ _ _ ) _ ..�. �.. _ t � � � °' %`� ..%- �- � � __'_" _ ' _ " "'_'_'._' '__... ' _' _ _'_ '__ __ ` _ _ -T �3 \^. ' 4 1 _ _ y ?� ,. _ _'r=- ) Z 1 i��,_�.E, ��i ' � . � �. _,.; _ .. _ , _ �5 �. - ' � G`v` _'; � � . ' - . _ - , • � ' �'- �, ., .- _, . , .-�, -.:'--, ,.� : , .-_ _ , - -�- � �---....'---_..__ � -:. r..-'-..-- _..., ` ✓-.. ____ _� _____,._. - __ __- ."_."__"__________"-____`._"____.�__- '"_" C" � IJ.J / G �� - �� ': , o--c� I � u � J �fJ" 7 � � �,` ! .'a`°� �. __ � . �� / �✓j.+.'.�� 3 -J � r ' ' .� -. v.t.. -- r = `.'�, �!? T r' �� t,.� : _ r, `�- ' :i h - � � � �' °�_ �Sx- -' _ ,." _ __.__.. _.__ . _ . ""___ '_..__""_ _,_....____._ _. _ - _' _ �,a � - -_____ _ _ ". __ � _ .._"____--I.� . __"�" Ci : _�_�"�__ _9__. '_._ }�.•`(t'_ __ ' --�-�.__� _ - ' -___ _ _ __" ' r %�� i: . .,...____ - - _ }�_"" � 4-jl-'. _�-_ " ___ }-/ -_ _ s '�.v" ._ _ _ _ .. -t - '�� - - • � 1 � :. - � � . . � ! .. i✓_ :..n �.:.. _ �^"'�.. _ � a _ - t !`: } e - � ._. ' ' __, ". _ . _ _ _ _ ' ___ _ _ "_t.___ r � a : _ �r � c �s � � . _ :�r'.J_ - .. � � C.` . � - --- - --- ______Cy `._. �,.: ;.; :_._. � r � �_.._.__ -______ .____ '-- , -3 r. , � y�,�� ,��,�,�,, ,, s�r ,�"- ,. ... __I _ . .F .c ` - . =:J � ` �. ="c < :_ ' .-'� s c . � _ '. _____ _-"'_,_' � " � ,. - = ..w '_"' �� „ .,-_.�;-.;_ :c � ' - - �, �r�Y . "__ ""'_'" _ " _ '_ _ _ � � 0 � • � ' \ ^ _ ... � F . i ,. _ . _: i .� o: � : . 676 White BearAv ES mount "A" frame �P Ortable to z �� c-.=r�';�' _ .; 3/16" ca D 3-/O�f 7 �::�.:�;� - - ` �� ".` x`" ' C�. •'3•' � _ - ;i� _:•> : _ _ '"'�'� -- � ' � -' .�f:�Y::335�.� " _ ia.._ .. '.�'x�'%�t'=:;:� � • - -' `lG?' - =�,-y�'-i — - _ - _ _ `_.=.=c: �,.� : _ " ' � e .. - _- __ - _ � =°� � =tfn � - - - :; �.;:� :t�.e:.: �''-� x ,' `4 '.^5;.. �°�r.- boits 's�,�.,� - .�-'�,; _ _ _ _ _ v �, _ = �, x , x r� " �C ,� - nstall new poster panel wRh fberglass trim. nstail new 3/8" safety cable ' 3 �.,�.s � � .� m sv. s � � : �"^ -r �,z '� ; ti¢$. ,�.,tF Y - : r K � hecK b�ox for Y��es i�; '�r Yes � fi' � �s `�^,_ +. J� : ; d m` �.. � _ � .,.. . ,. a_," a .. ..u.... .3�� =,_ `�< `��, " = �aw� J �� nj � X� } _ ;4 t :%�5 = ^c=rs� _ x'" _ _ _ - �ze�:="=' � 03 /0�7 �,_ ._. �=� ��.� � z �� `a� A� � .-� - �� . , ; ��i�'�=�? c. ,'��:�` V�� c` .�: - �•L., � -,�:------- ��= �- � � � �' ��=°� �� . �- �� _ � � � �.-� - _ �.�,i . ,/ J � � ,{`°.,� ,.. . _ '� s i �� '� m a t � `^ ' � �9 � " .�#::'.. . . t.7 � . � i �. i __ , a . t ;.' ,� '�' � �� % ! 1� �— �f �- � �+ '�6 r �� s � � �� h :^� ��''—` � � % _ ��, i [8 � ' �$ 1� Q y � � � _ ; �� i �� .�� ; : a - ; � � t _ _ 3f d� e - � �° � 2: : � �� .. - _ " . :, sW �.. -� " ° - � E �'�'Y t� r �` n � ' �� , x � c ... ��.': : 3 '`�'� __. �= . . � � � -- � _ �_ �'.�. �i � i ��,.. f v t .� . . ,..... . �":� .�% �' ',�^ � r �_= � � Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave W-face of NW faces CC#064461 10-30-02 r� U ,, _ - � FC R � o3-la y7 � : \ �� Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave � E-face of NW faces ' CC#064460 10-30-02 ;�. <: . ;� ► • � � U -� - "` �� t v j 03-1o'f7 � Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of NW faces CC#064460 ' 10-30-02 � � � S iJ-�f P . rv }�� 1 x3a � �� P � °m'4 C] f : - ....... . � .��' � ` / , ��\ G � Ref#267 1676 White Bear ' W-face of SW faces CC#064463 10-30-02 ; Ave � , :' � F �` �; �� . ��- � � D3 -/0�7 i Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of NW faces CC#064460 10-30-02 �Ne � � . r -% r �"*� ��-�� st � � � . � �. � U�lest �. �_,� _ ;;. i_ i� �: , . � �� Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave ' NW faces CC#064460 10-30-02 � .► , e ` � ' �r ' � E� ---; � 1 a : � �$ � r, �^ ��;::_.�__ �,;� °;. —m; _ �� =� � _. '� � � i�� ✓� , �,, D 3 /OY7 � ,. � '�a�i6and Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of SW faces CC#064463 10-30-02 r�� . , . ,� a , �� : °.. _ �.. � �' F�R �f � EA�Efl �%T ^'� e • � _ � :��. r _ ,�' � � /�-` ,"�_/ � Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of SW faces CC#064463 10-30-02 � , -� =��--� :�;t - -=��- ��-° ,�__�_ � ,� t �- x �'. . � �•." _ � � �; "\ �-' �''-- D3-loy7 . Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave W-face of NW faces � CC#064461 12-6-02 , � . � r a F: '�'\ ; l� � ✓?_„ � _____ _.____ _____ , _ _ __. .. --.._e_. _ --__- _ ..____-__-- - -._ _ �.._ _ _ __ � Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of NW faces CC#064460 12-6-02 4�.�� --_ � �.-��,,� __ __ . " -� _ .: t � � ;"= i;%� � -- _--- ____ _____--_________..____�___.__..�______� _-- Refi#267 1676 White Bear Ave W-face of SW faces CC#064462 12-6-02 � . � , �, '� , _�� L�`�- � ` ' � �-' a3 -/0�7 _ __-- ._ ._.__. .. .__ ________ __�._.._ __ __ _ � Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave W-face of SW faces j CC#064462 12-6-02 � F.. � � �j�� % / a3 -/�y7 � > Q . �� m U � � N L >�� 1` ��N � �U� �U � �� N � � N � � � u � ' � F „ � f �� '� �� - � �-��: �� i�� rr.�o� Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of SW faces CC#064463 12-6-02 �� ,�. _ � � � �� -� � -;��, �, - �_ � BILLBO aRD / SIGN PERi�IIT #:20 02 237038 Issued Date: November 21, 2002 \TR4CTOR: CLE4R CHa.V\EL OLTDOOR 32?5 SPRI\G ST \E bIPLS bL�i 55413-2908 PERi`IIT ADDRESS: 1278 GRA.�� AvE SUB TYPE: Biilboards Permit is for the Estimated Value of �Vork Estimated Completion Date Billboard Sq Ft boaTd Len�th — Credits ST PALTL hN 5510�-2604 O«'\ER: CITY OF SAINT PAUL � OKCe of License, �nsp¢:;,� j & Environmental Pro;ectcn '�� 350 St Peter Street. Suit= 3:0 � SaintPaul,MN55102.!5;p � PHONE (651) 26o-9�SV I FAX: (651) 266-3•21 i GREGORY T ROI'TER 3653 COLF.�1 A�� S bII\�'EAPOLIS �L1 55409-1021 WORK TYPE: Commercial Repair/Alter of thz siQn face, and its h-im, and the metal strin�ers oe the structure 3241.71 Nov 16, 2002 300 ?5 0 Estimated Start Date Billboard Tvpe Billboard �Vidth Billboard Hei�ht Sion Credit; Uszd 1Vov I5, 2002 Roof 12 32 0 �FEES Perntit Fee 13?.4Z TOTAL 13 � .42 Hzight of sign face must noe be increaszd Onty structural work authorized is thz replacement of the mztal strin�ers. No other s[ruceu:_I «or� proposed. The inspector assigned to this Permit is Jon H. �Gho can be reached at 651-266-9022 between 7.30 Ai�1 and 9.00 A:tiI Monday throu�h Friday � ,� �, ��'`! � -- C1TY OF ST. PAUL OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 ST. PAU�, MINNESOTA 55702-1510 C,^.J,e ��:.a,,,� PROJECT �,27 ADDRESS / Z 7� C�vi{� Contractor q � �tc� l�ia.,'il� �i... ; z.-c. ....n.ucon i vnR2C /I� n (��(((�l L�f/�/�(i/ (Include Contact Person) � ,g c �'zwBillboard AlterEx�snng B�liboard � Bdlboard Demol¢wn ��c.:��hw:��nA,�C.L �SZf � Ave. Blvd. Ecc. Y S E W 9 BILLBOARD PERMIT APPLICATION Visit our Web Site at www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/liep O.J /` �- — �• Address (Peml� will bc maileC ro;he C c�ry Jz zs S ( S� F State.Zip-4 P� N . �nn¢<�oe�S /��(/ CSy Address c�ty S.e..ti2 as G6e�.z State, Zip+4 nated 5[art Date Estimaced Finish Dare ESTI.�(ATED VqLUE ��S�OZ 1� ��02 � ��Z`��.71 Billboard (.4dvertising Si�n) Inform. /U �!// AdGmss phone / � - , 6 — -� /.�O Phone u�a� r �a��, musc accom�anv this oermit aonlication. , Type of Billboard (Check appiicable bos.) Billboard Totai Square Footage ' Frze Star,ding ❑ �,�' ❑ R Billboard Dimensions 6L'idtfi Le_ n_�_th He_ i� (Abo�: Grade) 30 " S �-�� 1 � i Z' X zs ' Fill out thi; secnon fer Electrical Billboard. ��'�� ro �' ( �R Of PiOjeC[ Distance to Ntares[ B:?:o�ard \ote: A separate Eleemcai Permtt is REQ[;IRED when [he Bi(lboard is electricaL' /VP- ��M c.ntip- _ ([^ CeL o(�, �;, ElectricalContrector: Phonee: E�.y{.-• 5` - / Approrafs $truc[ural Rerie�� Zonfng Damc[ ' � �r �� 'r,. �� r � '' T�:� . �.. a � �. Plan Revtew SU�I�IARY OF F Billboard Permit Fee 5 Plan Check Fee � 5 Total Permit Fee � � �" X�//i}S Y Appiicant certifie; th�t aI1 mFoma[;on r corect ordinances �ci;1 be comp(ied wich�rfgF�! AppiicanPs I Please complete [he folloajng mformation for crrd:<<3rd paymeni. Date FAX IT? «'ou!d you like your pz- faxed to vs4'� 1t yes, en[er fas � �iz�6aS=S/fo "' ' ' ' ' - / �facter ('�M dai��sn•uw•�ned;s•i�•,wnnrn �e a�ig qaM �no lisin /'.' \ � k ,' � ;� �� Dx:e �J For 0[Fc: Ls: Only Required Approved .a�i pzrment sta:e regulanoas and cin ork for w�hich [his permit is issued. � �� fi�c? � �!. 8006 li�� `a��30 $vtuoZ �aeluo� oZ D � r l�� , , - '�":= :•��'�- � g � ' f} 'i u 3 K � ti. � h n� %"h �� .i — �r- � %/�'i %� � ?� „S /� � � ~ ;�� t `� J L . { .. � . :. c,_ . � � c- J'v' • Ut�' _ � �l� � lM1 l../ � l.^ � ia � e ��.� __. '.� '.` .� : �i ;� �,? �� ; � _-- � %-'..� e-=? � ^a''� �- � 5 L��1"� -'--- � s � — y t, "__ � i-..� � ,�. � _ � L�� j '— �C � .�.' - fi `� -- ._ _ �—_ _ J L� — � > � � c"� ------ �_ �_, �, � G � --- _ ° 1 i 3 .~. � —__ � � �-�':P"..P�{S'�C- .� � l V � v � _ "' _"' _"_ � � __.__ --_�"_ ' ' _—' �' s �l � �'"`� ,-��-`�� % � ---- -- ---- - --, -- - - � � � ., -- - - -- - --- - T. ,�� -�___""'_'___"__ " �, c "—___ _" _ _ ' '_�-" ;; � iv - . � ,, = ��- � 1 e�_�i� PROC� � F� - � faces''¢, 5's:�� /ract. � Tct1 site orocl:rement - - - S3� ;� ,�j Z� �-�,SI STRTT�'Tj'hF 1 L?ATFicT T C. —� -?urchs�e ofbzs;c sCUCtu:e, inclttding uprighU" and fascia: - Est:r,�ated c�s: - - - _ _ ---------------- S?;?'•'�:. -Deliv ey e- --------- ..:� v. e c�ar� -- -------'--- ba.S?�•:�� -$alest3X� V_(°o�a------- """"""' ^J !'"`9,rtY� SZ'BTOTAI-------------- ---------------------- �7�l.��„�y� �l ?�r-SHOP F a �R Tr e - Labor to renove basic ma;erials �ZOm hvck; ia-shop fabrcavon ard assemblY; in-sho� pa i n;� • Z �an cmw @ �' hocrs �, S 2�-/hr. --------------^ ----------- ��'�?��.� �1�.T ��9I..--------------- a ^ � � �LYf 6�.6"� � y 41HATiT/pARR*C'.A�FOOT�;,C �.,�5�-r�rr�u--i-nin� Prcc,aLte mc.udes ,. �� 1 � � DI HO F: (a) crew & e.�tupmeat netessary• to hau157ucnue & material to site a�d -(b) empjoy aa auge. to dig hoIe aad haul dirc: Ca) _ r.ian crew v hou,-5 C �—./hr- to dig hole aad haul c+i*L---------- "_'_""'"�—_,— ('o) use of auger fer _ hot;rs � ��1f. -"_'_'_"v"_ ""- � - La`wr to f�ricate fcotiags at si:e zad po;:r concre�,e footngs at site. - _ maa r.ew V hours � 5 /kLr . ----- ------- g - _ yazds car,cre:e ` ^2, �_� - - - - - - - , - - S - Ecuipz�eni re�uired: (a) one �:ck C _ how-s ��—��-. ------------- ----- S ('b) one �-.:c4c @ _ h C �.�ar. S �LBT T T �'��' � �E'..''.�� - ,,��r �, . 9 s� �.� � =- �`_------------------ • -------------- �__ � Ps ' �' ,i i , �jL��\ i:% " �__ � o3-loy7 �'�R �s.�: � Z�C�iiO\ � �— � ., �� _'-::.�r��r �� nt- -?:��:.�e c� ��:c e.ec^:czi � �«�_,: : . . 'u ' ' - -• .:C:_..:=e' L�:: :.��_S J�'i�� S � - '='�C.S, C °2.�` °:'>� CACK'1. ��SC°!'o.. -_ u`„ ° .._ > bOX°>� �.0 C:i�S, 2_� � °OL'S a.�.^_S 5 . e5 COII�L':: �-v� CO�:.,..:0_�. Cl°-.�5 " ' _ " , S �� .' i � -s :�s;�:r� G,S' o , r . . �,� � .a �Li_�_:1�;5""_"" ��`6 - 7 O'w'�t 3i'l� 1%-I'102 : C�2�:7 u_1: H: S:�° = c? Z�. crew �. "� So :rs ea=.: (� �Cj _ ° .� �—_�.�. - - c /�� , c :� - !.^_..�•= e: Z :ca'. ?an�:s, ' coac�; �.�1 w � � - n � ----------' -----.��t�� •�_sz��bai�s`s: a= _� i � y J' � �'='Z C'�Q C I� ��C rl �+ � � (' �d %'l9C/IV� � iJ r�.�t.�i�°1. l �.. (a) o �� Lr'D�?t.� �-�� -� _�',�S-` 1:� -o`- S C�b��c ('o)one k+]tlr, r-_� n >_ ✓ � �. ho�s v�"�? ./�.,:.---------- 5�� (�) oZe �_=x (a` ho=�; �' �: .---------------- �_ � �F3TpT�r ----- -------------�----------------- S L��'S i l u � � �� % r�--�:RAISAi: # L�CATIOti —� ,• `� � �-, � r, ° � ;' �� i.1� =_. _� � � ' : /1 1 • - Purchase of basic elec�ica: �:ateriaI �Wc?c� , g I_g:-.: ix�sas, b21i�;s, la::.ps, boxes, tar.gcr,, brskers, c:ocks, ��scellaneoi:s items such as coedi:it and can.�ec.ors, cia�gs a:,Zc:ips, etc. @ $ -------- T -�� Y 1�( v ✓� -Sz!es��, � ��,�- - Load and ucload equip�eat at site = a 2 maa crew a,� � hours each � 3 `? �/h:. --- J'�� .,,.. S�_�J I.^stall elec� ca1 p�e:s, n:n �oed�_;[, pu!1 w�e, ias;zl fixtures and ball��u: ' 2 - m�n crcu• @ 1� hrs_ � �`-� �hr. -------- ----------- s 21L=,�. - Eaunment reqctized; (a) one L.�;>;:: d. �uck Qa. '/ � hou:s @ _Z� / � r ,------ ---------- 5 G:�✓�� ('D) one aT1�3°.� G-1c'� �v / % �ou:s @S �D 1hr.----------- y,iD.c (c) one truck @ hou:s C� ,_��------------- ----- �_ SL ______ --------------- __ ,i.�y ,�..- ---------'--- S%.�..�"./i-..;� � .� � p f G / c "' i { �--�� , i� a3 -10�7 A.pPR�ISAZ. r LOCATIQ�; R � 71 S'�i TR A T P d T�2T"'� �- ; ,r, /, v v- `z ,�.^-2`� - C^ew to paint uprights includiag struct.:rai ste�?, ladde:s, miage:s. �is, eic., alI iter,is exc �t fascia � r.�rn c:e:v @ � I�ous v 5 i y /hr.---------------- - EquipmeaT reauired: ------ ��12 (a) or_e paneI �,ick required for �" r.o� @ �—�. - - - - - - - I � � >-w�-.� i S �� i ; _ """"_' $✓Jr�G Per.nitcoss--------------- 5��3-�J Soilstests -�------------------------ 1� J/—� StBTO__T� ---------- ----------- -------------- 5 %�c'=�Si=%s� ��o DI-RivT/�i,iRD REPRODtiCTIO� COST (ITE;1-fS 2-7} ----- S 1�:%c/�. ;-; �OTA"�'Tnn • The a�ve costs ze ior iaber a d raw �a*r '>I t and do aot inclLde "?IIC�I°�.( COSiS�� L^.C�v�L^i'�T S'uCP. ii�^S 2i � s:aadzrd eve:hea3 a::cwa-.ce aad (Z) en�egrene:L:s.E`p � ror_t ---�s explau�ed i: Le r.z.;.at,ve of i2e re:,o,.. � Page 4 C � /, . �-. i s��,p� �_. _ _ , a3: a K"YJ..�, R ? DCATI�Y # � r; /% ? j; ;.-. , �; � � �'Lf�,fA Y OF RFpRO� i 7�11� ['ncTC. �Ii Sj'-= prcc•are�en, - - - ..� � --------- :�� CPage1) C<) L.-ptac� re�lasevzeat (d:"mc: cost) = S;`=;� i, —�=-� (Pages 1, 2, 3 & 4) Subtotai -----------•--- ------------- S/:�.,�'_ Overhead/conuacto�s allowaace @�-'� ° /o S 7�'�t,1�-; Eatr�p:eaeuial nroht �a; 1 S • .., °�------------ ---s -3:�vW I2EPLA C�'.l��fiCOSTh�E�%------- ------ --SAY, 5a�d� nFPRFf Tq'r'TO'�t FC'�� fL*Ye: c�nsidering; (1) acn�al �e of `'s.e in-place ontdoor adve:tising su and - (2; recagr��in� � s�� s�tera*�ce sche:ii:Ie apotied to outdoor adc�s�g ��e:ures and - (=) the coaditior. at;d at:r.iit_v oi cons� anZ _ (4) the Iocation znd e�onos.ic ?iie expe�ancy of tae outdoor adve?ising strsc:ure ---- �'�� h2ve aa:.ved a* Lhe coacit:sion tiat L`:e overail de�re: iazion es':.�ate or �-s �o ° =hoe.c:d 'oe apnlied or as foIlouS: TOT.�L. D EpRECL�TIQ�i ESTI:�iATE - - - ' � `7�_�,� * �30TE: DEPRECZ�TIO�i IS � J ?i, pF DZRECT COST (DEPR£CLAEiLE ASSETS) �ti , rSIOti4; TOTALREPL ACE�£E=VTCO5T?Pr�W------ " f 5��t.' �r�a��a LESS DEPR��L4TI0.>� AI.LO`tiA.*iCES ---- 1 GJ: t>j REPLACEY�e,T COST LESS I V�I.L� - Sav, � �s� /+L�;/ �� Paa° = o= = '�� ?_� -�� 1; �___ r b3-loy7 _� i��. � .�� ; ._- _� .: a i';a'_'.��; � 1 v� . T�'-':a; _- s , r � f � � -- � > �' 'i _ Y r �_ s,� �{� / �. !� , LJ� L/�r_, � 1' � . (, ., '"�_.� / . 6'� S ` ---L=�� ! 4L' j "�-i,y� � �T� . C�e"tl' l �"'�M� — _� Ii - —____"-'_ - � J;J J x. � Y �:-i v'r G .2 �O _ /L � � � � �; )� ,� P � --. ___—._—. ' J ` v - - _ . ��: 1 � S � e. 3 i � � ,, — ------ ��-'��-= � c u , �v ? S / ` �.�-:. �,�_,� ,,.� �` , � . „ -- � 'lu�-�^ :� lr b a" i ( f � i . : ,°a r4¢`; � t. - , �� ✓� ✓ .� V ! �J 3��J �t�v 2�J L Z � � � / � b � i v ZSz a `Y � f �✓�� s�-`�.✓ ? S ,? : d`Oe1 >.y1' =`f:c t � as '.'1, � 1 � < � : '"`� � � � cJ — ----- - - ` '� L , � ,� _ � ------- -- , . � ,- -------- ------- - - ., +„— . �- — - � v.3 P �ry��_�.�/ �� { �'; . Z� j. cx w l�.f 4^ r _______ _ �. 1 � f• �< ._ " ��3.. r - 3 �-� ,. � _ -- J . _ , -- - ,—�,! ,� � ; „ ( _ � I � , f a`.:... y , ;> ( C`""o��-.. � n !`.. 1...^-� rA.�_.= �.. OFnCE OF LICE�Sc, I\SPECTIO�iS AVD E\V;RO��IE\TA� pROTECTIO� Roger C Curs�s, Direc.or SA[NT PAUL � AAAA � CITY OF SaLtiT PAUT, Rar.cy C Ke11y .tlnya� au�ust 7, 2002 Chris McCarver V/P Rezl Estate MaaaQer Clear Channel Communications 322� Sprin� Street ti' E. blinneapolis, �(�i 55-1i; L O « 'RYPROFESSIO.Vd[BClLD(.VG Te[ephoue: 6�l-]66-90>r� 3505�?eterSrrzer.Su¢e300 Fa<siinile. 6i1-165-9;'_ Sc:n: °a�.l. Ll:n.r.esorc5510?li10 , {Veb. w�vw a.s.pcn..n:n ;m :,r� Rz: Copy oi Ad�zrti;ement Pzelmg A�vay F:om S10-n Face Dear �Ir. Evrard: Dunng a rouune m,necnon oi adcer*�;�no �t�ns m[he Cm oi Sai,-.. Paul I observed [hz copq of [he adtierttsement on [he sr�n iace o£billboard(s) you o��r. ,r. [he City were peeling a��ay from [he:, surface a[ [he fo]lo��ma Ioeaiion(s): OLR REFERE�CE FILE r 296 343 3�3 366 370 481 YOtiR SIG\ FaCE TM 0 077450 07776� 068670 068%70 Oi'3170 LOC:�TIO\ DESCRIPTIO\ �30 Robea Street �'oRh 1278 Grand Avenue 666 Gr2nd Avenue 379 Rice Street 1215 Rice Street 1�2I SelbyAvenue Secuon 66201 (3) of the leeislat�ve code s[a:es all sio:;� w_�h y�z �ns{�ntly sha[I be repaired o: removed within I� days ot notificauon. - The adveric_ement copy on tce biliboard(s) at the zooce nierer.ezc ?ocai�on(s) mus[ be repa�red withia t? days of fr,e datz oi this ie«zr. If you have aay que;tior.s or concems re�arding this marz, I may be contactzd at 266-908�. ` � Si: erelv, � ��z� Jefirey Fischbach Billboard Ir,spections �� _ z�: • s ICyou btl:ae my Sension in :h¢ mar.er w ha�e be<� made m erzor you may appea! the;ri:,t,-;p � �� -: _�,,..