03-247Council File # D3 as/
Green Sheet # 113724
RESOLUTION
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
�
Presented By
Referred To
�
Committee: Date
1 WHEREAS, on May 17, 2002, the department of license, inspections and environmental
2 protection (hereinafter, "LIEP") issued a written order to Cleaz Channel Outdoor, Inc.
3 (hereinafter "Clear Channel") to either remove or restore an advertising sign located at the azea
4 commonly known as the NW corner of Saint Clair Avenue at Ayd Mill Road on the western half
5 of the lot (L1EP reference #518; PIN 03-28-23-44-0120; NO PART OF VAC ALL.EY AD7 AND
6 LOT 13 BLK 6) because the physical condition of the advertising sign constituted a hazzard; and
8 WHEREAS, on May 29, 2002, Clear Channel submitted an application to LIEP for a
9 building permit to repair the said sign which LIEP returned to Cleaz Channel because the
10 building pernut application was incomplete; and
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
WFIEREAS, on June 20, 2002, Clear Channel submitted a new building permit
application to LIEP for the said sign, which was subsequently approved by LIEP and a building
permit for the sign was issued on or about on August 16, 2002; and
WHEREAS, on or about September 13, 2002, Macalester-Groveland Community
Council, Saint Anthony Pazk Community Council, Scenic Saint Paul, Scenic Minnesota, Jay
Dregni and Narrah Palmquist filed an appeal of L.IEP's decision to issue a building pernut for the
said advertising sign; and
20
21 WHEREAS, on October 3, 2002, pursuant to Legislative Code § 66.408 a public hearing
22 was set before the zoning committee (hereinafter, the "committee") of the planning commission
23 (hereinafter, the "commission") for the purpose of hearing the appeal of the above-named
24 appellants but the matter was laid over to October 17, 2002, based upon the report of staff that
25 they were unable to prepare a written report within the time deadline in the zoning code to
26 conduct public hearings on appeals; and
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2002, the committee conducted a public hearing on the
appeal after having provided notice to affected property owners and submitted its
recommendation to the commission and the commission, by its Resolution No. 02-79 dated
October 25, 2002, decided to grant the appeal based upon the following findings and
conclusions:
1. On 6/20/02 Clear Channel applied for repair permits for the St. Clair-Ayd Mill
billboard. Repairs aze proposed only for the V-shaped billboard structure with two sign
faces at the west side of the site. No pernut was issued for repair of the adjoining singly-
faced billboard at the east side of the site because it appears to encroach on Ayd Miil
Road right-of-way and the encroachment issue must be resolved between Clear Channel
and the Public Works Department before LIEP will consider issuing a pernut.
D..a-a�7
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
The St. Clair billboards were the subject of a previous zoning enforcement case.
In 2001, LIEP ordered all three of the billboard faces at this location to be removed due ta
their deteriorated structures and the Macalester-Groveland Special Sign District provision
that prohibited the replacement of the structural elements. Cleaz Channel appealed and
the Planning Commission in September, 2001, decided that LIEP had esed in issuing the
removal order because the signs did not present an imminent public hazazd, which was
the standard set by the Macalester-Crroveland Special sign District.
On 5/17/02 Jeff Fishbach, I.IEP billboard inspector, wrote to Clear Channel and
said that the rotted and decayed condition of the St. Clair billboards constituted a hazazd.
They violated code standatds and the violations needed to be resolved by either removing
the billboazds or restoring them to a sound condition. On 5/29/02 Clear Channel
submitted a repair permit applicarion to LIEP but it was returned as incomplete because it
lacked documentation by a structural engineer. On 6/20/02 Clear Channel resubmitted
the application with a description of the work to be done, which was prepared by W. T.
McCalla, a licensed professional engineer. On 8/16/02 L1EP issued a biilboard repair
permit. When LIEP received the present appeal, they suspended the repair pernut and, as
of 10/15/02 no apparent recent repair work has been done on the St. Clair billboazds.
2. Also on 6/20/02 Cleaz Channel applied for repair permits for the Raymond-
Raymond Place billboard. In the Raymond case structural repair work had already been
done before the pernut was actually issued on 8/16/02, the same date as the St. Clair
pernut.
LIEP received a complaint that repairs had been done to the Raymond billboard.
Ciear Channel Outdoor, owner of the billboazd, had not applied for or received a building
pernut. Jeff Fischbach of LIEP investigated the site and found that repairs had in fact
been made, and furthermore that the repair work did not meet code. Projecting from the
front side of the billboard, a brace was nailed to a city-owned guard rail post in the right-
of-way along Raymond. In the back a brace was attached to a tree. Neither method of
bracing is pernutted by code. Jeff Fischbach wrote to Clear Channel on 5/2/02 advising
them to get a pernut and to do the work in conformance with code. Before getting a
billboard permit, a Clear Channel repair crew removed the brace connecting to the tree in
back and in the front they substituted their own large, new stake in the ground as the
anchor for the new brace in the front, which they had previously nailed to the guard rail.
3. On 9/13/02 the co-appellants (two district councils, two public interest non-profit
organizations, and two citizens) filed an appeal of LdEP's decisions to issue permits for
the repair of the St. Clair and Raymond billboards. On their appeal form, the appellants
asserted for both billboard structures that: (a) the proposed repairs aze illegal under the
Saint Paul Zoning Code; (b) the billboards themselves are illegal; and (c) the biilboards
are public nuisances. The PED staff responded to these claims as follows:
a. Repairs illegal under the Zoning Code. On this claim PED staff believes that
the appeal has merit and calls for detailed consideration of the interplay between
the Saint Paul Zoning Code and state law. Arguments could be made both for and
against allowing the repair work described in the pernuts, as outlined below in
findings 4 through 9.