�.,,,, ..,.t-_ ,� ,. .. . d3-�oY7 � a� � � a� > Q � � �o I � � � o N cp r . . . t s ,' _ �-;: , . ,:� �_ � - ,: � � , ;�, �> J �� — `\f ,_ � � Ref#343 1278 Grand Avenue 8-15-02 r= } - �-. _"�°°. - `t'� % 1 � � t _ r ,. . � »� . - �, •�� , e -- n .'��'� �'�` � � C, 9 � �} F' .. ":t +L :.. � ��" � � i + �� . . ... . � �1 . � 5 "� � ° � �.� r.. �S 2 �' �' � �� I . 3 � i � - � �� v _9 .. �s ; � � . .. L�'.�.:.,�� Ref#343 1278 Grand Avenue 8-15-02 ►R � � (-- �- �.� ;- .— �� -� _- �3-/0�7 � Ref#343- 1278 Grand Avenue 9-17-02 1 �� ,.iR r - � _� f , , ="_� � ''�� . -�i �, c a3yoY� � CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO DIS RICTS . � RAY - BATTLECREEK�HIGNWOOD 2. ATER EAST SIDE EST SIDE 4.DAYTON'S BLUFF 5.PAYNE-PHALEN 6.NORTN END 7.THOMAS-DALE B.SUMMIT-UNIVERSITY 9.WEST SEVENTH lO.COMO 11.NAMLINE-MIDWAY 12.ST. ANTHONY 13.MERRIAM PK.-LEXINGTON HAMLINE �'.l�{20VELAN D-MACALESTER �1'r"H I6HLAND 16.SUMMIT HILL 17.DOWNTOWN � �� ''� Z-1�� CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS � � �ATER EAST SIDE DISTRI�T 2�N x0 1 °O 0 � s000 �� SCLLE �H FEEf �� oZ-Z��-93� � 5 �� . 037oy�7 : � �`� � ��._ _— . . _. '?L.ICArtT �I C•�• 2; �`�` � 1 _.— LEGCND '�°OSE � ` �� --- zoning dislricl tvundary �-zy7 t�-3 . E f.:. ��7 DATE V�V L �Illl� suSje�i prop>„ �� o;,t�� 'dG. O;ST�_ p,�qo � 0 on� fzmilY . . n � comm=:_iz: � :__9� ¢ h.�o family q .a.> in�ustris� B . _ �l¢4 mulGpie(arnily V vacen; , - -- - � . . . . /� 1"J .✓ - '... � � . __ . �_J �`--' � ... . . °----- _ , . ��x�� _ i � .�. ..... ..,.., i �� , � ...._:::� �� !�1/1�11�If`� ' GROVELAND-MkCALESTER � ,; �� DISTRICT 14 C .�-- „ «---�°"- � � � � � � � �� — � � � � �iz-��{7-435 i ��-- �5 � �`�i � cr'�� D3 �� i � Q � ��"`� �� -�..�� a ' " , � :=-=: y��;, �. : � � �. � � �' :� �� f� � �� _ _ �� x �_= �: � � = ,, � - � �--- _ _ _ _"-� �" __ . � � �� . � �� : e ��i"�' . � �,� � .. � � _ � �.. � = .,� � j , _ � - _ �� . � -- _.____ _ .----- - ' F �� LEG�ND PURPpSE �°°�� zoning dislrid tuundary =1�E ;t�� DATE �� `� C�llL�l� subj=�t prope;�y n-� a;,t�� °LNG. D;ST P,iA° ;� P � o one fzmiiy � a n comma:�tz' � � h•�:olamily 4 �.� induslri=.! n�x ^ a . - — .b.-�Q multiaia (amily V vaczn: , --- � . _. _ .... . _ ----- �. Council File # O� �/� Resolution # Green Sheet # �-/�� Presented By Referred To RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA i Committee: Date WHEREAS, the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester Groveland Community Council and Scenic Saint Paul, in Zoning File 02-247-939, appealed the decision of the zoning administrator to issue billboazd permits for advertising signs located at 1670-1680 White Bear Avenue, (on the southeast corner at Larpenteur Avenue) and legally described as set forth in the said zoning file; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's Zoning Committee conducted a public hearing on the appeal after having provided notice to effected properiy owners and where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard and submitted its recommendation to the Planning Commission, and 10 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, by its Resolution No. 03-08, dated January 24, 2003, decided to deny 11 the appeal based upon the following findings and conclusions: 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 On October 28, 2002, Clear Channel Outdoor applied for sign permits for both 1670- 1680 White Bear 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. 2. On November 21, 2002, Jeff Fischbach of the LIEP staff issued a permit for each of the two applications. The White Beaz Avenue permit was subject to the following conditions, which are written on the permit: "Height ofsign 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 materials allowed. The only structural work authorized is the replacement of the wooden stringers. No other structural work permitted. No electrical work proposed or authorized. Any electrical work would require the billboard owner to obtain a separate electrical 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. On December 20, 2002, the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester Groveland 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 limited to section 66302 and the prohibitions against replacement of structural elements in the Crreater East Side Special Sign District [section Page 1 of 4 D 3 -l0'-17 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 84 85 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 pernuts; c) repairs were made beyond what was authorized by the permits; and (d) the billboards are illegal land uses. The Planuiug Commission's responses to these claims aze given in findings 4 through 8 below. 4. The appellants claim that the pemuts are 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 permitted 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 66302 of the code refers primarily to the previous "Move to Conforxnance" program with sign credits for the relocation of billboards, a program which was eliminated in 2000 when the most recent billboud 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 renovarion of an advertising sign. The city staff argued that sign face replacement is different from advertising sign replacement because: (a) billboard companies haue for decades done sign face replacements every ten years or so as a routine maintenance activity; and (b) the cost of the sign face panels and the surrounding fiberglass trim kits are cheap (approxunately $800) in comparison 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 secfion, 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 stafP s position is that sign face replacement is permitted as a routine maintenance activity, but it is not permitted in the case of a badly damaged sign face. While this may appeaz 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 case of fire or 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 claim that the billboard repair permits violate the Crreater 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 structural elements of billboards. In their testimony Clear Channel asserted the rights they hold to repair and maintain their signs under MN statutes 462.357 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. Page 2 of 4 63- �o�f� 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 6. The appellants claim that some repairs were made to the billboards before the repair permits were issued. In the Crrand Ave. case, the appellants say that the old face panel was curled upwazd from the bottom and was tacked back down to a wood siringer that was added to the structure last sui7uner. Although such temporary repairs were made by Clear Channel, the unauthorized repair was entirely removed as part of the sign face replacement done under the LIEP pernut that is the subject of this appeal. There is no claun that work was done at the White Bear Ave. signs before the building pernut was issued. The appellants claim that Clear Channel made repairs tUat went faz beyond what the pernvts allowed. Far 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 aze 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 ar 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 Clear 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. billboard. On the White Bear Ave. signs the new horizontal angle irons appear functionally to replace the wood stringers, although wood replacement stringers were also installed. LIEP staff testified that they have not yet determined whether the new face panel system is consistent with the nxles for repair and maintenance of nonconforming 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 haue not found a building permit. Clear Channel testified that they have building permits far 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, a11 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 hauing been built before 1956. Old building permits at LIEP are stored in chronological order, not by address, or by applicant, or by type of construction. Therefore, the City staff have difficulty retrieving old building permits. 132 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Leg. Code § 64.300(k), the District 2 Community Council duly 133 filed an appeal from the determination made by the Planning Commission regarding the billboard at 1670- Page 3 of 4 03 - 1�f� 134 1680 White Bear Ave. (Zoning File #03-255-970) and requested a hearing before the City Council for the 135 purpose of considering the actions taken by the Commission; and 136 137 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Leg. Code §§ 64.206-.208, a public hearing was scheduled for March 5, 2003; 138 and 139 140 WIIEREAS, the Mazch 5, 2003, public hearing was laid over to March 26, 2003; and 141 142 WHEREAS, on March 26, 2003, the duly scheduled public hearing was again laid over to Apri123, 2003; and 143 144 WHEREAS, on Apri123, 2003, a public hearing in the above-entitled matter was duly conducted where all 145 interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and 146 147 148 149 150 151 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 Council of the City of Saint Paul does hereby RESOLVE, to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission in this matter based upon the following: 152 153 The Planning Commission misinterpreted the restrictions in the District 2 sign plan regazding repairs to 154 advertising signs and the extent of the repairs were not permitted under the District 2 sign plan; and be it 155 156 FURTHER RESOLVED that the appeal of the District 2 Community Council be and is hereby granted; and 157 be it 158 159 FINALLY RESOLVED that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the District 2 Community Council, Clear Channel Outdoor Inc., the zoning administrator and the Planning Commission. Adoption Certified By: Approved by May BY: Council Secretary Requested by Department of: Plannin & Economic D e m� t By: Approved by Financial Services By: Form Approved by City Attorney By: � � .,�!.: '�f• . Adopted by Council: Date /V/Jv ,� �1d//-3 , p�- eaf� - � Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet Green Sheet � �:,,._ Departme�/office/councii: Date Initiated: pE — P 1 ��g��aomicDeveiopment 06NOV-03 Green Sheet NO: 3007557 CoMact Person 8 Phone• Deoartrnerrt Sent To Person Initia D te Larry Sodefholm � 0 Iannio & Economic Develo L. Soderholm (�,, ,,/ 266$575 p�j 1 lannin & Economic Develo De artmeutDirector F L�' Must Be on Council Agenda by (Date): Number Z ttorne Warner ASAP (Council voted 4/23/03 For Routing 3 a or's �ce Ma or/ASSistaut Order i 4 ouncil D. Bostrom 5 C7erk Ci Clerk Total # of Signature Pages 1 (Clip All Locations for Signature) Action Requested: Adoption of resolution memorializing the CouncIl's decision on a billboazd appeal at 1670-1680 White Beaz Ave. (SE comer at Lazpenter). 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 grant the appeal of the Dishict 2 Community Council, thus reversing the Planning CoCnmission'S deCision that approved Clear Channel's repair permit application to replace the sign fac�and stringers Recommendations: Approve (A) or Reject (R): Personal Service Contrects Must Answer the Following Questions: �_ Planning Commission �� 1. Has this personlfirm ever worked under a contrect for this department? CIB Committee � Yes No Civil Service Commission 2. Has this person/firm ever been a city employee? Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skill not normally possessed by any current 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): Cieaz Channel applied to replace the sign faces and stringers on four rooftop billboards at 1670-1680 White Beaz Ave. LIEP issued the repair permit, consistent with their understanding of state law. The District 2 Community Council and other appealed. The Planning Commission upheld LIEP's issuance ofthe permit. District 2 then appealed to the City Council. The Council voted 5-2 (Blakey, Reiter) to c-- n t the neighborhood's appeal and rescind the billboazd repair permit. Now the resoluUon'-is reaay for tne Council to memorialize.its decision. Advanta9eslfApproved: The decision the Council made is reduced to writing. �� DisadvantapeslfApproved: rr.a. NOV 10 2003 ��! ��`�� Disadvantailes If Not Approved: N.A. Total Amount of CosURevenue Budgeted: G°�� Transaction: ��t�Lf Funding Source: ActiviW Number: Financial Information: �y�� (Explain) DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMEI��T' Martha G. Fuller, Director CTTY OF SAIN'T PAUL RandyC.iCelZy, Mayor 25 Wesl Fourth Street Sa(ni Pau1, MU 55102 D3 - laf�7 Te[ep'none. Facs�mde: 6/ 2-228-33/9 February 19 2003 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Samt Paul, Mmnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Ande*son: 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 the Hillcrest Shopping Center at 1680 White Bear Avenue Applacant District 2 Communiry Council File Number. #t 03-255-970 Pumose. 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 four rooftop billboards. Address: 1680 Wlute Bear Avenue (SE comer of Larpenteur) LeQal Descrintion of Propert� Hillcrest Center sub� to Ave; W'/z of Vac Gary Place accruing & N 85 ft of lot 1 block 4(LIEP billboard ief # 267; PIN - 23-29-22-22-0121) Previous Action: Zonin� Committee Recommendation: Deny appeal by the District 2 Community Council and the 1Vlacalester-Groveland Community Council (co-appellants) and uphold billboard repair permit that LIEP had issued; vote: 3-2; January 16, 2003. (As part ofthe same zoning case, the committee also recommended denying the co-appellants' appeal regarding repair of another billboard, located at 1278 Grand Ave. in the Macalester-Groveland neighborhood ) PlanninQ Commission Decision: Deny appeal by the District 2 Community Council and the Macalester-Groveland Community Council (co-appellants) and uphold billboar.d 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 another billboard, located at 1278 Grand Ave. in the Macalester-Crroveland neighborhood. The commission's Grand Avenue decision is being appealed separately to the City Council ) �3�/b�f7 Ms Nancy Anderson Zoning File: #03 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, Lazry S rholm Planning Administrator cc: File #03-255-970 Carol Martineau Paul Dubruiel Wendy Lane JeffFischbach Allan Torstenson Peter Warner , NO'F'ICE OF PUSLIC HEARINC� . The Saint Paut City Council will con- --duct a public hearing on Wedneaday, March 5, 2003, 5:30 �p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Third Floor, City Hall-Courthouse, P5 "West Kellogg Boulevazd, Saint Paul, MN, to consider � the appeal of District 2 Community Council to a decision of the Saint Paul Planning�Qommission upholding a biA- board repair pesmit issued by the Office of License, �Inspections and Environmen- tal Protection and denying the request of �two district councils to revoke Ehe repa'tr " permit for replacement of sign -face � panels and stringers on four rooftop bill- boards at 1650 White Bear Avenue (SE corner oP Larpenteur Avenue). Dated: February 21, 2003 � NANCY ANDERSOl�, _ - Assistant City Council Secretary - - .. (Febnrary 241 . _--__= S7: PAUL LEGAL LEDGER —___ 22060789 � - _ - L\Amanda�Zon�ng\CCdocs\03-255-9'70 anderson memo confurtung p�ployer 03-/a�7 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNI�IG & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Maz[ha Fuller, Dfrector CTI'Y OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Ke1[y, Mayor February 26, 2003 Ms Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, MN 55102 RE. Zoning File # 03-255-970: 25 WesiFour[h Sbeet Samt Pass1, MN 55102 DISTRICT 2 CONLNiLJNITY COLJNCIL TeZephone: 6� I -2666655 Facsrmile 651-228-33/4 City Council Hearing. � . March 5, 2003 at 530 p.m., City Council Chambers PURPOSE: Appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to let stand a billboard repair permit issued by LIEP for replacement of the sign face panels and stringers on four billboards at 1670 White Bear'Avenue. The District 2 Community Council claims that the Planning Commission erred in deciding that replacement of entire billboard faces is a form of maintenance that is protected by state law even though it is contrary to the Greater East Side sign regulations. LOCATION: 1670 White Bear Avenue. Rooftop billboards on Hillcrest Shopping Center. Southeast corner of White Bear and Larpenteur. LIEP' S ACTION: Issued billboard repair pernut for replacement of four sign faces and the wood stringers behind them on 11/21/02. PLANNING CONIMISSION ACTION: On 1/24/03, denied appeal filed jointly by the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester-Groveland Community Council (which objected to a similar billboard repair at 1278 Grand Ave ), and Scenic Saint Paul. Vote 7-5. ZONING COMNIITTEE RECOMIVIENDATION: On 1/16/03, recommended denial ofthe appeal by the community organizations on a 3-2 vote. PED STAFF RECOMIvIENDATION Denv appeal and uphold LIEP on issuance of sign face replacement pernut; grant appeal and reverse LIEP on replacement of stringers; r�ant appeal regarding structural upgrades to sign faces and require sign face replacements to be done without upgrades in design or materials. SUPPORT FOR APPEAL BY THE NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS. Four persons spoke representing the appellants. 03 - �o�� • Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Secretary February 26, 2003 Page 2 OPPOSTTION TO APPEAL BY TI� NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Two persons spoke representing of Clear Channel Outdoor. Dear Ms_ Anderson: The District 2 Community Council has appealed a decision by the Planning Commission to uphold a billboard repair pernut issued by LIEP for the replacement of four sign faces and the stringers behind them at the Hillcrest Shopping Center LIEP's permit was appealed to the Planning Commission by District 2, Macalester-Crroveland, and Scenic Saint Paul. Among billboard cases you have heazd, this one is most similaz to the Merriam Park 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. • Macalester-Groveland was involved because the appeal to the Planning Commission also covered a sign face replacement pezmit issued on the same day for 1278 Grand Avenue. At the Zoning Committee, Cleaz 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 at issue were identical. Therefore, District 2 and Macalester-Groveland 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 permit 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 Council's University Avenue decision mentioned above, a decision that would relate to the replacement of sign faces. The Zoning Committee held a public hearing on 1/16/03 and received testimony from four representatives of the three co-appellant organizations and from two representatives of Clear Channel. The committee voted 3-Z in favor ofupholding LIEP's issuance the permit. They did not reach a conclusion about whether the new construction system for sign faces was a violation; instead they simply advised LIEP to make that deternunation and, if there was a violation, to enforce conditions listed on the pernut strictly. The Planning Commission's resolution ratified the committee recommendation on a vote of 7-5. • Ms. Nancy Anderson 03 �oy7 • City Council Secretary February 26, 2003 Page 3 The District 2 Community Council claims in its appeal that the Planning Commission ened by deciding that the replacement of entire sign faces is routine maintenance that is pemutted by the state law's protection for legal nonconfomung uses. They argue that upgrading nonconfornung signs is inconsistent with the White Beaz Avenue sign district ordinances. Clear Channel Outdoor contends that, under state law for nonconfornung uses, the City must pernut 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 District 2 appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on March 5, 2003. The companion appeal by the Macalester-Groveland Community Council is scheduled on the same agenda. Please call me (266-6575) ifyou have questions Sincerely, • �`°---� Larry Soderholm Planning Administrator Attachments cc: City Council members Dennis Flaherty, Deputy Mayor Chris McCarver, Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Marvin Liszt, Atty.for Clear Channel Chuck Repke, District 2 Community Council Laura Gutmann, Macalester-Groveland Community Council Jeannie Weigum, Scenic Saint Paul Brian Bates, Scenic Saint Paul and Scenic MN Martha Fuller, PED A1 Torstenson, PED Peter Warner, Asst City Attorney Wendy Lane, LIEP JeffFischbach, LIEP • 03-10�7 � Attachments Page L Appeal by District 2 Community Council � II. Planning Commission resolution # 03-08 Z��j III. Pla.suiiiig Commission minutes for 1/24/03 �p� � IV Minutes of Zoning Committee public hearing on 1/16/03 '� ��°� V. Written testimony submitted at Zoning Cte. public hearing '� �� VI. PED stafFreport written 1/9/03 for Zoning Cte. with photos and mapsyg.i �� • • L��Amanda�Zoning\CCdocs\03-255-970Feb26-CC Nancy Mderson rtiRehG�9adEE0 Employer 7 APPLICATION FOR QPPEAL '�j� Depanment of P[anning and Ecenomic Development `��f Zoning Seciion II00 Ciry Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MN SSIO2 166-6589 APPELLANF City Zip �� Daytime phone ZzLC� PROPERTY Zoning File Name/��1t/kaf �ao`fa��cCC(d�e�g LOCATION Address/Lccation ��07� (,J� �"� Q�A� TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeai to the: u Board of Zoning Appeals 1�City Council under the provisions of Chapter 64, Secfion c�, Paragraph e of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the i'��"^f°^�� w�,ess�a�v on .T/�N � `- f , 19 File number. �d 2 -Z�f �- ° l3� (date of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zonina Apoeals or the Planning Gemmissior.. �� {�l�N,�� ,��55,�,� �r� �ti ��-S 1��, cr� fz�p��t�� '��e� �1�.� F�s �s'�o� ��ti� ,ec�,�'� �R-StS.r�n t c✓ef.� �d fa2.we� aES. U� � (� ��"9 G,c, � Sr Fi4�6S l� Rb �' �,�s c S t �t�- 7`G-E 4' U 5 E GJ�� c �ELI/1 A�� :� ti, C9,� �J � n. �l-��.5�`H'L� � 3"ffT � !G'fw �A� �'�wd �2��f�1QS �'�jo �5 /tio7rc;C,�c.�"c..�5�-e,� ��'-E G�� v �/ ��s � �o.v@�,u,F��v+�-� U3�, l E�CEIVED Attach addifiortal sheef if necessary) AppficartYs a'1�� c-��339 �so°= A�Ti�M� � 03 /oy�7 city of saint paul • planning commission resolution file number o3 - 0 8 date .7anuarv z4. Zoo WHEREAS, three co-appellants--fhe District 2 Community Councii, the Macalester-Groveland Community Council, and Scenic Saint Paul--under File #02-247-939 have appealed two sign permifs issued by the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Profection (LIEP) to replace existing biliboard sign faces arid trim with new sign faces and trim and also to replace the horizontaf stringers. that support the sign faces, under the provisions of §66.408(a); 66.101; 66.2169.3(e)(1); 66.2169.5(e)(1); 66.301; and 66.302 of the Sainf Paul Legislative Code, on two differenf properties with the following addresses, legal descriptions, and billboard reference numbers: 1670 Whife Bear Ave, SE corner at Larpenteur Ave. (PIN 23-29-22-22-0121) Hilicrest Center subj. to Ave; W'/z of Vac Gary Place accruing & N 85 ft of lot 1 block 4(LIEP biliboard �ef. # 267) 1278 Grand Ave., SE corner at Syndicate St.(PIN 03-28-23-42-0048) Stinson's Blvd, Block 4, Lot 12 (LIEP biliboard ref. # 343) WHEREAS, the Planning and Economic Development (PED) staff accepted the appeal with two . separate locations because the two permits were issued for the same billboard repair work, the permits were issued the same day, the applicable code requirements were identical in the two neighborhood special sign districts, and the grounds for appeal were the same at both locations; the Planning Commission questioned the propriety of handling two locations as a single case but proceeded with it because the pub(ic hearing had been advertised as a single case and several previous zoning appeals have dealt with billboards at mulfiple locations; WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on January 16, 2Q03, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code; and 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: moved by Field seconded by in favor � ag ains� 5(iohn on ramer ponnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Sordon) � � Zoning File #02-247-939 7anuary 29, 2003 Page 2 On October 28, 2002, Clear Channel Outdoor applied for sign permits for both 1670 White Bear Ave. (all four sign faces) and 1278 Grand Ave. (a singie sign face) to replace the sign faces, trim, and stringers on the rooftop billboards. 2. On November 21, 2002, Jeff Fischbach of the LIEP staff issued a permit for each of the fwo applicaTions. The White Bear Ave. permit was subject fo the following conditions, which are written on the permit: `Height of sign faces must nof be increased. The sign sfrucfures have only wooden stringers. All repair maferials must be of the same type as fhe original materials, no addifion or substitution of maferials allowed. The only sfrucfural work authorized rs the replacement of fhe wooden stringers. No other strucfural work permitted. No elecfrical work proposed or authorized. Any electrical work would require the billboard owner fo obfain a separate electrical permit." The Grand Ave. permit was subject to the following conditions, which are written on the permit: "Height of sign face musf not be increased. Only sfructura! work aufhorized is fhe replacemenf of the meta! stringers. No other structural work proposed." \ J Clear Channel crews worked at both sites and replaced the sign faces, trim, and stringers. . � On December 20, 2002, the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester-Groveland Community Council, and Scenic Saint Paul appealed the issuance oP the sign permits by LIEP on the grounds that: (a) The permits were contrary to provisions of the zoning code, inc�uding but not limited to section 66.302 and fhe 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 SigFl District [section 66.2169.3(e)(1)(e)]; (b) repairs were made prior to the issuance of the permits; (c) repairs were made beyond what was authorized by the permits; and (d) the billboards are illega! land uses. The Planning Commission's responses to these claims are given in findings 4 through 8 below. . 4. The appellants claim that the permits are contrary to section 66.302 of the zoning code, which stafes that aiivertising signs to be replaced, relocated or renovated must be on zoning lots where advertising signs are a permifted use. City staff have foliowed a policy that replacement of old, but undamaged sign faces is a maintenance activify 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 Conformar�ce" program with sign credits for the relocation of billboards, a program which was eliminated in 2000 when the most recenf bifiboard amendments were adopted. Although the "Move to Conformance" program is dead, thera is a plauslble 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 � a3-�o�7 Zoning File #02-247-939 • January 29, 2003 Page 3 advertising sign rep/acement because: (a) billboard companies have for decades done sign face replacements every ten years or so 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 comparison with the sign structure (bed pan secured to building rooftop, angle iron A-frames with bracing, electrical service, catwalk, stringers). The city staff do treat sign face replacement as renovafion, which is prohibited under this section, when a sign face has been damaged beyonii fifty percent of its replacement cost. This treatment is in accordance with the Ramsey County disfrict court decision about storm-damaged signs on Grand Avenue. The city staff's position is that sign face replacement is permitfed 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 destructio� "by fire or other peril". In the case of fire or 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 expiicitly permits the maintenance of nonconforming uses. � 5. The appeilants claim that the bi{lboard repair permits vioiate 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 structural elements of billboards. In their testimony Ciear Channel asserted the rights they hold to repair and maintain their signs under MN statutes 462.357 on nonconformities. In issuing the permits, LIEP, after due consideration, determined that the work requested in the compariy's applications was within the parameters set by state law and local ordinances. The appellants claim that some repairs were made to the billbaards before the repair permits 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 summer. Although such temporary repairs were made by Clear 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. 7. The appellants claim that Clear Channel made repairs that went 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 sysfem in the following ways: a) The interlocking sign face panels are horizontal instead of verticai as they have • been in the past; b) The new face panels are clipped to each other and are. secured by top-to-bottom �� Zoning File #02-247-939 January 29, 2003 Page 4 vertical sprits made of galvanized steel. Before; there were no vertical sprits. The previous sign face panels were attached direct(y to fhe 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, accord'ing to Clear Channel, components of the new face replacement kits. d) The new horizontal angle iron elements replaced the old angie iron stringers on the Grand Ave. billb9ard. On the White Bear Ave. signs the new horizontai angle irons appear functionally to replace the wood sYringers, aithough wocd replacement stringers were also instailed. LIEP staff testified that they have not yet determined whether fhe new face panel system is consistent with the rules for repair and mainfenance of nonconforming signs. 8. The appeal claims that the biilboards are illegal. The White Bear Ave. biliboards were erected tegai(y under two buifding permits, the mosf recent of wfiich was issued on 2/24/75. City staff presumes that the Grand Ave. billboard is also legal, although staff haue not found a building permit. Clear Channel testified that they have buifding permits for the Grand Ave. biilboard. The appellants in this case submitted no evidence that the signs at either location are illegal. Since the adoption of the new biHboard regulations in 2000, ati biflboards 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, Oid buifding permits at LIEP are stored in chronological order, not by address, or by applicant, or by type of construction. Therefore, the City staff have difficufty retrieving old buiiding permits. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESO�VED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on findings 1 through 5 and 8, under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, that the appeai by the District 2 Commuhity Councif, the Macalester-Groveland Community Councii, and Scenic Saint Paul of two sign permifs issued by the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) to replace existing billboard sign faces and trim with new sign faces and trim and also to replace horizontal stringers at two properties at 1670 White Bear Ave. and 1278 Grand Ave., which are Iegally described above, is hereby denied because: (a) the biAboards are Cegal nonconforming uses; and (b) routine replacement of sign faces is consistent with state law for nonconforming uses and with LIEP's long-standing policy; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, thaf the Planning Commission, based on finciing 7, takes no position on the question of whether work was done that exeeded what the permits authorized and sees fhaY as an enforcemenf issue rather than a cause for revocation of the permit; fhe Planning Commission, as an advisory body, recommends that LIEP enforce the conditions of billboard repair permits strictly if LIEP finds any work that is nof in compliance. � � • \VJ ` ` '� 11 a3�o5�7 • Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Minutes of January 24, 2003 � • A meeting of the Pl annina Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, January 24, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, and Morton; and Present: Messrs. Alexander, Alton, Anfaug, Dandrea, Field, Fotsch, Gordon, Johnson, and Kramer. Commissioners Absent: Mmes. *Zimmer Lonetti, *McCall, * Shortridge, and *Trevino; and Messrs. *Gervais, *Kong, *Mardell, *Mejia, and Rosales. *Excused Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Allan Torstenson, Rich Malloy, Patricia James, Yang Zhang, Marcus Martin (PED Intern), and Carol Martineau, Department of Pla.nniug and Economic Development staff; and Wendy Lane and Jeff Fishbach of LIEP. I. II. III Approval of Minutes of January 10, 2003 M01TON: Commissioner Fotsch moved approval of the minutes of January Z0, 2003. Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Chair's Announcements Chair Morton reminded ffie commissioners of the Fifrh Friday Retreat on Friday, January 31, 2003. The guest speaker will be Mary Lethert Wingerd, author of Claiming the Ciry. The book is a history of Saint Paul from its earliest days through the 1930s. Chair Morton thanked Commissioner Alton for his witry letter in xesponse to Mr. Darling's opinion piece in the Star Tribune. Planning Administrator's Announcements Mr. Larry Soderholm passed around a sign-up sheet for the Fifth Friday Retreat He reported that it is appointments time and the Mayor's o�ce is looking for candidates for the Planning Commission until February 14`�. The application is available on the City's web site. � 0 � Commissioner Field agreed that the motion was just to get an opinion from the ciry attorney as respect certain things and Commissioner Fotsch makes a reasonable request. Commissioner Alton stated that with regazd to the facts the Plaimuig Commission should have the minutes of the Zoning Committee meeting and copies of the eachibits wluch were entered into evidence at that committez meeting. 