Page 2 of 6
'i
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
�� -a��
b. The billboards themselves are illegal. The appeal says: "The subject billboazds
were illegally constructed-issuance of repair permits could be construed to convert-
illegal structures to legal non-conforming structures." Obviously both the St.
Clair and Raymond billboazds aze non-confornung uses since no new billboazds
are permitted anyv✓here in the City or specifically in the special sigi districts. The
question is whether they have legal nonconforming status. All nonconforming
structures that existed continuously for twenty years prior to the adoprion of the
nonconforming use regulations in 1976 were grandfathered as legally
nonconfornuna [Section 62.102(b)]. Clear Channel submitted records showing
that the Raymond Ave. billboazd was first leased in 1930 and the St. Clair
biliboazds received a building permit in 1947. Therefore the billboards are legal
nonconforming uses.
c. Public nuisance. Chapter 45 of the Saint Paul Lzgislative Code elaborates on
public nuisances and spells out procedures for abating them. No action under
Chapter 45 has been initiated. The appellants offered neither evidence nor an
argument for why the billboazds are public nuisances.
4. Returning to the question of whether the repairs that LIEP approved are legal, the
PED staff compared the state law to the local special sign district regulations to assess
their degree of consistency or inconsistency. To the degree that they aze inconsistent, the
local regulations are unenforceable. The state law, Section 462357, reads:
"Any nonconfornilty, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises
existing at the time of adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be
continued, including through repair or maintenance, but if the nonconformity or
occupancy is disconunued for a period of more than one year, or any
nonconfornung use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than
50 percent of its mazket value, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or
premises shaIl be a conforming use or occupancy. A municipaIity may by
ordinance impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulaUOns to prevent and
abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfaze or safety."
In short, the state allows for repair and maintenance of nonconforming billboards
and also allows the city to adopt, for existing billboards, reasonable regulations that
protect the public welfare.
5. An established principal of zoning law is that nonconforming uses will over time
disappear as property is reused and redeveloped. With most laws, compliance with a new
law is required upon enactment. With zoning, because of the size of real property
investments, grandfathering has always been part of the law to mitigate the hardships that
immediate compliance would cause. Neveztheless, zoning law has always been built on
the premise that nonconfornung uses would over time be replaced by conforming uses so
that the community's comprehensive plan and zoning would be fulfilled. The Sign
Chapter expresses this intent, among others, for signs in the lists of purposes of the
chapter, Section 66.101:
Page 3 of 6
"The purpose of this chapter is as follows:
2
3
4
5
(8) To reduce the number of nonconforming signs in the City,
particulazly billboards.
v3_���
6 (9) To control the quality of materials, construction, electrification and
7 maintenance of all signs"
9 The Macalester-Groveland special sign district also has a pazagraph on its intent
10 and purposes, which include enhancing the visibility of azchitectural and natural feanues,
11 beaurification of residenrial areas, and reducing the visual ciutter of advertising signs.
12
13 6. The Sign Chapter of the Zoning Code goes on to give regulations for
14 nonconfornung signs. The citywide Sign Chapter in the Zoning Code, Section 66301 on
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
nonconforming signs reads:
". .. It is further the intent of this chapter that nonconforming signs shall not be
enlarged upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other
signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. It is fm�ther the intent of
this chapter to pemrit legal nonconfornring signs existing on the effective date of
this chapter, or amendments thereto, to continue as legal nonconfornung signs
provided such signs are safe, aze maintained so as not to be unsightly, and have
not been abandoned or removed ..."
In the Macalester-Groveland and St. Anthony Park Special Sign Districts we find,
in nearly identical language, further restrictions regarding maintenance of nonconfornung
signs. The Macalester-Groveland version, Section 66.2169.3(e)(1), reads:
"Regulation of nonconforming signs within the Macalester-Groveland Special
Sign District which lawfully existed prior to the effective date of this sign plan or
any amendments hereto and which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted
under the provisions of this plan, may continue to exist as legal nonconfornung
signs regulated under the provisions of Section 66.300 pertaining to
nonconforming signs, [ie., from the citywide sign ordinance] subject to the
following additional requirements:
(1) "No nonconfornung sign shall be:
(a) Altered or enlarged in any way, or ...
(e) Maintained through replacement of shuctural elements."
The matching provision for the St. Anthony Park Special Sign District is found in
Section 66.2164.
7. In summary, the local Sign Chapter: (a) allows nonconforming signs to continue;
(b) seeks to reduce the number of billboards in the city (currently over 600 billboard
faces); and (c) allows some, but not all types of repairs and maintenance. The purpose of
the prohibition against maintenance by replacement of structural elements is clearly
related to the goal of reducing the number of billboazds over time. If structural elements
are replaced, billboazds will stand, as nonconforming uses, for decade after decade after
decade unless destroyed "by fire or other peril" ar the property is totally redeveloped.
Page 4 of 6
. _ . ds-.� ��
1 8. Neither state law nor the local ordinance defines "repair" or "maintenance."
2 Dictionary definitions span a wide range of activities. Thus the Planning Commission is
3 left with the responsibility of making judgment calls in the cases of the St. Clair and the
4 Raymond billboards on whether the repair pernuts issued by LIEP are within the scope of
5 the maintenance and repairs permitted by state law, or lie outside that protection for
6 owners and aze subject to the special sign district regulations to the extent that they are
7 "reasonable regulations" of nonconformities to protect the public welfare, which
8 municipaliries have the authority to enact.
9
10 9. In the case of the Raymond billboazd, the repaus have already been made and we
11 can see them. A large stake was driven into the ground_ To it were nailed a pair of 2 x 6
12 braces that help to support the sign. A lateral sway brace was nailed diagonally across the
13 backs of the upright posts to reinforce them, but the brace was not attached to the ground.
14 According to the building pernut appiication, the work cost $205. Structural elements
15 were added to the sign, but the work was quite minor in relation to the total sign structure.
16 This was a structural repair in violation of the provisions in the St. Anthony Pazk Special
17 Sign District, but the Planning Commission concluded that given the minor amount of
18 work, the pernut is within the scope of the state law's protection of the owners of
19 nonconforming uses that allows them to continue the use through maintenance and repair.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
10. In the case of the St. Clair billboazds, the repair work will cost $3,900 according
to the repair permit application. The building permit application itemizes the following
repairs: replacement of four out of six horizontal wood stringers, replacement of one of
the eight 4 x 6 upright towers; using steel banding to reinforce the joints between the
ground stubs and the upright towers; and replacement of most of the bracing behind the
biilboard. The permit application says 380 feet of 2 x 6 boazds will be used.
Approximately 100 feet will be used for the four stringers, leaving 280 feet for the
replacement of the A-frame braces and sway braces currently behind the billboard. PED
staff esUmated that the current A-frame and sway braces for panels 1 and 2 total 340
lineal feet. Thus 80 percent of the bracing behind the billboazds would be replaced. All
of the repairs mentioned in this finding are structural repairs and replacements. The
Planning Commission concluded that the proposed repairs would be tantamount to
reconstruction of the billboards. These repairs go beyond maintenance and repair.
11. Since "repair" and "maintenance" of nonconfornung uses aze not defined and case
law is not yet available on this provision in state law, the Planning Commission sought to
balance the state law protection for owners of nonconforming signs to make repairs
against the City's authority to place reasonable regulations on nonconforming uses by
ordinance. The Planning Commission concluded that the special sign districts'
prohibitions against all structural replacement are not consistent with the intent of the
"maintenance and repair" clause in state law and, therefore, are not fully enforceable.
But, on the other hand, the extent of the structural repairs proposed at the St. Clair
billboard is closer to replacement and reconstruction than it is to repair. If such extensive
repairs aze permitted, these nonconforming billboards will probably continue to intrude
on the sunounding residential neighborhood -- where the nearest commercial comer
store is more than a block away -- for another fifty years.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Legislative Code § 64.206, Clear Channel, on
or about November 1, 2002, duly filed an appeal from the deternunation made by the
commission regazding the sign at Ayd Mill Road and St. Clair Ave. and requested that a hearing
Page 5 of 6
"i
2
be held before the City Council for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the
commission; '�` and
�.a-.� ��
4 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code §§ 64.206 -.208 and upon notice to
5 affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the Saint Paul City Council on
6 November 20, 2002, where all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard; and
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
WHEREAS, the Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the
application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolurion of the committee and of the
commission, with respect to the billboard at Ayd Mill and St. Clair does hereby;
RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul hereby denies the appeal of Clear
Channei Outdoor, Inc. finding no error in fact, finding or procedure of the commission in this
matter and adopts the commission's findings same as its own; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. is hereby
denied; and be it
FINALLY RESOLVED, that the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to Clear
Channel Outdoor, Inc. and to the original above-named appellants, the Zoning Administrator and
the Planning Commission.
* Note: Although the findings and conclusions in planning commission Resolution No. 02-79 address two signs
owned by Clear Channel, the subject sign at Ayd Mill Road and St. Clair together with another sign located along
Raymond Avenue, the commission's decisions regazding each sign were appealed sepazately with the Council
considering the Ayd Mill Road sign appeal on November 2Q 2002 while the hearing regazding the appeal of the
Raymond Ave. sign was heazd by the Council on December 4, 2002, and each appeal is reported under a sepazate
resolution.
Requested by Department of:
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
8,.: � U!✓�— 2- 26- a3
Adoption Certified by Council Secretary
By:
Appr
BY:
`}
Adopted by Council: Date �il/� /�',o��A� J
D3-a�7
DEPARTMEM/OFFICElCOUNCIL _on�I��
Crty AtYOrney
GREEN SHEET No � ��7�f}
��'e�ter 266-8710 1n1tlaVD �""�
qy oE.�rtowccraR aremusa
MUST�� UNCJI�A(�'QJB9I15CIIL� ASEIWi
LW.J - l.0
INI�IBHtFOR ❑ CIIY�iTONEY ❑ aIYCt.FRK
AqRY1G
� A1011CCNLiERY�CFicYt w11111CJI1LaErtnACCiG
❑ wrortlu��smrxrtl ❑
TOTAL � OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE)
��em�ona�izing City Councii action taken November 20, 2002, denying the appeal of Cleaz Channel Outdoor, Inc. to a
decision of the Saint Paul Plauning Commission revoldng a billboazd repair pemut issued by the Office of License
Inspections and Environxnentai Protecrion (I.IEP) fo; a wooden, v-shaped billboazd with two sign faces on the northwest
corner of St. Clair Avenue and Ayd Mill Road.