'I'hat is the extent of the additional information they should l�ave. Any other testimony or statement made by staff would be additional facts. We have to use the photographs and evidence that was used at the comnuttee meeting and norhing further. Motion carried on a unanimous vote �#02-247-939 District 2 Communi Councih Macalester Groveland Communi Council• Scenic St. Paul - Appeal of the issuance of billboard permits issued by the City's Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protecrion (LIEP) to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. for the repair of roo8op billboards in two different neighbonc�ods—one at 1670 Wt�te Bear Ave. aud the other at I278 Grand Ave. The appeai was fiied joindy by the Dishict 2 Community Council and the Macalester-Groveland Community Council. Their appeal claims that replacing billboazd faces is contrary to their neighborhood sign ordinances and, moreover, that Cleaz Cbannel made structural upgrades that were not allowed under the pemnts that LIEP issued. (Lcrrry Soderholm, 651/266- 6575) Commissioner Field stated Districts 2 and 14 aze co-appeliants in this case. Four persons spoke for the co-appellants. Two persons spoke for Clear Channel. Hearing was closed. The motion is to deny the appeal and refer the enforcement question to LIEP on a vote of 3-2 (Kramer, Faricy) Commissioner Kramer stated this billboazd case is sunilaz to a case of a few weeks ago on University Ave. in Merriam Park where a sign face was replaced and appazently upgraded. Cleaz Channel got pernuts for face replacements and stringer replacements for all four billboards at White Bear and Lazpenteur and for one on Grand Ave. The company came in and under the pemuts for face replacements they totally rebuilt not only the faces but also the pieces that hold the face onto the angle iron structures. They claimed at the Zoning Committee that standardized face replacement kits include not only what we call the face panels, but also the metai "sprits" that connect the new horizontal style of face panels together and the horizontal angle irons, which appeaz to be horizontai stringers. This is another case where the life of the non-conforming use is being grea$y etrtended by a total rebuild of most of the billboazd. If you accept the argument thzx the pieces thaz hold the face together aze part of the £ace and the pieces that hold the face to the upright structure aze also part of the face, then, carried to the logical extreme, you could make the argument that the building is part of the face, too. Commissioner Field stated that the mohon from the Zoning Committee provides that LIEP will deternune whether or not the work done by Cleaz Channel exceeded wi�at the pemuts allowed and that the Planning Commission expects LIEP to enforce the conditions of the pemnts. At the Zoning Committee meeting the LIEP staff was not able to answer the committee's questions about whether the work exceeded the permit. Commissioner Faricy supported Commissioner Krarner. She noted the only structural work authorized under the pemuts was replacement stringers, which were wood on the White Bear 10 • \ J • O 03 �0�7 billboards and angle iron on the Grand Ave. one. All repau materials, according to the permits, • were to have been of the same type and materials as the original; no addition or substitution of materials was allowed. Commissioner Alexander asked aboutthe structuralintegrity ofbillboards. With v-shaped billboazds, if you take away one of the signs or sign faces, does this make the structure weaker or unworkable? What happens if the City wants to dictate specifications to a sign company that certain parts cannot be used, but in the company's best judgment, the prohibited parts aze needed to maintain the structural integrity of the sign? Does the City staff have the expertise to make these types of judgement7 Ms. Lane stated that LIEP has a structural engineer on staff and that whenever LIEP has a pemut application that comes in where there aze questions about the physical integrity of any kind of a structure they l�ave the engineer review those plans and possibiy consult with the engmeer for the applicant. Once construction has been completed, then the building inspector is one who follows up to make sure that the construction was done properly. If there were questions at that point, the structural engineer would be brought out to the site to answer them. Commissioner Anfang stated that the argument about whether conditions on these pernuts were exceeded is really about how "sign face" is interpreted. If the sign company just tacked those sign panels together with angle irons, which were then bolted onto the stringers there would be no problem. Commissioner Field stated LIEP is responsible for enforcement issues, not the PIanning • Commission. Fundamentally the committee's motion denies the claim by the district councils that sign face replacement permits aze contrary to the Zoning Code. The committee then went on to advise LIEP go up there on these rooftops and detemune if, in fact, the work that was done violates the conditrons of the permit. Commission Kramer stated that the appeal basically challenged LIEP's decision that complete sigi face replacement is pernutted under the code and then went on to challenge that, even if LIEP is found to have been right in issuing the permits, the quality of the face replacements is an illegal upgrade to extend the life of these nonconforming uses. The appeal asks the commission to find that the replacement of those enrire face panels is a renovation of a billboard, not just a repair and not just maintenance. Renovation of nonconforming advertising signs is not permitted by the code. Then there is the issue of upgrading. The appeal says that the "Cadillad' face sign kits were not what LIEP meant to approve or had the power to approve. Comxnissioner Alton stated that the LIEP staff detemuned that it was appropriate to grant the sign face replacement permits. The PED staff recommended denial of the appeal because sign face replacement is a form of routine maintenance. It is appropriate for the Plaznung Commission to deny the appeal. It's not appropriate to grant an appeal on the grounds that the work that was done exceeded the pemut because that can be corrected through enforcement. Chair Morton closed the debate and asked for the vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: The motion to deny the appeaL passed on a vote of 7-5 (Johnson, • 11 � J Kramer, Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon). V VI. VII. Comprehensive Planning Committee Commissioner Gordon reported the next Comprehensive Planning Committee meeting will be Tuesday, January 28, 4:00-5:30 p.m. where they will discuss the Downtown Plan and tax exempt properties. Neighborhood and Current Planning Committee Bridgecreek Senior Housing Redevelopment Plan - adopt resolution. (Patr James, 651/266-6639) MOTION: Commissioner Faricy moved approval of the $ridgecreek Senior Housing Redevelopment PZ¢n. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Communications Committee Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen reported the next meeting of the Communications Committee will be Friday, January 31, 20�3, where they will discuss the annual report and recommendations for cable tv projects for next year. VIII. Task Force Reports Commissioner Anfang reported the Universiry Avenue Transit Oriented Study (TOD) second draft was released last week. Mr. Soderholm reported that the District 16 Summit Hill Association is updating their district plan. He stated that tomorrow morning there will be a visioning workshop that will take place at the Saint Paul College Club. IX. Old Business None. X. New Business Chair Morton appointed the nominating committee: Commissioners Faricy, Kramer, and Field. The committee will contact all the commissioners to make sure that everyone has an opportuniry to indicate their level of interest in serving. The election will take place at the Annual Meeting on Febmary 14, 2003. Ballots will be sent out with the regulaz packet for the meeting, but the by-laws allow for additional nozninations to be made at tha meeting. MOTION: Chair Monon moved on behalf of the Steering Committee to set the annual meeling for February I4, 2003. The motion carried unanimously. 12 • � u � , , , , �, �� MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 3:30 p.m. • City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor City Haii and Court House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: r �� J Anfang, Alton, Faricy, Field, and Kramer Gordon, Mejia, and Morton EXCUSED: Carol Martineau, Larry Soderholm, and Peter Warner STAFF: 03 /oy7 District 2 Community Council, Macalester Groveland Community Councii, Scenic Minnesota, Z.F. # 02-247-939. Appeal of billboard permits issued by the City's Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection (LIEP) to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. for the repair of rooftop billboards in two different neighborhoods—one at 1670 White Bear Ave. and the other at 1278 Grand Ave. The appeal was filed jointly by the District 2 Community Council and the Macalester-Groveland Community Council. Their appeal claims that replacing billboard faces is contrary to their neighborhood sign ordinances and, moreover, that Clear Channel made structural upgrades that were not allowed under the permits that LIEP issued. 1278 Grand Ave., SE comer at Syndicate; 1670 White Bear Ave., SE corner at Larpenteur. The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. Larry Soderholm presented the staff repoR on the district councits' appeal with a recommendation of denial in part; approval in part. Chair Field wanted to know why the staff accepted this case as a single appeal, since the two billboards are on opposite sides of town. Mr. Soderholm explained that the permits were issued on the same day for sign face and stringer replacements, and the code language under which the permits were challenged was identical in the two special sign districts. Some previous billboard cases have involved multiple sites, and combining the sites meant less work for the staff. There was discussion. The committee decided to proceed with one heari�g since that was how the hearing had been advertised, but the committee reserved its prerogative to make separate decisions depending on the facts surrounding each location. Mr. Soderholm said that, based on the committee's preference, the staff would not in the future accept applications for multiple sites where LIEP had taken separate actions on the sites. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm explained that this case raises some of the same issues as the Merriam Park appeal last month at 1926 University Ave. about the replacement of stringers and work exceeding the permit. Commissioner Kramer questioned the legality of granting an appeal of something that was not permitted by the permit, i.e., upgrading the billboard face structurally with the new method of construction. Mr. Soderholm explained that the staff recommendation responds to each of the stated bases for the appea{. The permits did not permit replacement of wood stringers with angle iron stringers. ft is not clear whether the permit allowed the new structural system for the sign faces and tFiat was also ambiguous in the Merriam Park case. � Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes Page. 2 At the question of Commissioner Faricy, Mr. Soderholm explained that the state law says that owners of nonconforming property have a right to continue the use of their nonconforming property including through maintenance and repair; however, if it is destroyed by more than 50 percent of its market value it has to become a conforming use. Municipalities have the authority to adopt reasonable regulations for nonconforming uses to promote the public health, safety, and welfare. This leaves a legal grey area for the City regarding billboard repairs. Does the state law mean that any repair that is less than 50 percent of the market value of a nonconforming structure is automatically permitted, which is the way Mr. Liszt reads the law; or does it mean that local governments can enact reasonab�e limitations on the types and extent of repairs so that nonconforming uses will not remain in place forever. In the Raymond Ave. billboard repair case, the City Council decided by a five to two vote that the City's special sign district ordinance prohibiting replacement of any structurat elements of nonconforming signs— even low cost elements--is a reasonable regulation and is within the authority granted by state law. The Raymond Ave. decision came after LIEP issued the permits in today's case, and the Council's Raymond Ave. decision is why the staff is recommending that LIEP issued these permits in error to the extent that the permits included repiacement of stringers. � Chuck Repke, District 2 Community Council, testified about the White Bear Ave. site. District 2 representatives understood that the effect of the Greater East Side Special Sign District would be to leave billboards intact and, as billboards in the neighborhood became antiquated, they would eventualty have to be removed. These specific biliboards are at a lucrative location at • the intersection of Larpenteur and White Bear and they woutd probably remain there for a long time because the sign owners would keep them repaired by cannibalizing ofher signs for replacements parts for these signs. When District 2 learned that LIEP approved a repair permit, they assumed initially that a little maintenance wouid be done on the signs. But in fact, the repair work consisted of a total replacement of the sign faces. They are now entirely different signs which have horizontal instead of vertical face panels, angle iron stringers and other new metal parts. Furthermore, alI the work was done during the night, on a Friday night. He felt that the special sign district ailowed for a"1964 Chevy Impala" to be maintained until it couldn't run, but now the company has switched the sign into a"2002 Cadillac". Under state law biilboards are not even classified as real property; they are personal property. The City should follow the special sign district regulations and allow only basic maintenance, not major replacements. Mary Wiimea, Macaiester Groveland Community Council, testified about the Grand Ave. site. She commented that she has not previously been to a hearing on billboards but she now sees that it is an arduous process to sunset billboards. She stated Ciear Channel started repairing the billboard before the permit was issued and the appeal shouid be granted. Brian Bates, representative of Maclaester Groveland Community Council, District 2, and Scenic St. Paul, testified about both sites. He stated that there are several layers of applicable law and therefore it is important to understand how they are supposed to be interpreted in relation to one another. State Law 462.357 contains the provisions on alI nonconforming uses: the one year abandonment rule; the 50 percent damage clause; and the power of municipalities by ordinance to impose reasonable regulations on nonconformities to prevent � and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. There are also the pre-existing zoning ordinance sections: 66,301 and 66.302 that go back to the mid-1980's; 4� 03 /oY7 Zomng File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes . Page: 3 66214 prohibits new advertising signs; and also special sign districts. Mr. Bates submitted a paper on Rules of Statutory Construction for the record. He stated that, as a general rule, all of the laws must be harmonized a�d none of the laws can be excluded unless there is a direct and unavoidable conflict. He elaborated four points: (1) Every law shall be construed, if possible, to give effect to all of its provisions, Minn.Stat. 645.16; (2) Whenever it is possible, no word, phrase, or sentence should be deemed supertluous, void or insignificant; (3) It is presumed the Legislature intended to favor the pubiic interest over the private interest, Minn.Stat. 645.17(5); (4) Specific provisions of an act prevail over prior, generaf provisions, Minn.Stat. 645.26(1). (See "Rules of Statutory Construction" in Results of January 16, 2003, packet as mailed to the Planning Commission.) Mr. Bates continued by challenging the City staff's interpretations. Section 66.302, which prohibits renovation of adveRising signs, is dismissed by staff even though it is more specific than 66.301, which applies to all types of signs. The Ramsey