RECOMMENDAT�ON Approve (A) a Reject (R) PERSONALSERVICE fANiitAG75 MUSTANSWER7HE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
1. Has this persnJfirm erer waked under a contrxt fw this depaihneM7
PLANNINGCOMMISSION YES NO
CIBCOMMfTTEE 2. HaslhispersaJfirmeverbeenadryemployee9
CMLSERVICECOMMISSION YES NO
3. Does this PQ�Nfi'm possess a sldli not nomiallypossessed by anY curterd city employee7
YES NO
4. Is this persaJfi�m a taryeted eendo(t
YES NO
E�Iain all Y� answeis m sePerate sheet aM atlach to Oreen sheet
INITIATMG PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNITY (WM, Whffi, When, Where, Why) �
ADVHMAGES IF APPROVED
DISADVANTAGES IF APPROVED
DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COST/REVENUE BUDGEfED (CIRCLE ON� VES NO
FllNDING SOURCE ACTP/tTY NUtdBEft
FINANCIAL INFORMATON (IXPlA1N)
��-a��
OFFICE OF Tf� CITY ATTORNEY
ManuelJ. Cervantes, CiryAttorney
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Randy C. Kelly, Mayar
CivilDivision
400 Ciry Hall
IS West Kellogg Blvd.
SauU Paul, Minnetora SSIO2
Telephone: 651 266-87l0
Facsimile: 651298-5679
February 27, 2003
Nancy Anderson
Council Secretary
310 City Hall
15 West Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55102
Hand Delivered
C.\car e�s�re1� ��c..
Re: Appeal by A�Ia - i . from a decision of the
Planning Commission dated October 25, 2002, regazding a advertising sign located at the
N.W. wrner of St. Clair Avenue at Ayd Mill Road.
City Council Action Date: November 20, 2002.
Deaz Nancy:
Attached please find the signed original Resolution mennorializing the decision of the City
Council in the above-referenced matter. Please place this Resolution on the consent agenda for
adoption by the Council at your eazliest possible convenience. If you haue any questions, please
do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
�����
Peter W. Warner
Assistant City Attorney
PWW�llllb
Enclosure
� �,
NOTICE OF YUBLIC HEARIN6
The Saint Paul Clty Councll will conctuct I
a public heazuig on Wednesclay, Nrn'embu
20. 2002,�at 5:30 p.m. in the CYty.Counc� .
ChamUers, 11�ird Floor _ City Hall-
Comthouse, 15 West � Rellogg Boulevard•
Saint Pacil, MN. to consider the-appeal of
Cleac Chaimel OuWoor,lnc. fo a decision of
the saint Pa�al rraz,nin� commissiori-rew� -
ing a bNboard repa�' Permit issued by the
Of$ce of ]zcense, Inspections and
Env�onmental Protectibn (IdEPj for a wood-
en, v-shaped billboazd with two sign faces
on the northvrest comer of St Clat�' Avenue -
and Agd Mi11 Road. (AtUud sign face, the
one clo.sest to Ayd M�11Road, is str54"ctnraIl9
sepatate and is notinvolved In this appeall�
,Dated: November 6, 2002
N9NCY ANDERSON ` �
. 6ssistant GYty Coivfcil Secretary , �
(p�oy�il�er 1 il � � �
3T. PAOL IEGlSL I�M'iEK
020457Z4 , �
DEPARI'MENT OF PLANNING
& ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMENT
Martha G. Fu11er, Director
(.TTY OF SAII�TT PAUL
Ramdy C. Kelly, Mayor
November 6, 2002
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Research Office
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, Mimiesota 55102
Dear Ms. Anderson:
25 WestFourth Street
SaintPaul, IvLV 55102
V��� �
1�
Telephone: 651-2666655
Facrimile: 651-228-3314
I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday
November 20, 2002, for an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to revoke a billboard repair
pernut at the northwest corner of St. Clair Avenue and Ayd Miil Road.
Appellant:
File Number:
Purpose:
Cleaz Channel Outdoor, Inc.
#02-237-598
Appeal of Planning Commission decision to revoke a billboard repair pernut
issued by LIEP for a wooden, V-shaped billboazd with two sign faces on the
northwest corner of St. Clair Avenue and Ayd Mill Road. (A third sign face, the
one closest to Ayd Mill, is structurally separate and is not involved in this
appeal.) o
Address: NW corner of St. Clair and Ayd Mill; PIN 03-28-23-44-0120; (parcel has no
address)
Leeal Description of Property: ST. CLAIR ST. AND SHORT LINE ADDITION, NO PART
OF VAC ALLEY ADJ AND LOT 13 BLK 6
Previous Action: _
Zonine Committee Recommendation: Grant appeal by Macalester-Groveland Community
Council, Scenic MN, and four more co-appellants and revoke billboard repair pemut that
LIEP had issued; vote: 4-2; October 17, 2002. (As part of the same zoning case, the
committee denied the co-appellants' appeal regarding repair of another billboard, which is
located on Raymond Avenue in the S. St. Anthony Park neighborhood.)
Plannine Commission Decision: Grant appeal by Macalester-Groveland Community Council,
Scenic MN, and four more co-appellants and revoke billboard repair pernut that LIEP had
issued; vote: 10-6; October 25, 2002 (The commission also, as part of the same zoning case,
denied the co-appellants' appeal regarding repair of the billboard on Raymond Avenue.)
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Zoning File: #02-237-598
Page 2
�3��`�?
My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda for the
November 20, 2002 City Council meeting. Please call me at 266-�^'i'f you have any quesrions.
Sincerely,
Larry erholm
Planning Admiuistrator
cc: File #02-237-598
Carol Martineau
Paul Dubruiel
Wendy Lane
Allan Torstenson
Peter Warner
� ��C �
L:�Aroanda�ZonmgiCCdocs\02-237-598anderson memo conf¢ming p��b �.�.,.�_FO Employer
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
& ECANOMIC DEVELOPMEN7
MarthaG.FuZIer, Direcmr
o�'a`��
CTTY OF SAII�TI' PAUL
Randy C. KeIIy, Mayor
November 14, 2002
Ms. Nancy Anderson
Secretary to the City Council
Room 310 City Hall
Saint Paul, MN 55102
RE: Zoning File # 02-237-598
City Council Hearing:
25 P/utForvth Street
SaintPauZN.N55102
CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC.
TeZephone: 651-266-6655
FacsimiJe: 651-128-3314
November 20, 2002 at 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers
PURPOSE: Appeal of a Plamring Commission decision to revoke a billboazd repair permit issued
by LIEP for a wooden, V-shaped billboard with two sign faces on the northwest comer of St.
� Clair Avenue and Ayd Mill Road. (A third sign face, the one closest to Ayd Mill Road, is
structurally sepazate and is not involved in this case.) The issuance of the billboard repair pemut
by LIEP was appealed to the Pl3nn� Commission by the Macalester-Crroveland Community
Council, Scenic MN and four more co-appellants. Cleaz Channel now seeks to have the repair
permit reinstated by the City Council.
(Another billboard, located on Raymond Avenue, was also part of the same Planning
Commission's decision. On the Raymond billboard, the Planning Commission upheld LIEP's
issuance of a repair permit. The Saint Anthony Pazk Community Council and some co-appellants
are appealing that part of the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. It will be
heazd on December 4, 2002.)
LOCATTON: NW comer of St. Clair Avenue and Ayd Mill Road; PIN 03-28-23-44-0120;
(pazcel has no address)
�
LIF,F'S ACTTON: Issued billboazd repair permit for the V-shaped billboard structure after: (1)
determining that it was severely deteriorated; (2) ordering Cleaz Channel to remove or repair the
structure; and (3) determining that the cost of repairs would be less than 50 percent of the
billboazd's mazket value.
PLANNING COMIVIISSION ACTION: Granted the appeal by the neighborhood co-appellants
and revoked the repair permit on the grounds that major structural repairs are contrary to the
Macalester-Groveland Special Sign District. Vote: 10-6.
ZONING COMNIITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Grant the appeal by the neighborhood co-
appellants and revoke the repair permit on the grounds that major structural repairs are contrary
NLs. Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
November 14, 2002
Page 2
to the Macalester-Cnoveland Special Sign District.. Vote: 4-2.
PED STAFF RECOMMENDAITON: Grant the appeal and revoke the repair pemut on the
grounds that major structural repairs aze contrary to the Macalester-Groveland Special Sign
District.
SUPPORT FOR APPEAL BY TI� NEIGHBORHOOD ORGAIVIZATIONS: Testimony was
given by Scenic MN and by Scenic Saint Paul, which were two of the co-appellants, and by the
Summit I3ill Association/Dish 16.
OPPOSTTION TO APPEAL BY TF� NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZAT`IONS:
Representatives of Clear Channel Outdoor spoke.
�
Deaz 1VIs. Anderson:
This appeal raises the question of how much authority the City has to regulate the repair of
billboazds. There is a disagreement between the billboazd industry and neighborhood
organizations about whether the billboard repair provisions in several of the special sign district
ordinances aze enforceable, given the state legislative protection for legal nonconforming uses that
was enacted in 2000. The special sign districts prolribit repair and maintenance through
replacement of structural elements of billboards so that old billboards will someday weaz out and
be removed. The state law says that legal nonconforming uses can be continued through repair
and maintenance unless they aze damaged beyond fifry percent of their market value, and it goes
on to say that municipalities can icnpose reasonable regulations on nonconformities to protect the
public safety and welfaze.
The Planning Comaussion concluded that, in the case of the wooden, V-shaped billboard at St.
Ciair and Ayd Mill, the speciat sign district prolubition was a reasonable municipai regulation
because eighty percent of the structural bracing behind the signs and half the horizontal stringers
thax hold the sign face panels are proposed to be replaced. The Planning Commission determined
that tlris was cioser to reconstruction of the signs than to routine maintenance.
At the Planning Commissio� there was another billboazd involved in the same appeal, this one
located on Raymond Avenue in the St. Anthony Park neighborhood. On Raymond Avenue, LIEP
issued a repair pernut for the addition of a diagonal wood brace to a new anchor post in the
ground, with a total cost of $205. The Planning Commission determined thax this repair, while
structural, was so minor that the St. Anthony Pazk Special Sign District was t�umped by the state
law on repair and maintenance, or in other words, that the local ordinance became an
urereasonable regulation as applied to the facts of the Raymond Avenue billboard. This side of the
Planning Commission's decision has atso been appealed to the City Councii, and your hearing on
it will be scheduled on Decemher 4, 2002. The hearings could not be scheduled together on the
same date because Clear Channel submitted their appeal for the St. Clair billboazd almost
immediately, whereas the Saint Anthony Park Association and Scenic 1vTmnesota submitted their
appeal for the Raymond billboard at the end of the 15-day appeal period. The Zoning Code says
that appeals must be heazd within 30 days; December 4�` is too late for the Cieaz Channel appeal.