County district court held in a storm-damaged sign case that face repiacement is a renovation. The staff interpretations routinely favor the private interesis of bifiboard companies--in today's case a Texas corporation--over the public interests of the city's neighborhoods. The staff only recently agreed to notify neighborhoods when they issue biliboard repair permits. The only reason a biliboard repair permit at the Green Mill building on Grand Ave. was not appealed a couple of months ago was because the neighborhood didn't learn about the permit until after the 30-day appeal period expired. • At the question of Commissioner Anfang, Mr. Bates stated that the real estate industry would acknowledge that there is a negative effect on property values when biliboards are present. At the question of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Bates explained that Section 66.301 applies to alI signs, whereas Section 66.302 appiies specifically to advertising signs. The Planning Commission should first look at Section 66.302; if the repair is not a renovation, then the Commission should look at Section 66.301. The zoning staff has reduced 66.302 to section 66.301. The renovation standard is being ignored. The only thing staff uses is the 50 percent rule. Upon further questioning, Mr. Bates explained that the public interest has been determined by the City Council in Section 66.214. Laura Gutmann, community organizer with Macalester-Groveland, reiterated that the Macalester-Groveland Community Council feels this is an important issue and they voted unanimously to appeal LIEP's decision about the Grand Ave. site. The Macalester-Groveland Special Sign District was adopted by City Council to provide sign controls. They aren't trying to get rid of every billboard in Macalester-Groveland; they just want the sign controls to be used. The Special Sign Plan for Macalester-Groveland states that no nonconforming sign shall be maintained through replacement of structural elements. But the LIEP repair permit states that the "only structural work authorized is the replacement of the metal stringers. This contradiction is a concern of Macalester-Groveland; another concem is that Clear Channel did repair work on the billboard prior to receiving the repair permit. Marvin Liszt, Attorney for Clear Channel Outdoor, stated there was a serious jurisdictional • issue that needs to be addressed. There are 1wo totally dififerent applications that Clear Channel submitted to repair the biliboards. They involve separate structures in separate parts �� Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Mmutes Page: 4 of the city and they have nothing to do with each other. The current process is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The appeal filed by the appellants is o�e application for two different unrelated mafters with an appticafion fee of $225, which is less than the fee Clear Channe( has to pay when it appeals a decision at one location. The appellants have not met the requirement of the ordinance to appeal an administrative decision. These appeals shouid be denied jurisdictionaliy. At the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Warner stated that the sign portion of the Zoning Code states in essence that any person aggrieved by an administrative decision can file an appeal and take it to the Planning Commission. It doesn't say anything about zoning fees; they are set by a separate City Council action. Certain procedural rules must be followed. The standing of the appeilants can be challenged at any time and the challenge may be reserved as an argument before a court if the matter ever gets there. But the Planning Commission can go forward with this public hearing. Going forward today won't prevent the Planning Commission from revisiting the propriety of multi-site appeals at a future date. Marvin Liszt stated that if an appeal were submitted without a check, the application would be returned by the City staff, and if it was not resubmitted with the 30-day appeal period, the ability to appeal would be lostjurisdictionally. • Peter Warner advised that the language in the ordinance is not particulariy clear, but the case • was at a point of no return and the appellants have already been heard. Larry Soderholm explained that fees for zoning applications are sef by a resolution of the City Council that was adopted in 1994. There is a new proposal going to the City Council to revise the 1994 fees. The 1994 fees distinguish between appeals filed by a business or institution and appeals filed by a resident. Appeals by residents have a lower fee; appeals by businesses have a higher fee. District Councils have always been charged the residential fee. Marvi� Liszt requested that if the matter proceeded, the Zoning Committee would consider as a part of the deliberation whether there is proper jurisdiction before the Pianning Commission. Mr. Liszt stated in the application for appeal, ground number 2 states that boards were repaired without permits prior to the repairs authorized by permits. That statement is false. The permits were issued on November 2�, 2002, and the work was done on November 22, 2002, and there was no work done prior to that time. There is no evidence presented that work was done prior to that time and Ciear Channel Outdoor objects to letting that aliegation color the matter. Ground number 4 states that boards are illegal, and are built without permits. There is no evidence behind that claim; in fact, they were built with permits. The State Statute 462.357 gives Clear Channel Outdoor the right to make repairs; the City staff did the right thing in issuing permits for repairs to the billboards. Repairs done now have to be made with parts that are available now. Mr. Liszt gave an example of a nonconforming gas station or house that was built in 1940. If a window needed repair, it would be difficult to find a replacement window from '1940. The owner could install a new replacement window in the gas station or house. Chris McCarver, Owner of Clear Channel Outdoor, submitted pictures of the 1676 White Bear � Avenue biliboards for the record and stated there are wood stringers going across the entire l3 03-/05�7 Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes • Page 5 length of the structures. The horizontal panels are a change in the industry standard and the change was discussed with Mr. Fischbach of LIEP prior to his issuance of the permits. The replacement wood stringers were connected to the steel uprights which were afready in existence. The horizontal angle irons are now part of the sign face kits. They are components of the faces themselves, they are not the stringers. He stated that the White Bear Ave. permit was valid for the replacement of all four sign faces and their trim and for replacement of the wood stringers. That is all the work that the company has done there. Mr. McCarver also submitted pictures for 1276 Grand Avenue, and stated stringers at this site have always be steel. The paneis were changed from vertical panels to horizontal panels which was discussed with Mr. Fischbach prior to the issuance of the permit. He suggested that the public interest is indeed spelled out in the ordinances, which provide that nonconforming signs can continue. He reminded the committee that Mr. Bates had a ballot initiative in 1999, and a majority of the public voted that signs were not an issue. That is the public interest. The City should get off this issue, let existing billboards be repaired, and stop the needless waste of taxpayer money and time. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. McCarver stated that the horizontal stringers were replaced at both sites and they did the repairs to the exact letter of the permits. The permits stated that the stringers could be replaced. O Upon a further question from Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Liszt stated that ground number 3 of the appeal alleges that the billboards were repaired beyond what was allowed by the permits. Some of the repairs may have been structural, but the state law says you can do repairs and maintenance to a nonconforming use. The law doesn't offer any distinction between structural versus nonstructural. To the extent that speciai sign districts talk about the repairs being permitted based on structural versus nonstructural elements without regard to the value of the sign, the special sign districts conflict with state statute and are illegal. At the inquiry of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Liszt explained that the special sign districts aren't illegal in and of themselves. The City Council can adopt special sign districts so that a neighborhood can have distinctive looking signs in its area and these sign districts are ordinances of the City. However, a special sign district ordinance that includes a provision that is unconstitutionai or contradicts state law would be invalid with regard to that provision. Upon a question from Commissioner Kramer, Mr. McCarver itemized the billboard components at these sites that were not changed: the steel bedding, the vertical angle iron or C-Channel towers, cross bracing, cat walks, illumination, access ladders, and top rails. Charles Repke, responded to the jurisdictional challenge. He stated that the co-appellants foliowed the City staff's instructions on how to appeal in a timely fashion within the 30 days and any minor mistakes can be resolved without the case being thrown out. If the City wants a second check, the District 2 Community Council will pay the additional fee. There is an important issue at stake that needs to be decided on its merits. • Commissioner Field asked why the appeal had only one signature. Brian Bates stated that in signing the appeal he was representing the Macalester-Groveland Community Council, the � Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes Page: 6 District 2 Community Council, and Scenic St. Paul, and that all three organizations had authorized him to file in their behalf. He explained that the grounds for the appeal are allegations. Where the appeal stated that "boards were repaired without permits prior to repairs authorized by permits", he meant the Grand Ave. biliboard. At that site, before any biliboard repair permit was issued a new element was added to the back of the structure, to which the old, bent, vertical panels were tacked down so that a new message could be posted on the sign face. These temporary repairs are documented by the photos and described in the staff report. Mr. Bates continued with his observation that If this same process of sign face replacement is followed, if the City issues repair permits for ali types of "minor repairs", then eventually all the biliboards in the city will be as good as new. At the question of Commissioner Alton, Jeff Fischbach of LIEP stated that a final determination has not been made as to whether or not the conditions of the permits have been exceeded. If the City does determine that the conditions of these permits have been violated, then LIEP will tell Clear Channel to remove the violations or make the repairs as they were approved on the permit. Upon the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Fischbach stated he has been out to the sites but has not been up on the roofs to do close-up inspections. Marvin Liszt stated that if there were any repairs that exceeded the permit, that doesn't invalidate the permit. That would be an enforcement issue in which Clear Channel would have to do something or suffer the consequences. Brian Bates cautioned that regardless of whether LIEP determines or fails to determine if the repairs comply with the permit, the neighborhoods have to file any appeal within 30 days or lose their right to appeal. They're caught in a dilemma. ThaYs why they had to file this appeal when they did. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Kramer moved staff recommendations 1 through 3 as writteR and recommendation 4 with the following amendment: Strike the language saying, "the staff recommends granting the appeal with regard to..." and insert instead, "the Planning Commission finds that repair work done by Clear Channel Outdoor that exceeded ...etc.' Commissioner Morton seconded the motion. Commissioner Anfang stated he would vote against the motion based ort recommendation 4. He doesn't think that the Planning Commission couid find that Clear Channel exceeded what LIEP's permits allowed them to do. He felt this committee didn't have the ability to reach that conclusion without a report from LIEP on their inspection and enforcement measures. • • At the question of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Warner stated the enforcement recommendation • from fhe Planning Commission would not be binding. LIEP could choose to issue an enforcement tag, or use civil action. Any action by the Planning Commission would be coming � t�3 /o�{ � • Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes Page. 7 from an advisory body that lacks the power to dictate the way LIEP operates. He further thought that, since the appeal is based in part on a charge that Clear Channel did work on the biliboards beyond what the permits ailowed, the Planning Commission ought to address that charge. The motion failed on a vote of two to three. Commissioner Anfang moved the staff recommendation 2, which denied the appellants' claim that the billboards are illegal. He thought the evidence showed that all of the billboards are legal nonconforming uses. Commissioner Alton seconded the motion, but was concerned that the committee needed to go further and deal with the entire appeal. At the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Warner concurred with Mr. Alton that the committee's action should address all four of the bases for the appeal, especially number 1, which deals with the replacement of face panels in special sign districts. This is the difficult gray area where the City staff and the neighborhoods disagree. The Planning Commission and next, most likely, the City Council need to determine whether face replacement is going to be permitted or not. � Commissioner Alton staied that Commissioner Anfang's motion is generally that the appeai should be denied. The staff findings as written do not support denial on all four bases, but they support denial with regard to issuance of sign face repair permits and with regard to the signs being legal nonconforming uses. No testimony was given that the repairs at either site exceeded 50 percent of the signs' values. With regard to the charge that repairs were made at the Grand Ave. site before the City permit was issued, it is a moot point because any unauthorized repairs were subsequently removed when the face was replaced pursuant to the permit. With respect to the contention that the repair work at both sites exceeded what was allowed by permit, that is a question that the Planning Commission can't decide with the evidence that was presented at this hearing. WhaYs more, it's a question that LIEP has the authority to decide and act on regardless of what the Planning Commission recommends. Mr. Fischbach cannot state at this point whether the repairs went beyond the permits. The City has expressed its policy that the number of biilboards in the .city should be reduced over time, so repairs beyond what was legally permitted by LIEP should not be allowed by Planning Commission action. Enforcement is LIEP's responsibility and LIEP should enforce the law vigorously. The Commission should not intervene at this point either to grant or deny the appeal with regard to the allegation that repairs went beyond the permit. � Commissioner Alton offered a friendly amendment to include staff recommendation 1 and add a finding that there was testimony from Clear Channel that the repairs were done consistent with the permits, but that LIEP staff has not yet determined whether all of the repair work was consistent with the permits. Therefore, repairs beyond the permits are not appropriate grounds for granting the appeal. But if LIEP staff finds that repairs were done beyond the permits, enforcement action should be taken. So in essence the appeal would be denied based on staff recommendations 1 and 2. The LIEP staff properly issued the permits in � Zoning File # 02-247-939 January 16, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes Page: 8 accordance with the Iaw. Staff recommendations 3 and 4 are separate enforcement issues to be pursued by LIEP and are not proper grounds for an appeal. Commissioner Anfang accepted the friendly amendment. The motion passed 3-2 (Faricy, Kramer) Drafted by: �ja��%�G�✓�w Caroi Martineau Recording Secretary �_'---.._ _, , \ J CJ • �A ',�'�� ' d' �' f l6 - � 3 n, ��r��rJ � (��..�� .