�
•
\ J
�
Ms. Nancy Anderson
City Council Secretary
November 14, 2002
Page 3
D 3,�.�'1
Neither Clear Channel Outdoor nor the neighborhood organizations aze satisfied by the Planning
Commission's decision. Clear Channel argues that, under the state statute, the City can only
compare the estimated repair cost to the new construction cost to see whether the repairs are less
than fifty percent. If they aze less (and in this case Clear Channel claims their repair cost of
$3,800 is only eight percent ofthe billboazd's new construction cost of $48,000) the City must
issue the building permit. The neighborhood organizations argue that no replacement of
structural elements--regardless of whether the repairs aze minor or major--should be allowed
because the structwai-nonstructurat distinction is the only practical way for the City to prevent
nonconforming billboards from being perpetuated forever. The neighborhood organizations azgue
that a gradual reduction in the number of billboards, particulazly from neighborhood areas, is
consistent with zoning law on nonconforming uses and is a reasonable use of municipal regulation
to promote the public welfaze.
The Planning Commission's resolution gives a good summary of the case and their decision.
Please call me (266-6575) if you have questions. -
Sincerely,
Lazry S holm
Planning Administrator
Attachments
cc:
City Council members
Dennis Flaheriy, Deputy Mayor
Chris McCarver, Clear Channei Outdoor, Inc.
Marvin Liszt, Atty. for Clear Channel
Laura Gutmann, Macalester-Groveland Community Council
Melissa Matthews, St. Anthony Pazk Community Council
Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
John Mannillo, Scenic Saint Paul
Jay Dregni
Narrah Palmquist
Peter Warner, Asst. Ciry Attomey
Wendy Lane, LIEP
7effFischbach, LIEP
Martha Fuller, PED
A1 Torstenson, PED
r
o
�
� ��
•
I.
II.
�.
�.
Attachments
Appeal by Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
Planning Commission reso2ution with decision letter
to appellants and Clear Channel
Planning Commission minutes for 10/25/02
Minutes of Zoning Committee public hearings on 10/3/02
and 10/17/02
V. Written testimony submitted at Zoning Cte. public hearings
VI. PED staff report to Zoning Cte. 'vacluding maps and photos,
plus all of the attachments to the staff report
L:\Ammmda�ZoumglCCdocs�0712i7-598noa20cC8f.lOCwpd AA-p.DA-fiEOEmployer
Pages
1-2
3-10
11-14
15-23
24-25
26 - 76
, �.. r� �
15nINT
Irwvi
�A�
AP�UCA'p'IBt�t F9R APPEAt
Depanment of Plarning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
1100 City HaII Annex
25 West Fourrh Street
Saint P¢ul, M.N 55102
256-6589
n 3-a�7
APPEL�NT � Name Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
Add�eSS 3225 SprinQ St. N.E.
City Minneapolis gt.MN Zjp 55413 Daytime phone 612-869-19
PROPER7Y I Zoning File Name Administrative Appeal of Billboard Permit
LOCATIOPI j Add�eSS/LoCatiOn � St. Clair Ave. and Ayd Mill Road
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeai to the:
= Board of Zoning Appeals � City Counci!
under the provisions of Chaptsr_64, Section 206 , Paragraph a of the Zoning Code, to
appeai a decision made by the Planning Co�ission
on october 25> 2002 ,xp� File number: 02-223-938
(date of decision)
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain 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 Appeals or the Planning Commission.
SEE ATTACEED.
Atfach additrona/ sheet if
Appiicanf's
�
Date �!-�"'�- City agent
�
This matter arose only after the ciry requested Cleaz Chamiel repair the billboard. �
Pursuant to that request, an application was submitted and a permit issued. An appeal followed
and the Planning Commission revoked the permit. The action by the Plann9ng Commission as
set forth in Resolution 02-79 is contrary to law and denies to Clear Channel the rights afforded to
owners of legal nonconforming uses.
The Planning Comnussian's Resolution is in esor based on the follawing:
I. The appellants before the Planning Commissioner had no standing to appeal since
they were not persons affected by t decis of the zoning adminis�ator.
2- Minn. Stat. §462.357(1)(e) and Zoning Code §66.301(2} permit the repairs
requested by the city since the cost of repairs is significantly less than 50% of the
depreciated replacement cost of the sign.
•
r
u
�
•
��'�,#�M� � 3 ��.� -
D
city of saint paul
planning commission resolution
file number o2-�9
date October 25, 2002
WHEREAS, the Macalester-Groveland Community Councii, Saint Anfhony Park Community
Councii, Scenic Saint Paui, Scenic Minnesota, Jay Dregni, and Narrah Palmquist (six
co-appeilants), Zoning File # 02-223-938, have appealed, under the provisions of §66.408, an
action of the zoning adminisfrator to issue biilboard repair permits for finro biliboard structures.
One of the billboards in fhis appeal is a singie-faced biliboard at '1016 Raymond Ave., NE
comer of Raymond Ave. and Raymond Place (LIEP reference # 123; PIN 29-29-23-13-0029,
Regisfered Land Survey 339). The other biliboard structure in fhis appeai is a V-shaped
structure with two sign faces at the NW comer of Sainf Clair Ave. af Ayd Mili Road on the
wsstem hal# of the lot (LIEP reference # 518; PIN 03-28-23-44-0120; NO PART OF VAC
ALLEY ADJ AND LOT 13 BLK 6).
WHEREP.S, tfie Zoning Comrnittee o4 the Planning Commission heVd a pubiic hearing on
October 3, 2002, and continued it on October 17, 2002, at which ali persons present were
given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appeal 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 pubtic hearing as substantiatfy reflected in the minutes, made the
foilowing findings of fact:
On 6/20/02 Clear Channel appiied for repair permfts for the St. Clair-Ayd Mill billboard.
Repairs are proposed only for the V-shaped biilboard structure with two sign faces at the
wesf side of fhe site. No permit was issued for repair of the adjoining single-faced
biliboard at the east side of the site because it appears to encroach on Ayd Mill Road
right-of-way and the encroachment issue must be reso(ved between Ciear Channel and
the Pubiic Works Departmen# before LIEP will consider issuing a permit.
The St. Clair biilboards were the subject of a previous zoning enforcement case. In
2001, LIEP ordered all fhree of the biilboard faces at fhis location to be removed due to
their deteriorated sfructures and fhe Macalester-Groveiand Speciat Sign District provision
fhat prohibited the repfacement of sttucturaf etements. Clear Channei appealed and the
Planning Commission in September 2001 decided that LIEP had erced in issuing the
�
moved by Kramer
seconded by _
in favor �o
against 6(Anfang, Mejia, A1ton, Johnson, Alexander, Shortridge)
�
Zoning File # 02-223-938
Pianning Commission Resolution
Page 2
removal order because the signs did not present an imminent pu6lic hazard, which was
the standard set by fhe Macalester-Groveland Speciai Sign Districf.
�
On 5l17/02 Jeff Fischbach, UEP biilboard inspecfor, wrote to Clear Channei and said
that the rotfed and decayed condition of the St. Clair bi(Iboards constituted a hazard.
They violated code standards and the violations needed to be resolved by eifher
removing the bifiboards or restoring fhem to a sound condition. On 5129/02 Clear
Channel submitted a repair pertnit appiication fo LfEP but it was returned as incompiefe
because it lacked documentation by a structural engineer. On 6120102 Clear Channe[
resubmitted fhe applicaYion with a descripfion of the work to be done, which was '
prepared by W. T. McGaila, a licensed professional ertgineer. On 8/16l02 �IEP issued a
biliboa repair permit.
When LIEP received the present appeal, they suspended the repair permit and, as of
10/15/02 no apparent recenf repair work had been done on the St. Clair billboards.
2. Also on 6/20/02 Clear Channel apptied for repair permifs for fhe Raymond-Raymond
Place billboard. tn the Raymond case structural repair work had aiready been done
before the permit was actualiy issued on 8/16/02, the same date as the St: Ciair permit.
LIEP received a complaint that repairs had been done to the Raymond billboard. Ciear �
Channel Oufdoor, owner of the billboard, had not applied €or or received a building
permit. Jeff Fischbach of LIEP investigated the site and found that repairs had in fact
been made, and furthermore that the repair work did not meet code. Projecting from the
front side of the biliboard, a brace was nailed to a city-owned guard rail post in the right-
of-way along Raymond. In the back a brace was attached to a iree. Neither method of
bracing is permitted by code. Jeff Fischbach wrote to Clear Chanrrei on 512/02 advising
them to get a permit and to do the work in conformance with code. Before getting a
billboard permit, a Clear Channel repair crew removed the bra�e connecfing to the tree in
back and in the fronf they subs5tuted their own targe, new stake in the ground as the
anchor for the new brace in the front, which they had previously nailed to the guard rail.
3. On 9/13/02 the co-appeilants (two district councils, two public interest non-profit
organizations, and two cifizens) filed an appeal of LIEP's decisions to issue permits for
the repair of the St. Ciair and Raymond billboards. On their appeal form, the appeflants
asserted for both biilboard structures that: (a) the proposed r�pairs are illegal unrler the
Saint Paui Zoning Code; (b) the biliboards themse(ves are iliegal; and (c) the biflboards
are public nuisances. The PED staff responded to these ciaims as #oilows:
a. Repairs illegal under the Zoning Code. On this claim PED staff believes that the
appeai has merit and calls for detailed consideration of the interp(ay between
the Saint Paul Zonino Code and state law. Arguments coutd be made both for
and against aliowing the repair work described in the permits, as outlined below
in findings 4 through 9. •
�
Y1 ��'� 7.
� Zoning Fiie # 02-223-938
Planning Commission Resotution
Page 3
b. The billboards themselves are i(IegaL The appeal says: ° The subject billboards
were illegally constructed - issuance of repair permits could be construed to
converf iliegal stnlctures to lega! non-conforming structures.° Obviousiy bofh
the Sf. C4air and Raymond biliboasds are nonconforming uses since no new
bilfboards are permitted anywhere in fhe city or specificaily in the speciai sign
� districts. The question is whether they have legal nonconforming status. A!I
nonconforming structures that existed confinuously for twenty years prior to the
adoption of the nonconforming use regula6ons in 1976 were grandfathered as
legally nonconforming [Seetion 62.102(b)]. Ctear Channei submitted records
showing that the Raymond Ave. bii(board was first leased in 1930 and the St.
C1air bitlboards received a building permit in1947. Therefore the bitfboards are
legal nonconforming uses.
c. Public nuisance.. Chapter 45 of the 5aint Paul Legislative Code elahorates on
pubiic nuisances and spells out procedures for abating them. No action under
Chapter 45 has been initiated. The appeilants offered neither evidence nor an
argument for why the biliboards are pubiic nuisances.