�/`�- 03- 0 7 L RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION ��'�mrn��2 ��vi (/h� �� • ✓!'1 iq'vo-t12�jt{. L�cN�'Cic�`�', a) Every ]aw shall be construect, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions. Miun.Stat. 645.16. b) Whenever it is possible, no word, phrase, or senteace should be deemed superIluous, void, or msignificant. PR�"sJm� ` c} We i�-the Legislatiire intended to favor the public interest over the private interest. Minn.Stat. 645.17(5). Amural u Saint Cloud Hosp., 598 N..2d 379, 384 (Minn. 1999). r d) Specific provisions � an act prevail over prior, general provisions. Minn.Stat. 645.26(1). State v. Corbin, 343 N.W2d 874, 875 (Minn.App. 1984). Ehlert v Graue, 195 N.W.2d 823, 826 (Minn. 1972). II STAFF F'INDINGS � a) "City staff believe that replacement of an old, but undacnaged sign face is a maintenance activity as pernutted by state statute, not a replacement or renovation of the advertising sign." Response: By this interpretation staff deems section 66.301 to control. Staff is saying that if the sign face is damaged greater than 50% it cannot be replaced, otherwise it can. This interpretafion gives effect to section 66301 exclusively. This intetpretation violates the above cited rules of construction a, b, c, and d. This interpretation reads section 66302 out of the zoning code entirely, favors the private mterest over the public interest, and allows general provisions, those which pertain to all signs, to prevail over the specific provision wluch pertains to advertising signs. b) "Secrion 66302 of the code refers primazily to the previous "move to confonvauce" program with sign face credits for the location of billboards, a prograzn which was eliminated in 2000 when the most recent billboazd amendments were adopted." Response: Had the City Council meant to reject section 66302 m its entirety, it would have. Ratfier the Ciry Council specifically eliminated the entire "move to conforntance" program, since billboards were made a prohibited and use they cannot be made confomung, but kept wt�at remains of section 66.302. Staff s intetpretation gives no meaning to what rema.ins of section 66.302 violating niles of construction a, b, and d above. c) "The city staff do treat sign face replacement as renovation, which is prolu�bited under • this section, when a sign face bas been damaged beyond 50% of its replacement cost." 1 Response: The district court has stated that sign &ce replacement is renovation. The • district court was dealing with a circutnstance where the sign face was entirely destroyed. However, the district court did not qualify its mterpretation of the ordinance. It stated simply that sign face replacement was renovation. This rnting coutd be given a broad interpretation giving effect to the underlying public policy tbat bffiboazds aze an urban blight adversely affecting the public health, safety and weTfare or the narrow interpretation staff gives it. The narrow interpretation violates rules of intetpretaTion a, b, c, and d. As a practical matter, stafes interpretations have largely fa�ored the billboazd companies' interests over the interests of neighborhood residents. There was an infamous quote in the Highland Villager ttiat LIEP simpty ignored all special sign districts. LIEP, until recentty, refused to make public permit appfications they received from biltboard companies, now LIEP has changed tY�at policy and does routinely inform the relevant community council. We think it a better policy that neighbors neaz an� particulaz billboard be informed 'm addition to the Comunwity Councils. Untfl these recent appeals where the appeUant raised section 66.302, that section was routinely ignored. It is not difficult to discern a"lean" towazd private interests and away from public i�terPsts; toward the bi7Tboazd companies interests and away from neighborhood interests; toward multi-national, Te�s-based, corporate profits and away from neighborhood properiy vatues. If it is true that sign faces need to be replaced every 10 years, we would logically see all • boazds in the City slowly removed over the neact decade. That would be in keeping with the City's policy of disallowing any new buildings aud removal of e�sting billboazds by attrition. r � �J �� ..�-�,��-� 03-�0�7 ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT i FILE # 02-247-939 APPELLANTS: District 2 Community Council, HEARING DATE: 01/16/03 Macalester-Groveland Community Council, and Scenic Saint Paul 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Administrative Appeal 3. LOCATIONS: 1670 White Bear Ave, SE corner at Larpenteur Ave. and 1278 Grand Ave., SE corner at Syndicate St. 4. PIN 8� LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: White Bear Ave. property: (PIN 23-29-22-22-0121) Hilicrest Center subj. to Ave; W'/z of Vac Gary Place accruing & N 85 ft of lot 1 block 4(LIEP billboard ref. # 267) Grand Ave. property: (PIN 03-28-23-42-0048) Stinson's Blvd, Block 4, Lot 12 (LIEP billboard ref. �# 343) 5. PLANNING DISTRICTS District 2 and District 14 PRESENT ZONING B-2 at both sites 6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §66.408(a); 66.101; 66.2169.3(e)(1); 66.2169.5(e)(1); 66.301: and 66.302 • • STAFF REPORT DATE: 1/9/03 BY: Larry Soderholm 8. DATE RECEIVED: 12/20/02 DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 2/18/03 A. PURPOSE: Appeal of billboard permits issued by the office of Licensing, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) for replacement of existing billboard sign face panels, trim and the horizontal stringers that support the sign faces. Appellants claim that replacement of sign face paneis and stringers is contrary to their neighborhood special sign districts, that the actual repairs made exceeded the conditions of the permits, and that the billboards are not legal nonconforming uses. B. PARCEL SIZES: White BearAve.: 30,848 square feet; Grand Ave.: 6,150.square feet C. EXISTING LAND USE: White BearAve.: 1-story, multi-tenant shopping center; Grand Ave.: 1-story commercial building occupied by an ethnic restaurant. The billboards are on the roofs. D. SURROUNDING LAND USES: White Bear Ave. North: Auto-oriented commercial strip in Maplewood South: Hilicrest Shopping Center takes the whole block (B-2) East: Senior housing (RT-2) West: Commercial across White Bear Ave., planned for redevelopment as a Walgreen's (B-3) �� Zoning File # 02-247-939 Staff Report January 9, 2003 Page 2 of 6 Grand Ave. North: Supermarket parking across Grand (B-2); 2 single-family houses kitty-corner (RM-2) South: Duplexes and single-family residential across the alley (RT-1) East: House converted to commercial use next door, then two more houses all in B-2 zone. West: Apartment buildings across Syndicate (RM-2) E. ZONING CODE CITATIONS: §66.408(a) of the Zoning Code, which is part of the chapter on signs, states that "Any person affected by the decision of the zoning administrator dealing wifh the provisions of this chapter may appeaf this decision to the planning commission within thirty (30) calendar days of the decision." §64.209(j), which is in the administration and enforcement chapter of the Zoning Code, provides that appeais of administrative decisions to the Planning Commission must be heard within 30 days. §66.101 states the general purposes of the sign chapter of the zoning code. §66.30'I Iists the purpose of the sign code with respect to nonconforming signs. §66.301(2) prohibits reconstruction of a nonconforming sign if the sign or sign structure is destroyed to an extent greater than 51 percent of its replacement cost. §66.302 refers to the �revious "Move to Conformance" program with sign credits. and §66.2169.5 and §66.2i69.3 give, respectively, the regulations for the Greater East Side and Grand Ave. Special Sign Districts, with restrictions on nonconforming signs listed in each case in paragraph (e). F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: For each location, LIEP issued a sign permit on 11/21/02 for replacement of the existing sign faces and trim with new sign faces and trim (the fiberglass "picture frames"). The permits also approve the replacement of the horizontal stringers that support the sign faces. In the White Bear case the old stringers were wood and could be replaced only with wood; in the Grand Ave. case, the old stringers were angle iron and could be replaced with metal. in both cases, district council representatives called the City with questions and complaints about the work being done on the billboards, and in particular why new angie iron was being installed on the White Bear Ave. billboards. There is no other zoning histary on these two billboard locations. However, this same issue of biilboard face replacement in a special sign district was recently brought to the Planning Commission in an appeal by the Merriam Park Community Council regarding a roof-top billboard at 1926 University Ave. On that case, the Zoning Committee and the Planning Commission were evenly split on whether to grant or deny the appeal. G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS: Both district councils are co-appellants in this case. H. FINDINGS: On October 28, 2002, Ciear Channel Outdoor applied for sign permits for both '1670 White Bear Ave. (all four sign faces) and 1278 Grand Ave. (a single sign face) to ��i1 • r u r� � J �3-�oy, Zoning File # 02-247-939 Staff Report January 9, 2003 � Page 3 of 6 replace the sign faces, trim, and stringers on the rooftop biliboards. 2. On November 21, 2002, Jeff Fischbach of the LIEP staff issued a permit for each of the two applications. The White Bear Ave. permit was subject to the following conditions, which are written on the permit: `Height of sign faces musf not be increased. The sign sfructures have only wooden stringers. All repair materiais must be of the same type as the original maferials, no addifion or substitution of materials aUowed. The only structural work authorized is the replacemenf of fhe wooden stringers. No other structural work permi#ed. No electrical work proposed or authorized. Any elecfrical work would require the biilboard owner to obtain a separafe electricai permit." The Grand Ave. permit was subject to the following conditions, which are written on the permit: `i of sign face must not be increased. Only structural work aufhonzed is the replacement of the mefal stringers. No other structural work proposed." Clear Channel crews worked at both sites and repiaced the sign faces, trim, and stringers. 3. On December 20, 2002, the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester-Groveland � 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, inciuding but not limited to section 66.302 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 66.2169.3(e)(1)(e)]; (b) repairs were made prior to the issuance of the permits; (c) repairs were made beyond what was authorized by the permits; and (d) the bilfboards , are illegal land uses. The City staff responses to these claims are given in findings 4 through 8 below. 4. The appellants claim that the permits are contrary to section 66.302 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 permitted use. City staff believe that replacement of an old, but undamaged sign face 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 plausibie argument that the replacement of a sign face is the same thing as replacement or renovation of an advertising sign. The city staff regard sign face replacement as different from advertising sign replacemenf because: (a) billboard companies have for decades � done sign face replacements every ten years or so 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 comparison with the sign structure (bed pan secured S�ttV Zoning File # 02-247-939 Staff Report January 9, 2003 Page 4 of 6 � to building rooftop, angle iron A-frames wifh bracing, electrica! 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. Thus, the city staff position is that sign face replacement is permitted as a routine maintenance activity, but it is not permitted in the case of a badly damaged sign face. While this may appear incoRSistent, it has a logic based on the agent causing the damage. The sfate statute on nonconforming uses refers to destruction "by fire or other peril". In the case of fire or wind damage, the nonconforming use cannot be reptaced. But the City does not want iiself to be the cause of deterioration through preventing routine maintenance since the state statute explicitly permits the maintenance of nonconforming uses. 5. The appeilants c{aims that the biliboard repair permits violate the Greater East Side artd Macalester Groveland Special Sign Disfricf regufafions, The City staff find that the permi#s in this case were issued in error with regard to the repfacement of the old stringers--2 X 6 wood stringers on White Bear Ave. and angle-iron stringers on Grand Ave. The language on nonconforming signs is identical in the two special sign districts. It � says, "No nonconforming sign shall be: ...(e) Mainfained through replacement of structu2l elements." in 2000, at the time of the biliboard zoning study, the Planning Commission recommended that stringers should be treated as structural elements, but sign face panels should not be treated as structural elements. The City Council neither adopted fhe Commission's recommendation, nor fashioned an .alternative definition of structural eiements. In 2001, the state law was amended to give owners of nonconforming property the right to repair and maintain it. In light of the new state law, the Planning Commission decided to allow minor structural repairs in the Raymond Ave, billboard repair case, notwithstanding the speciai sign districYs categorical prohibition against structural replacement. LIEP staff relied on thaY decision in issuing the permits to repiace stringers on the White Bear and Grand Avenue biliboards. However, the Planning Commission's Raymond Ave. decision was then overtumed by the City Council. The Council determined that a categorical prohibition against structural replacement could be harmonized with the state law's protection of property owners. 6. The appeilants claim that some repairs were made to the billboards before the repair permits were issued. In the Grand Ave. case, the appellants say that the o!d face panel was curled upward from the bottom and was tacked back down to a wood stringer that was added to the structure last summer. LIEP staff confirms that this is true. Photos attached to this staff report show the repair that was made without a building permit. 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 ciaim that unauthorized work was done at the White Bear Ave. signs. � ��VI� O 3-1 oy�7 Zoning File # 02-247-939 Staff Report • January 9, 20Q3 Page 5 of 6 7. The appeliants claim that Clear Channel made repairs that went beyond what the permits allowed. Staff agrees that this claim is true for the White Bear Ave. repairs. For alI five sign faces in this case, a new face panel system was used that upgrades the billboards structuraliy and will extend the useful lives of these signs. The new face panel system 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 two top-to- bottom verticai struts made of galvanized steel. Before, there were no vertical struts. The previous sign face panels were attached directly to the horizontal wood stringers by metal clips. c) The vertical metal struts are secured by bolts to the vertical angle iron A-frame structure. d) New horizontal angle iron stringers were added to the White Bear Ave. signs. As an apparent gesture toward the condition on the permit, repiacement wood stringers were installed, but they are redundant and cosmetic. The wood stringers appear to have no function. � By changing the materials and adding vertical metal struts and horizontal angle iron stringers, Clear Channel has violated conditions of the White Bear Ave. permit that "All repair materials must be of the same type as the original materials, no addition or substitution of materials allowed. The only structural work authorized is the replacement of the wooden stringers." The appeal claims that the billboards are illegal. The White Bear Ave. biliboards were erected legally under a building permit issued on 2/24/75. City staff presumes that the Grand Ave. billboard is also legal, although staff have not found a building permit. Since the adoption of the new biUboard regulations in 2000, all billboards in the city have become nonconforming uses. But almost all of the biliboards 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 stored in chronological order, not by address, or by applicant, or by type of construction. Therefore, the City staff have difficulty retrieving oId building permits. The appellants in this case haven't submitted any evidence that the sign is not legal. 9. The Sign Chapter of the Zoning Code provides regulations for nonconforming signs. Section 66.301(a) on nonconforming signs reads: "No sign sfrall be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity except for temporary extensions on billboards as permitted in paragraph 7 of this section." The Greater East Side and • Macalester Groveland Special Sign Districts provide that "No nonconforming sign shall be: (a) Altered or enlarged in any way,� or (b) Replaced by another nonconforming sign, though a change in the message wil/ not be deemed to be a �1� ✓ Zoning File # 02-247-939 Staff Reporf January 9, 2003 Page 6 of 6 repiacement;" The changes in the method of construction described in finding 8 violate these provisions. They are alterations of the b+llboard that are designed to extend the Iife of the sign. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on Findings 1 through 4, the staff recommends denial of the appeal by the District 2 Community Council, the Macalester-Groveland Community Council, and Scenic Saint Paul with regard to LIEP's issuance of biliboard repair permits for face panel replacements and trim kits at 1670 White Bear Av�. and at 1278 Grand Ave. Based on Findings 1, 2, 3, and 8, the staff recommends denial of the appeai with regard to the legafity of the billboards. All of the billboards in this case should be treated as legal nonconforming uses. 2. Based on Findings 1, 2, 3, and 5, the staff recommends granting the appeal with regard to LIEP's issuance of billboard repair permits for repiacement of the horizontal stringers that support the bitlboards af 1670 White Bear Ave. and at 1278 Grand Ave. • 3. Based on Findings 1, 2, 3, 7, and 9, the staff recommends granting the appeal with regard � to repair work done by Clear Channel Outdoor that exceeded what LIEP's permits and Chapter 66 of the Zoning Code ailow. PED staff recommends that LIEP require that biliboard repairs be made in ways that do not upgrade the designs and materials of nonconforming signs. • �� V� APPLICATION FOR APPEAL �[�� Deparrment of Planning and Economic Development ��TJ Zoning Sectio�r II00 Ciry Hall Annex 25 West Fou'rth Street Saint Paul, MN 55102 266-6589 � APPELLANT Name ��:5 St.�ih rG �A'i /i i City St._ Zip :zn�;€�� = �;ie :Y�o_�+�;�;;r FSe c� � �8£i�tltf$ �3P.�3 � ��_ �� L : ALA��fR l -to�� _ - .. ' i_? �� ' . Daytime phone PROPERTY 2oning File Name �'1�b� ��`��CA��r� ; ln�h�'rLl5trf2 N�L. ��Q�n-ra LOCATION Address/Location � TYPE OF APPEAL. Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: _ � Board of Zoning Appeals ❑ City Council I� ��nG ��^'�+55 e� under the provisions of Chapter 64, S p �� ( on , Paragraph of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the ��' ��" '�� L L�i- i� o n �� °� , 1 9_ F i l e n u m b e r. (dafe of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Planning Commission. 1�r-� �anrnb � nac��c��r��y ��q nar Lm�i�To � lrl�o 3�Z ��QMI'( IS5csR1�L� �i�L.R'T2S : T , z1 ` �' �� G�,z��g� 3(e � �cKR85 i.� ��+7��LalTHo�fi ��rn��S ��b,d, io �G4h�Q-5 �Tr! f �,� �ytm,r5 3> �asFaAS i.t9�°-RZ �� 7on� "1R�+ 1`1L�ow�' Pj� �1e'�l-nnr� S, �4 ��r-�5 ��e i�f�+- � Attach addifional sheet � Applicant's signatur� _ L �isrL� i�i1`rfttrrUT ��x�TS p� i f �u��+n � �+�n=T-s , � F t� - LC.CaNI ��-� N�r in d-an�rsf.mr�»� ° ZCity _pb �n ( i LJ '�� )��; 7�.ZO �� c �� (�(�� :_�.� � . .. . .�� --- � � 0 < D Z �' � m � �I � i � � I � � I _ � � � ! ' � �I �� i a� __ � � � , � �� D3 10�7 97 Screen Print - 10:41:21 AM 30 Dec 2002 N PROPERTY ADDRESS - 29 - 22-22-0121 1680 WHITE BEAR AVE N, EE OWNER LARRY M SALITERMAN SEE COMMENT C/0 5005 PROPERIIES INC 5005 OLD CEDAR LAKE RD ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416-1621 AX PAYER MARION LEVINE ROBERT LEVINE 5005 OLD CEDAR LAKE RD ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416-1621 QMESTEAD NAME - HIT ANY KEY TO CONTINUE � 55106-1610 PLAT NAME HILLCREST CENIER DESCRIPTION SUBJ TO AVE; W 1/2 OF VAC GARY PLACE ACCRUING & THE N 85 FT OF LOT 1 BLK 4 ��/ ; �-* � �� '�`r� ��, �+.� ��^�. � E a'�L�'' :t+ �� GRAND (48 � • � �I� � � 0 � � m LINCOLN _ _ I. � � � � i �, I ❑ � � I , L23 �0�7 Screen Print - triton IN PROPERTY ADDRESS `3 1276 GRAND AVE, EE OWNER GREGORY T ROTTER 3653 COLFAX AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55409-1021 :46=23 AM 30 Dec 2002 55105-2604 PLAT NAME STINSON'S BOULEVARD DESCRIPTION LOT 12 BLK 4 AX PAYER ESTEAD NAME - HIT ANY KEY TO CONTINUE �� ^ � srLLBO�nisiGrr CITY OF SAINT PAUL � Offi<e of License, Inspection & Environmenfai Protection 350 SA Peter Street, Suite 300 PERMIT #20 02 237078 Saint Pauf, MN 55102• 70 ��., Issued Date: November 21, 2002 PHONE: (65'I) 2 FAX: (651) 2 CONTRACTOR: OWNER: CLEAR CH�'NEL OUTDOOR LARRY M SAI.ITER�IAN SEE COMri IENT 3225 SPRLYG ST NE 5005 OLD CED:1R LAKE RD bIPLS NL�i 55413-2908 ST LOUIS PARK DL�' S5416-1621 PERIVIIT ADDRESS: 1670 WHITE BEAR AVE N ST PAUL MN 55106-16t0 SUB TYPE: Billboazds WORK TYPE: Commercial Repair/Alter Yermit is valid Tor the replacement of the 4 sia faces, and their trim, and the wooden strineers of the structures where the siF Estimated Vatue of Work I0776.62 Estimated Start Date Nov 1S, 2002 Estimated Completion Date Billboard Sq Ft Billboard Length Si�n Credits Nov 16, 2002 300 25 Billboard Type Bill'noard Width Billboard Height Sign Credits Used FEES Fee Roof 12 i 36 0 207.77 TOTAL 207.77 Hei�ht of sign faces mus[ not be inereased. The sign shuc[ures have only wooden shmgers. All repair matenals mus[ be of the sazne [ype � the original marerials, no addition or substitution of materials atlowed. 'Che only struc[ural work authorized is the replacemeni of the wooden smneers \o other structural work pertnitted. Yo elechicai work proposed or authonzed. Any electrical work woutd require [he bitlboard owner to obtsm a separate electrical pertnit. The inspector assigned to this Permit is Dave N. who can be reached at 651-266-9027 behveen 7.30 AM and 9.00 A_v1 Monday throu�h Friday � �� CITY OF ST. PAUL OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION � 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55102-1510 A /!3 - . - Ave. Blvd_ Etc. N S F. W BILLBOARD PERMIT APPLICATION 03 �0�7 Visit our Web Site at www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/liep ;..I?� lu '��,�J_��- J�-� W�1� Gr ,�Y�( ._� r C /- �� n/ nl�/ Q� / 0�� G, Cty ss 3ZZ� (Permitw�llbemai <e C��u �� State, Zi 4 SP � i �tact Personl C�-.t �'I �C�d �r � � �nz..o., /, c _ MJJ �,.�_ Include Contact Person' New Billboard Alrer Bxitting ❑ Biltboard � /Ptac � r �`lE..c.�. .,..,, ��i z� �O� SIOp 2 rann.Gl C/�-`°uea �L.L. C: _-_ ruone ry �m2 c.1 G�Oi^,C. ' � S �� State, Zip+4 ard Estimaced Start Date . Estimared Finish Dare ESTIMATED VALUE OF PROJECT ition ❑ �� /1��D7i g �� ,�, �Z Billboard (Advertising Sign) Information ied Lease AereemenL a Site Plan, and Structuraf Plans must accomoanv this ermit a lication. Type of Billboard (Check appticable box.) Billboard Total Square Footage Billboard Dimensions Free Standing � Wall ❑ RooF� / zO o {,� Width Len2th Heieht (Abo�e Grade) � /z i x zS _ i 3 ' 7 � �Pr�X Fill out this section for Electrical Billboard. Note: A separate Electrical Permit is REQUIRED when the Billboard is electricai! Electrical Contrector. Phone *: Approvals lonfngDistrict j�. � r„rz,,.�.,J, �! Review . ,. Yeacnpuun oc rro�ecc llistance toNearest Bdlboard ��,�/M �,_ on the same side of che strezc (In Feet): EwS� 5�9^ Pt" � a,S�. �� d Sl.��e� �/ Plan Review Remarks SU3i�[�Y OF FEES � Billboard Permit Fee 5 OA .�E � ��1" �"l� t`i%r � `�/�YaF '�. tL-. �i'e5I /, n � / f✓� i LirG�'Ti,. :a�rs PIV qi�L.a'�.� .3 Q� - �.� 7 � � � Applicant certifies [hat all information is correct and J�at ail pertinent state regulations and city ordinances will be complied with in p�t��ie work for which this permit is issued. ApplicanPs Plea:e complete [he (ollowing inCormation for credit card payment. Date �� Zd �E BY CREDIT ( Circle the Card Type —/ t�TER YOUR ACCOGNT NCJtSER I\ THE BOXF.S: u For O�ce Use Only Required Approved Plan Check Fee 5 Total Permit Fee � FAX IT? Would you like your permit faxed to ' YES o NO If yes, enter fac = / 2 - S/.S�o terCard Expira[ionDate: Month Year v:._ 1 1 n 1� dai�/sn•uw•�ned;s•i�•nnrnnn �e a�ig qaM ano �isin �� unnF-oo7-rco ne� `aa�iin �nruo� i�eiuo� oT � U � � �L1 L � / `y : ��_. , .,= � � ..( }�i�""�� `i �rY`,?N."'�^', _ �� °°iJ' �� -.' � ( `J.�.� �-�i_ �--:�r'"' :�+ �� .;i l� ? '�=' C.4 � '� V fi !-� _,r ' O l: �' �� 7 � JLz'.a�.l.`,f .p`� : --��'= c ; S . " s ` ,r.�i ' .. , • -�� , . - . �`<r,J�.�r �.%��J � �� -/ 3_. . ' °"-=- � i� !` 4 %: � � i^i-ii v = a {:'.:' C.._�C6�._ i � �- L _ �F � f.1 � y '`'s �-c . .- �v.. /,!. G='G ��,� � � e _ ._ �� j ,%{ ` . . _- Cd' - - � _, � ,. - % TG�- J-�.�..3` a=''� ; �� —� ; . _;Y-1'' /G ;u; 1 � j � eG� , � ?. �' ' ; �, _ L7�^G�,� w __ ' -- L�;_ ,-/ 7• /� � � '!�� -%=�: G'�1 -_ - _ `'°'—'"��-___� �i ..'.' '' ``� � �� _ . ,°� � _.. _<., ! � ,v'o > ��,'; � 1 `. r ' y- ^ ;� �" i v. � ' w� � �� i U , � T � 1 . �:.."� _ �_ r , .r . .�'y � f, f__.: � .�. � � t ±-f�: d t .. �.. .� �4':_,y�� '_� � v � , , , _I .�.��e � ` �: , S�t + 1 ` :`�� t S�� u � � j /� 7� i''� .�:.';'-:� ;�w :, �1.;� �?..�: <;� .._ �i /'= �� ` /G � f7 ` t. s � ._ � : • ; •11 STTF pR0 _ iRF.�NT: L� faces @ �.�^'s fact_ Tcta1 site procurement --- 5� �;� o• �°� 'Jl BA T�TR TRF ATFRTAT S: - Purchase of basic s�ucture, including uprighu and fascia: -Estimatedcost------------------------ S/D��v=� -Deliverycharge- ---------------------- S o�d��=' -Salestax@�•=%-------------------- $ Gd`S SUBTO'i'AL �//)z$.c� 31 IN-SHOP FA�RGATIO�t: - Labor to r=move basic materiats from truck; in-shop fabrication and assembly; in-shop P��B - .3 man crew @ 4�� hours @ �/ku'. -------------------------- 3 31dE,:t�J SUBT�JTAL S3lG�'�Y� R lF,�RRt�TF FOOTIN �� ND S tT[' TRF TOJON Si DI HO F: - Procedure includes (a) crew � equipment necessary to haul strvcture � materiflI to site and -(b) employ an auger to dig hole and haui dirt: (a) _ man crew @ hou�s @ �lhr_ to dig hole and haul dirt (b) use of auger for _ houzs @ ��r�--------------------- 5 - Labor to fabricate fcotings at site and pour concrete £ootings at site. - _ man czew @ fiours @ S/br:-- S - � yazds concre:e @ �_Jyd. - - - - - - - - - - S�,_ - Equipment required: (a) one huck @ _ haurs @ �—Ihr.------------------ �_ (b) one uuck @ _ hocus nlj�� /��°'�� ' @ �lhr.----------------- � STRTOT 7 . ------------ -- -- --------•----------- 5 � Page 1 �` � APPRAISAL # Lt3CATI{3N # /G 7G —cci Cv6-!�i e /�2�= ,si Lri'iL�•�'•�✓ %�_° �'-�- . � .'., ; �1. C. '. .: E.. - �-- _'. . � .` �. - � f � [A1 ) ut: l' ': �: l J: • y� - IncIuues assembly of fascia, s�inge;s, platforms, Iadders, brackets etc. 9II_S1tC. 1,�CGu � ��vS /2 o a? ; i%e� J�L^-�1 Y%u.�-�tuo2/�. - `� man crew @ '� � hours @ � b'� /�r•--------------------------SS��r'-'f�� - Equipment required: (a) oae �`�%� =: truck @ �� hours @ �� ------------------ S�%�-'�•�� (b) one ?� �`f�-�e:� �uck @ ; hours @� �fo /br_ SlSao,�� S TOTAT.-- - SE� � u P�o3 - - �- 1� 03 -/0 �7 � � ��5� � � Z.L'�AT�ON # /> f� -�`�' til��-�'�- ��= r':-� • :, - _P p '+ RF�T ACEt`�iFi4'T C(3ST$ ��,C TiT+P^Ff'7�'Y'i�?I fC0?`+'TTtYCiF.T)1 • �: . : tl lulf : � • - Purchase of basic eIec�ical materiaI incIuding light fi.miras, balIasts, lamps, boxes, hangers, breakers, ctocks, miscellaneous items such as cnnduit and cannectozs, clamps and clips, etc. @ 5 - - _ _ _ . _ _ _ 2� c'GG. � � - Sales tax @ / , J % for materials - - - - - - - - � /s'-` , =; - Load and unload equipment at site = a 2 man crew @ �� houis each @ S �'� /br. - - - S 7 Lu .�`, - Insra2l electrical panels, run conduit, pull wire, install nxtures and ballasts: � - � man crew @ �U hrs- . (a� i � �'O /hr- ----- ---------------5� l, �?� -- J - Equipment required: (a) one !�?�r<,� truck (a3 1-' � hours @5 � u Ibr. � ia-�:J,��J (b) one!% t�ti��' truck @ a``� hours @� � /hr. .. SGc�1GYJ (cJ one truck @ hours @S /hr.----------------- -�_ SUBTOTAL ------------------------------------ S 73,3�,�. � �i �� I� - APPRAISAi. � LOCATIDi�'# /� 7G �� /��C ��Gs,_ 1 `�-- :_' e � s g4rrn �_ E - - --- --- - -- -_—� �.. ll:a '�[.!� :_ - Crew to paint uprigfits including shvctu�ai stesl, ladders, srringe:s, �im, etc., alI items �� fascza - Z— man crew @� Y hours @ �?i lhr.-------------------------��7C,cr-.i - Equipment required: (a) or�e panzl u�uck mquized for !G hours� Zc� Ihr. --------5 3�o.c� SUB'i'flTAL S �SC �WJ � s � � Perntitcosts--------------------------- 5�� Soilstests ---------------------------- $ /'✓✓,' SUR"TOTA 7 . --------- -------------------------- 5 /3�,0� S � Dif�e CTIHARD REPI20DUCTION COST (I'IEMS 2-'� ----- 3 3� s� /- =�' �(il y�ifCi7`.� The above costs a:e ior labe* and raw ma!erial� �niv and dfl not include "ind'uect costs" including such iter.is � standazd overhead allowanc� and (Z) en�cnreue:L*iaUprofit --- ag explained in the namtive of the repor[- CJ S�? ��z c]Ta"1SASJiii. iF Lt3�A3'ION # /G �G fJ !v,/.�.;%,;�'�<<:-,=:�.,�' 0 3 -/a�7 - � � �I �t_ ! ► — __ _ '._�F- 1t� atE t�t f �. � � ..�� • � (1) (2) Site procuremeat - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ � /��.�i, �� ; In-piaca realac�ment (direct cost) = S �� '�,�� '� (page 1) (pa3es 1, 2, 3 & 4) Subtotal ------------------- S?/7'c% �' �J Overhead/conhactots allowance @ S�� / _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S �15, f�,� � . / Entrepreneurial profit @ I S %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - � /6 � z 7� �= a REPLACF.�'13EN'T COS1' NE4'Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SAY, S !� io c �� .� 'C �t� �lu• ! Afte: considering: • (1) acrial age of t�e in-place outcioor advertising s�ucture and - (2) recognizing the sirict mzintenance schedule applied to oatdoor adyer[ising sizuctures and - (3) the condition and qvaiity of constn!ction and - (4) the location and esonomic life expectancy of the outdoor advertising s�ucture ---- We have arrivefl zt the canclusion thaz the overail depreciation estunate of �� °lo' shouid be applied or as foliox5: TOTAL DEPRECIATION EST3i-IATE - - - � ?:�o + '� 1`dflTE: D'EPRECIATI�N IS c� t% % OF DIRECT COST (DEPRECLABLE ASSETS) �DNCt t rsIpN : B'OTAL REPLACEME2V�T COST NEW ------ 5 75�� '. �PPiuwbwpd � LESS DEPRECIA'TIO�' ALLOWAi`ICES ----{5 G 7; �„n� FtEPLACEMENT CL35T LESS D��RECIATION VALUE - Say, $ 7�a:�%,� �� Pzge 5 oi' S�- �3 _.. � �_ 1 �,. ��r.'=..� L i`�%�_ _ , � , _?� �° �r'n.;;.%%-''-,�2:a.,.-:-.7- p°��r.. -- • _� ._ `�, t:.'�- � , _� ; ____ -r r vu�;-z.��, - �-`" ;- -' ; . -_" -_.._._C��:. L�". "' j.�,'-' ,.{�C'*�--f�t— wl «s`�.Y _ ' _ ' "-'_._. ,_"'C'__"-dO ':_.bc..,r�Y ` � - .-, ; --« _ , — = = r. � ,, , ) .',� 'C � 3 `�, ? x_ 'ia,� �.--��E� ,�°' �°,. — .. _ .: �r� _ _ _ V � � � l�'J r _F,r'Y�"_ � : �-`%� - �PwV`�:�� _ � / ' L ."� /' �L� u� ��p � � wF.. ._ ____ _ _ ) _ ..�. �.. _ t � � � °' %`� ..%- �- � � __'_" _ ' _ " "'_'_'._' '__... ' _' _ _'_ '__ __ ` _ _ -T �3 \^. ' 4 1 _ _ y ?� ,. _ _'r=- ) Z 1 i��,_�.E, ��i ' � . � �. _,.; _ .. _ , _ �5 �. - ' � G`v` _'; � � . ' - . _ - , • � ' �'- �, ., .- _, . , .-�, -.:'--, ,.� : , .-_ _ , - -�- � �---....'---_..__ � -:. r..-'-..-- _..., ` ✓-.. ____ _� _____,._. - __ __- ."_."__"__________"-____`._"____.�__- '"_" C" � IJ.J / G �� - �� ': , o--c� I � u � J �fJ" 7 � � �,` ! .'a`°� �. __ � . �� / �✓j.+.'.�� 3 -J � r ' ' .� -. v.t.. -- r = `.'�, �!? T r' �� t,.� : _ r, `�- ' :i h - � � � �' °�_ �Sx- -' _ ,." _ __.__.. _.__ . _ . ""___ '_..__""_ _,_....____._ _. _ - _' _ �,a � - -_____ _ _ ". __ � _ .._"____--I.� . __"�" Ci : _�_�"�__ _9__. '_._ }�.•`(t'_ __ ' --�-�.__� _ - ' -___ _ _ __" ' r %�� i: . .,...____ - - _ }�_"" � 4-jl-'. _�-_ " ___ }-/ -_ _ s '�.v" ._ _ _ _ .. -t - '�� - - • � 1 � :. - � � . . � ! .. i✓_ :..n �.:.. _ �^"'�.. _ � a _ - t !`: } e - � ._. ' ' __, ". _ . _ _ _ _ ' ___ _ _ "_t.___ r � a : _ �r � c �s � � . _ :�r'.J_ - .. � � C.` . � - --- - --- ______Cy `._. �,.: ;.; :_._. � r � �_.._.__ -______ .____ '-- , -3 r. , � y�,�� ,��,�,�,, ,, s�r ,�"- ,. ... __I _ . .F .c ` - . =:J � ` �. ="c < :_ ' .-'� s c . � _ '. _____ _-"'_,_' � " � ,. - = ..w '_"' �� „ .,-_.�;-.;_ :c � ' - - �, �r�Y . "__ ""'_'" _ " _ '_ _ _ � � 0 � • � ' \ ^ _ ... � F . i ,. _ . _: i .� o: � : . 676 White BearAv ES mount "A" frame �P Ortable to z �� c-.=r�';�' _ .; 3/16" ca D 3-/O�f 7 �::�.:�;� - - ` �� ".` x`" ' C�. •'3•' � _ - ;i� _:•> : _ _ '"'�'� -- � ' � -' .�f:�Y::335�.� " _ ia.._ .. '.�'x�'%�t'=:;:� � • - -' `lG?' - =�,-y�'-i — - _ - _ _ `_.=.=c: �,.� : _ " ' � e .. - _- __ - _ � =°� � =tfn � - - - :; �.;:� :t�.e:.: �''-� x ,' `4 '.^5;.. �°�r.- boits 's�,�.,� - .�-'�,; _ _ _ _ _ v �, _ = �, x , x r� " �C ,� - nstall new poster panel wRh fberglass trim. nstail new 3/8" safety cable ' 3 �.,�.s � � .� m sv. s � � : �"^ -r �,z '� ; ti¢$. ,�.,tF Y - : r K � hecK b�ox for Y��es i�; '�r Yes � fi' � �s `�^,_ +. J� : ; d m` �.. � _ � .,.. . ,. a_," a .. ..u.... .3�� =,_ `�< `��, " = �aw� J �� nj � X� } _ ;4 t :%�5 = ^c=rs� _ x'" _ _ _ - �ze�:="=' � 03 /0�7 �,_ ._. �=� ��.� � z �� `a� A� � .-� - �� . , ; ��i�'�=�? c. ,'��:�` V�� c` .�: - �•L., � -,�:------- ��= �- � � � �' ��=°� �� . �- �� _ � � � �.-� - _ �.�,i . ,/ J � � ,{`°.,� ,.. . _ '� s i �� '� m a t � `^ ' � �9 � " .�#::'.. . . t.7 � . � i �. i __ , a . t ;.' ,� '�' � �� % ! 1� �— �f �- � �+ '�6 r �� s � � �� h :^� ��''—` � � % _ ��, i [8 � ' �$ 1� Q y � � � _ ; �� i �� .�� ; : a - ; � � t _ _ 3f d� e - � �° � 2: : � �� .. - _ " . :, sW �.. -� " ° - � E �'�'Y t� r �` n � ' �� , x � c ... ��.': : 3 '`�'� __. �= . . � � � -- � _ �_ �'.�. �i � i ��,.. f v t .� . . ,..... . �":� .�% �' ',�^ � r �_= � � Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave W-face of NW faces CC#064461 10-30-02 r� U ,, _ - � FC R � o3-la y7 � : \ �� Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave � E-face of NW faces ' CC#064460 10-30-02 ;�. <: . ;� ► • � � U -� - "` �� t v j 03-1o'f7 � Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of NW faces CC#064460 ' 10-30-02 � � � S iJ-�f P . rv }�� 1 x3a � �� P � °m'4 C] f : - ....... . � .��' � ` / , ��\ G � Ref#267 1676 White Bear ' W-face of SW faces CC#064463 10-30-02 ; Ave � , :' � F �` �; �� . ��- � � D3 -/0�7 i Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of NW faces CC#064460 10-30-02 �Ne � � . r -% r �"*� ��-�� st � � � . � �. � U�lest �. �_,� _ ;;. i_ i� �: , . � �� Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave ' NW faces CC#064460 10-30-02 � .► , e ` � ' �r ' � E� ---; � 1 a : � �$ � r, �^ ��;::_.�__ �,;� °;. —m; _ �� =� � _. '� � � i�� ✓� , �,, D 3 /OY7 � ,. � '�a�i6and Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of SW faces CC#064463 10-30-02 r�� . , . ,� a , �� : °.. _ �.. � �' F�R �f � EA�Efl �%T ^'� e • � _ � :��. r _ ,�' � � /�-` ,"�_/ � Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of SW faces CC#064463 10-30-02 � , -� =��--� :�;t - -=��- ��-° ,�__�_ � ,� t �- x �'. . � �•." _ � � �; "\ �-' �''-- D3-loy7 . Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave W-face of NW faces � CC#064461 12-6-02 , � . � r a F: '�'\ ; l� � ✓?_„ � _____ _.____ _____ , _ _ __. .. --.._e_. _ --__- _ ..____-__-- - -._ _ �.._ _ _ __ � Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of NW faces CC#064460 12-6-02 4�.�� --_ � �.-��,,� __ __ . " -� _ .: t � � ;"= i;%� � -- _--- ____ _____--_________..____�___.__..�______� _-- Refi#267 1676 White Bear Ave W-face of SW faces CC#064462 12-6-02 � . � , �, '� , _�� L�`�- � ` ' � �-' a3 -/0�7 _ __-- ._ ._.__. .. .__ ________ __�._.._ __ __ _ � Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave W-face of SW faces j CC#064462 12-6-02 � F.. � � �j�� % / a3 -/�y7 � > Q . �� m U � � N L >�� 1` ��N � �U� �U � �� N � � N � � � u � ' � F „ � f �� '� �� - � �-��: �� i�� rr.�o� Ref#267 1676 White Bear Ave E-face of SW faces CC#064463 12-6-02 �� ,�. _ � � � �� -� � -;��, �, - �_ � BILLBO aRD / SIGN PERi�IIT #:20 02 237038 Issued Date: November 21, 2002 \TR4CTOR: CLE4R CHa.V\EL OLTDOOR 32?5 SPRI\G ST \E bIPLS bL�i 55413-2908 PERi`IIT ADDRESS: 1278 GRA.�� AvE SUB TYPE: Biilboards Permit is for the Estimated Value of �Vork Estimated Completion Date Billboard Sq Ft boaTd Len�th — Credits ST PALTL hN 5510�-2604 O«'\ER: CITY OF SAINT PAUL � OKCe of License, �nsp¢:;,� j & Environmental Pro;ectcn '�� 350 St Peter Street. Suit= 3:0 � SaintPaul,MN55102.!5;p � PHONE (651) 26o-9�SV I FAX: (651) 266-3•21 i GREGORY T ROI'TER 3653 COLF.�1 A�� S bII\�'EAPOLIS �L1 55409-1021 WORK TYPE: Commercial Repair/Alter of thz siQn face, and its h-im, and the metal strin�ers oe the structure 3241.71 Nov 16, 2002 300 ?5 0 Estimated Start Date Billboard Tvpe Billboard �Vidth Billboard Hei�ht Sion Credit; Uszd 1Vov I5, 2002 Roof 12 32 0 �FEES Perntit Fee 13?.4Z TOTAL 13 � .42 Hzight of sign face must noe be increaszd Onty structural work authorized is thz replacement of the mztal strin�ers. No other s[ruceu:_I «or� proposed. The inspector assigned to this Permit is Jon H. �Gho can be reached at 651-266-9022 between 7.30 Ai�1 and 9.00 A:tiI Monday throu�h Friday � ,� �, ��'`! � -- C1TY OF ST. PAUL OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 ST. PAU�, MINNESOTA 55702-1510 C,^.J,e ��:.a,,,� PROJECT �,27 ADDRESS / Z 7� C�vi{� Contractor q � �tc� l�ia.,'il� �i... ; z.-c. ....n.ucon i vnR2C /I� n (��(((�l L�f/�/�(i/ (Include Contact Person) � ,g c �'zwBillboard AlterEx�snng B�liboard � Bdlboard Demol¢wn ��c.:��hw:��nA,�C.L �SZf � Ave. Blvd. Ecc. Y S E W 9 BILLBOARD PERMIT APPLICATION Visit our Web Site at www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/liep O.J /` �- — �• Address (Peml� will bc maileC ro;he C c�ry Jz zs S ( S� F State.Zip-4 P� N . �nn¢<�oe�S /��(/ CSy Address c�ty S.e..ti2 as G6e�.z State, Zip+4 nated 5[art Date Estimaced Finish Dare ESTI.�(ATED VqLUE ��S�OZ 1� ��02 � ��Z`��.71 Billboard (.4dvertising Si�n) Inform. /U �!// AdGmss phone / � - , 6 — -� /.�O Phone u�a� r �a��, musc accom�anv this oermit aonlication. , Type of Billboard (Check appiicable bos.) Billboard Totai Square Footage ' Frze Star,ding ❑ �,�' ❑ R Billboard Dimensions 6L'idtfi Le_ n_�_th He_ i� (Abo�: Grade) 30 " S �-�� 1 � i Z' X zs ' Fill out thi; secnon fer Electrical Billboard. ��'�� ro �' ( �R Of PiOjeC[ Distance to Ntares[ B:?:o�ard \ote: A separate Eleemcai Permtt is REQ[;IRED when [he Bi(lboard is electricaL' /VP- ��M c.ntip- _ ([^ CeL o(�, �;, ElectricalContrector: Phonee: E�.y{.-• 5` - / Approrafs $truc[ural Rerie�� Zonfng Damc[ ' � �r �� 'r,. �� r � '' T�:� . �.. a � �. Plan Revtew SU�I�IARY OF F Billboard Permit Fee 5 Plan Check Fee � 5 Total Permit Fee � � �" X�//i}S Y Appiicant certifie; th�t aI1 mFoma[;on r corect ordinances �ci;1 be comp(ied wich�rfgF�! AppiicanPs I Please complete [he folloajng mformation for crrd:<<3rd paymeni. Date FAX IT? «'ou!d you like your pz- faxed to vs4'� 1t yes, en[er fas � �iz�6aS=S/fo "' ' ' ' ' - / �facter ('�M dai��sn•uw•�ned;s•i�•,wnnrn �e a�ig qaM �no lisin /'.' \ � k ,' � ;� �� Dx:e �J For 0[Fc: Ls: Only Required Approved .a�i pzrment sta:e regulanoas and cin ork for w�hich [his permit is issued. � �� fi�c? � �!. 8006 li�� `a��30 $vtuoZ �aeluo� oZ D � r l�� , , - '�":= :•��'�- � g � ' f} 'i u 3 K � ti. � h n� %"h �� .i — �r- � %/�'i %� � ?� „S /� � � ~ ;�� t `� J L . { .. � . :. c,_ . � � c- J'v' • Ut�' _ � �l� � lM1 l../ � l.^ � ia � e ��.� __. '.� '.` .� : �i ;� �,? �� ; � _-- � %-'..� e-=? � ^a''� �- � 5 L��1"� -'--- � s � — y t, "__ � i-..� � ,�. � _ � L�� j '— �C � .�.' - fi `� -- ._ _ �—_ _ J L� — � > � � c"� ------ �_ �_, �, � G � --- _ ° 1 i 3 .~. � —__ � � �-�':P"..P�{S'�C- .� � l V � v � _ "' _"' _"_ � � __.__ --_�"_ ' ' _—' �' s �l � �'"`� ,-��-`�� % � ---- -- ---- - --, -- - - � � � ., -- - - -- - --- - T. ,�� -�___""'_'___"__ " �, c "—___ _" _ _ ' '_�-" ;; � iv - . � ,, = ��- � 1 e�_�i� PROC� � F� - � faces''¢, 5's:�� /ract. � Tct1 site orocl:rement - - - S3� ;� ,�j Z� �-�,SI STRTT�'Tj'hF 1 L?ATFicT T C. —� -?urchs�e ofbzs;c sCUCtu:e, inclttding uprighU" and fascia: - Est:r,�ated c�s: - - - _ _ ---------------- S?;?'•'�:. -Deliv ey e- --------- ..:� v. e c�ar� -- -------'--- ba.S?�•:�� -$alest3X� V_(°o�a------- """"""' ^J !'"`9,rtY� SZ'BTOTAI-------------- ---------------------- �7�l.��„�y� �l ?�r-SHOP F a �R Tr e - Labor to renove basic ma;erials �ZOm hvck; ia-shop fabrcavon ard assemblY; in-sho� pa i n;� • Z �an cmw @ �' hocrs �, S 2�-/hr. --------------^ ----------- ��'�?��.� �1�.T ��9I..--------------- a ^ � � �LYf 6�.6"� � y 41HATiT/pARR*C'.A�FOOT�;,C �.,�5�-r�rr�u--i-nin� Prcc,aLte mc.udes ,. �� 1 � � DI HO F: (a) crew & e.�tupmeat netessary• to hau157ucnue & material to site a�d -(b) empjoy aa auge. to dig hoIe aad haul dirc: Ca) _ r.ian crew v hou,-5 C �—./hr- to dig hole aad haul c+i*L---------- "_'_""'"�—_,— ('o) use of auger fer _ hot;rs � ��1f. -"_'_'_"v"_ ""- � - La`wr to f�ricate fcotiags at si:e zad po;:r concre�,e footngs at site. - _ maa r.ew V hours � 5 /kLr . ----- ------- g - _ yazds car,cre:e ` ^2, �_� - - - - - - - , - - S - Ecuipz�eni re�uired: (a) one �:ck C _ how-s ��—��-. ------------- ----- S ('b) one �-.:c4c @ _ h C �.�ar. S �LBT T T �'��' � �E'..''.�� - ,,��r �, . 9 s� �.� � =- �`_------------------ • -------------- �__ � Ps ' �' ,i i , �jL��\ i:% " �__ � o3-loy7 �'�R �s.�: � Z�C�iiO\ � �— � ., �� _'-::.�r��r �� nt- -?:��:.�e c� ��:c e.ec^:czi � �«�_,: : . . 'u ' ' - -• .:C:_..:=e' L�:: :.��_S J�'i�� S � - '='�C.S, C °2.�` °:'>� CACK'1. ��SC°!'o.. -_ u`„ ° .._ > bOX°>� �.0 C:i�S, 2_� � °OL'S a.�.^_S 5 . e5 COII�L':: �-v� CO�:.,..:0_�. Cl°-.�5 " ' _ " , S �� .' i � -s :�s;�:r� G,S' o , r . . �,� � .a �Li_�_:1�;5""_"" ��`6 - 7 O'w'�t 3i'l� 1%-I'102 : C�2�:7 u_1: H: S:�° = c? Z�. crew �. "� So :rs ea=.: (� �Cj _ ° .� �—_�.�. - - c /�� , c :� - !.^_..�•= e: Z :ca'. ?an�:s, ' coac�; �.�1 w � � - n � ----------' -----.��t�� •�_sz��bai�s`s: a= _� i � y J' � �'='Z C'�Q C I� ��C rl �+ � � (' �d %'l9C/IV� � iJ r�.�t.�i�°1. l �.. (a) o �� Lr'D�?t.� �-�� -� _�',�S-` 1:� -o`- S C�b��c ('o)one k+]tlr, r-_� n >_ ✓ � �. ho�s v�"�? ./�.,:.---------- 5�� (�) oZe �_=x (a` ho=�; �' �: .---------------- �_ � �F3TpT�r ----- -------------�----------------- S L��'S i l u � � �� % r�--�:RAISAi: # L�CATIOti —� ,• `� � �-, � r, ° � ;' �� i.1� =_. _� � � ' : /1 1 • - Purchase of basic elec�ica: �:ateriaI �Wc?c� , g I_g:-.: ix�sas, b21i�;s, la::.ps, boxes, tar.gcr,, brskers, c:ocks, ��scellaneoi:s items such as coedi:it and can.�ec.ors, cia�gs a:,Zc:ips, etc. @ $ -------- T -�� Y 1�( v ✓� -Sz!es��, � ��,�- - Load and ucload equip�eat at site = a 2 maa crew a,� � hours each � 3 `? �/h:. --- J'�� .,,.. S�_�J I.^stall elec� ca1 p�e:s, n:n �oed�_;[, pu!1 w�e, ias;zl fixtures and ball��u: ' 2 - m�n crcu• @ 1� hrs_ � �`-� �hr. -------- ----------- s 21L=,�. - Eaunment reqctized; (a) one L.�;>;:: d. �uck Qa. '/ � hou:s @ _Z� / � r ,------ ---------- 5 G:�✓�� ('D) one aT1�3°.� G-1c'� �v / % �ou:s @S �D 1hr.----------- y,iD.c (c) one truck @ hou:s C� ,_��------------- ----- �_ SL ______ --------------- __ ,i.�y ,�..- ---------'--- S%.�..�"./i-..;� � .� � p f G / c "' i { �--�� , i� a3 -10�7 A.pPR�ISAZ. r LOCATIQ�; R � 71 S'�i TR A T P d T�2T"'� �- ; ,r, /, v v- `z ,�.^-2`� - C^ew to paint uprights includiag struct.:rai ste�?, ladde:s, miage:s. �is, eic., alI iter,is exc �t fascia � r.�rn c:e:v @ � I�ous v 5 i y /hr.---------------- - EquipmeaT reauired: ------ ��12 (a) or_e paneI �,ick required for �" r.o� @ �—�. - - - - - - - I � � >-w�-.� i S �� i ; _ """"_' $✓Jr�G Per.nitcoss--------------- 5��3-�J Soilstests -�------------------------ 1� J/—� StBTO__T� ---------- ----------- -------------- 5 %�c'=�Si=%s� ��o DI-RivT/�i,iRD REPRODtiCTIO� COST (ITE;1-fS 2-7} ----- S 1�:%c/�. ;-; �OTA"�'Tnn • The a�ve costs ze ior iaber a d raw �a*r '>I t and do aot inclLde "?IIC�I°�.( COSiS�� L^.C�v�L^i'�T S'uCP. ii�^S 2i � s:aadzrd eve:hea3 a::cwa-.ce aad (Z) en�egrene:L:s.E`p � ror_t ---�s explau�ed i: Le r.z.;.at,ve of i2e re:,o,.. � Page 4 C � /, . �-. i s��,p� �_. _ _ , a3: a K"YJ..�, R ? DCATI�Y # � r; /% ? j; ;.-. , �; � � �'Lf�,fA Y OF RFpRO� i 7�11� ['ncTC. �Ii Sj'-= prcc•are�en, - - - ..� � --------- :�� CPage1) C<) L.-ptac� re�lasevzeat (d:"mc: cost) = S;`=;� i, —�=-� (Pages 1, 2, 3 & 4) Subtotai -----------•--- ------------- S/:�.,�'_ Overhead/conuacto�s allowaace @�-'� ° /o S 7�'�t,1�-; Eatr�p:eaeuial nroht �a; 1 S • .., °�------------ ---s -3:�vW I2EPLA C�'.l��fiCOSTh�E�%------- ------ --SAY, 5a�d� nFPRFf Tq'r'TO'�t FC'�� fL*Ye: c�nsidering; (1) acn�al �e of `'s.e in-place ontdoor adve:tising su and - (2; recagr��in� � s�� s�tera*�ce sche:ii:Ie apotied to outdoor adc�s�g ��e:ures and - (=) the coaditior. at;d at:r.iit_v oi cons� anZ _ (4) the Iocation znd e�onos.ic ?iie expe�ancy of tae outdoor adve?ising strsc:ure ---- �'�� h2ve aa:.ved a* Lhe coacit:sion tiat L`:e overail de�re: iazion es':.�ate or �-s �o ° =hoe.c:d 'oe apnlied or as foIlouS: TOT.�L. D EpRECL�TIQ�i ESTI:�iATE - - - ' � `7�_�,� * �30TE: DEPRECZ�TIO�i IS � J ?i, pF DZRECT COST (DEPR£CLAEiLE ASSETS) �ti , rSIOti4; TOTALREPL ACE�£E=VTCO5T?Pr�W------ " f 5��t.' �r�a��a LESS DEPR��L4TI0.>� AI.LO`tiA.*iCES ---- 1 GJ: t>j REPLACEY�e,T COST LESS I V�I.L� - Sav, � �s� /+L�;/ �� Paa° = o= = '�� ?_� -�� 1; �___ r b3-loy7 _� i��. � .�� ; ._- _� .: a i';a'_'.��; � 1 v� . T�'-':a; _- s , r � f � � -- � > �' 'i _ Y r �_ s,� �{� / �. !� , LJ� L/�r_, � 1' � . (, ., '"�_.� / . 6'� S ` ---L=�� ! 4L' j "�-i,y� � �T� . C�e"tl' l �"'�M� — _� Ii - —____"-'_ - � J;J J x. � Y �:-i v'r G .2 �O _ /L � � � � �; )� ,� P � --. ___—._—. ' J ` v - - _ . ��: 1 � S � e. 3 i � � ,, — ------ ��-'��-= � c u , �v ? S / ` �.�-:. �,�_,� ,,.� �` , � . „ -- � 'lu�-�^ :� lr b a" i ( f � i . : ,°a r4¢`; � t. - , �� ✓� ✓ .� V ! �J 3��J �t�v 2�J L Z � � � / � b � i v ZSz a `Y � f �✓�� s�-`�.✓ ? S ,? : d`Oe1 >.y1' =`f:c t � as '.'1, � 1 � < � : '"`� � � � cJ — ----- - - ` '� L , � ,� _ � ------- -- , . � ,- -------- ------- - - ., +„— . �- — - � v.3 P �ry��_�.�/ �� { �'; . Z� j. cx w l�.f 4^ r _______ _ �. 1 � f• �< ._ " ��3.. r - 3 �-� ,. � _ -- J . _ , -- - ,—�,! ,� � ; „ ( _ � I � , f a`.:... y , ;> ( C`""o��-.. � n !`.. 1...^-� rA.�_.= �.. OFnCE OF LICE�Sc, I\SPECTIO�iS AVD E\V;RO��IE\TA� pROTECTIO� Roger C Curs�s, Direc.or SA[NT PAUL � AAAA � CITY OF SaLtiT PAUT, Rar.cy C Ke11y .tlnya� au�ust 7, 2002 Chris McCarver V/P Rezl Estate MaaaQer Clear Channel Communications 322� Sprin� Street ti' E. blinneapolis, �(�i 55-1i; L O « 'RYPROFESSIO.Vd[BClLD(.VG Te[ephoue: 6�l-]66-90>r� 3505�?eterSrrzer.Su¢e300 Fa<siinile. 6i1-165-9;'_ Sc:n: °a�.l. Ll:n.r.esorc5510?li10 , {Veb. w�vw a.s.pcn..n:n ;m :,r� Rz: Copy oi Ad�zrti;ement Pzelmg A�vay F:om S10-n Face Dear �Ir. Evrard: Dunng a rouune m,necnon oi adcer*�;�no �t�ns m[he Cm oi Sai,-.. Paul I observed [hz copq of [he adtierttsement on [he sr�n iace o£billboard(s) you o��r. ,r. [he City were peeling a��ay from [he:, surface a[ [he fo]lo��ma Ioeaiion(s): OLR REFERE�CE FILE r 296 343 3�3 366 370 481 YOtiR SIG\ FaCE TM 0 077450 07776� 068670 068%70 Oi'3170 LOC:�TIO\ DESCRIPTIO\ �30 Robea Street �'oRh 1278 Grand Avenue 666 Gr2nd Avenue 379 Rice Street 1215 Rice Street 1�2I SelbyAvenue Secuon 66201 (3) of the leeislat�ve code s[a:es all sio:;� w_�h y�z �ns{�ntly sha[I be repaired o: removed within I� days ot notificauon. - The adveric_ement copy on tce biliboard(s) at the zooce nierer.ezc ?ocai�on(s) mus[ be repa�red withia t? days of fr,e datz oi this ie«zr. If you have aay que;tior.s or concems re�arding this marz, I may be contactzd at 266-908�. ` � Si: erelv, � ��z� Jefirey Fischbach Billboard Ir,spections �� _ z�: • s ICyou btl:ae my Sension in :h¢ mar.er w ha�e be<� made m erzor you may appea! the;ri:,t,-;p � �� -: _�,,..�.,,,, ..,.t-_ ,� ,. .. . d3-�oY7 � a� � � a� > Q � � �o I � � � o N cp r . . . t s ,' _ �-;: , . ,:� �_ � - ,: � � , ;�, �> J �� — `\f ,_ � � Ref#343 1278 Grand Avenue 8-15-02 r= } - �-. _"�°°. - `t'� % 1 � � t _ r ,. . � »� . - �, •�� , e -- n .'��'� �'�` � � C, 9 � �} F' .. ":t +L :.. � ��" � � i + �� . . ... . � �1 . � 5 "� � ° � �.� r.. �S 2 �' �' � �� I . 3 � i � - � �� v _9 .. �s ; � � . .. L�'.�.:.,�� Ref#343 1278 Grand Avenue 8-15-02 ►R � � (-- �- �.� ;- .— �� -� _- �3-/0�7 � Ref#343- 1278 Grand Avenue 9-17-02 1 �� ,.iR r - � _� f , , ="_� � ''�� . -�i �, c a3yoY� � CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO DIS RICTS . � RAY - BATTLECREEK�HIGNWOOD 2. ATER EAST SIDE EST SIDE 4.DAYTON'S BLUFF 5.PAYNE-PHALEN 6.NORTN END 7.THOMAS-DALE B.SUMMIT-UNIVERSITY 9.WEST SEVENTH lO.COMO 11.NAMLINE-MIDWAY 12.ST. ANTHONY 13.MERRIAM PK.-LEXINGTON HAMLINE �'.l�{20VELAN D-MACALESTER �1'r"H I6HLAND 16.SUMMIT HILL 17.DOWNTOWN � �� ''� Z-1�� CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS � � �ATER EAST SIDE DISTRI�T 2�N x0 1 °O 0 � s000 �� SCLLE �H FEEf �� oZ-Z��-93� � 5 �� . 037oy�7 : � �`� � ��._ _— . . _. '?L.ICArtT �I C•�• 2; �`�` � 1 _.— LEGCND '�°OSE � ` �� --- zoning dislricl tvundary �-zy7 t�-3 . E f.:. ��7 DATE V�V L �Illl� suSje�i prop>„ �� o;,t�� 'dG. O;ST�_ p,�qo � 0 on� fzmilY . . n � comm=:_iz: � :__9� ¢ h.�o family q .a.> in�ustris� B . _ �l¢4 mulGpie(arnily V vacen; , - -- - � . . . . /� 1"J .✓ - '... � � . __ . �_J �`--' � ... . . °----- _ , . ��x�� _ i � .�. ..... ..,.., i �� , � ...._:::� �� !�1/1�11�If`� ' GROVELAND-MkCALESTER � ,; �� DISTRICT 14 C .�-- „ «---�°"- � � � � � � � �� — � � � � �iz-��{7-435 i ��-- �5 � �`�i � cr'�� D3 �� i � Q � ��"`� �� -�..�� a ' " , � :=-=: y��;, �. : � � �. � � �' :� �� f� � �� _ _ �� x �_= �: � � = ,, � - � �--- _ _ _ _"-� �" __ . � � �� . � �� : e ��i"�' . � �,� � .. � � _ � �.. � = .,� � j , _ � - _ �� . � -- _.____ _ .----- - ' F �� LEG�ND PURPpSE �°°�� zoning dislrid tuundary =1�E ;t�� DATE �� `� C�llL�l� subj=�t prope;�y n-� a;,t�� °LNG. D;ST P,iA° ;� P � o one fzmiiy � a n comma:�tz' � � h•�:olamily 4 �.� induslri=.! n�x ^ a . - — .b.-�Q multiaia (amily V vaczn: , --- � . _. _ .... . _ ----- �.