� 4. Returning to the question of whether the repairs that LIEP approved are legal, the PED
staff compared fhe state law to the local special sign district regufations to assess their
degree of consistency or inconsistency. To the degree that #hey are inconsistent, the
local regulafions are unenforceable.
The state law, Section 462.357, reads:
°Any nonconformify, including fhe lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing af
the time of adoption of an additional confrol under fhis chapter, may be continued,
including through repair or maintenance, 6uf if the nonconformity or occupancy is
discontinued for a period of more than one year, or any nonconforming use is destroyed
by fire or other peri/ to fhe extent of greater than 50 percenf of its markef value, any
subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shal! be a conforming use or
occupancy. A municipality may by ordinance impose upon nonconformities reasonable
regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the pciblic health, weffare or
safety."
In short, the state law aliows for repair and maintenance of nonconforming billboards and
also allows the cify fo adopf, for existing biliboards, reasonabie regulations that protect
the pub4ic welfare.
5. An established principai of zoning law is that nonconforming uses wili over fime
disappear as properfy is reused and redeveloped. Wifh most laws, compliance with a
new law is required upon enactment. With zoning, because of the size of real property
• investments, grandfathering has always been part of the law to mitigate the hardships
fhat immediate compliance would cause. Nevertheless, zoning law has a(ways been built
on fhe premise that nonconfotming uses woufd over time be reptaced by conforming
�
Zoning Fiie # 02-223-938
Planning Commission Resolution
Page 4
uses so that the communit�s comprehensive plan and zoning would be fuifilied. The
Sign Chapter expresses this intent, among others, for signs in the list of purposes of the
chapfer, Section 66.109:
°The purpose of fhis chapferis as follows:
(8) To reduce the number of nonconforming signs in fhe city, parficulady
billboards
(9) To confrol the quality of materials, consfruction, electrification and
maintenance of all signs;"
�
_ ,
ur oses, which include enhancing the vis�bility of architecu a9�ph on ifs infent and
er= r�ve n s ecra si n distrrctaiso has°a aF
P P ral and naturat features,
beautificatian of res�dentiai areas, and reducing the visuai ciutter of advertising signs.
6. The Sign Chapter of the Zoning Code goes on to give regufations for noncontorming
signs. The citywide Sign Chapter in the Zoning Code, Secfion 66.301 on nonconforming
signs �eads:
°..lt is further the intent of this chapter that nonconforming signs shall not be enlarged �
upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding ofher signs or uses
prohibifed elsewhere in the same districf. It is furfher fhe infent of this chapter fo permif
legal nonconfom�ting signs exisfing on the effecfive date of this chapfer, or amendments
thereto, to continu= as lega! nonconforming signs provided such signs are safe, are
maintained so as not be unsightly, and have not been a6andoned orremoved...."
In the Macalester-Groveland and St. Anthony Park Speciai Sign Districts we find, in
nearly identicaf language, further restricfions regarding mainfenance of nonconforming
signs. The Macatester-Grovetand version, Secfion 662969.3(e)(4), reads:
Regulafion of nonconforming signs within the Macalester-Groveland Special Sign Districf
which lawfu!ly existed prior fo the effective dafe of this sign plan or any amendments
hereto and which would be prohibited, regulated, orrestricted underthe provisions of this
plan, may confinue to exist as legal nonconforming signs regulated under fhe provisions
of section 66.300 perfaining fo nonconforming signs, [i.e., from the citywide sign
ordinance] subject to the following additional requirements:
(1) No nonconforming sign shall be:
(a) Altered or enlarged in any way; or...
(e) Maintained through replacement of structura! elements."
The matching provision for the Sf. Anthony Park Special Sign District is found in SecSon
66.2164. _ •
fl
� Zoning File # 02-223-938
Planning Commission ftesolufion
Page 5
�
,
7. in summary, the local Sign Chapter. (a) allows nonconforming signs to continue;
(b) seeks to reduce the number of billboards in the city (wrrentiy over 600 biilboard
faces); and (c) ailows some, but not all types of repairs and maintenance. The purpose
of the prohibifion against maintenance by replacemenf of structurai elements is ciearly
reiated to the goal of reducing the number of biilboards over time. If structural elements
are replaced, biitboards will stand, as nonconforming uses, for decade after decade after
decade unless destroyed "by fire or other peril" or the property is totally redeveloped.
8. Neither state law nor the locai ordinance defines "repai�' or "maintenance ° Dictionary
definitions span a wide range of activities. Thus the Planning Commission is left with the
responsibility of making judgmenf calis in the cases of the St. Clair and the Raymond
biilboards on whether the repair permits issued by LIEP are within the scope of fhe
maintenance and repairs permitted by state law, or lie outside that protection for owners
and are subject to the speciat sign district regufations to the extent that they are
"reasonabie regulations" of nonconformities to protect fhe public welfare, which
municipatities heve the authority to enact.
9. In the case of fhe Raymond billboard, the repairs have already been made and we can
see fhem. A large stake was driven into the ground. To it were nailed a pair of 2 X 6
� braces that help to support the sign. A lateral sway brace was nailed diagonaily across
the backs of fhe upright posts to reinforce them, but the brace was not attached to the .
ground. According to the buiiding permit application, the work cost $205. Structural
elements were added to the sign, but the work was quite minor in relation to the total sign
structure. This was a structural repair in violation of the provision in the St. Anthony Park
Special Sign District, but the Planning Commission concluded that given the minor
amount of work, the permit is within fhe scope of the state la�s protection of the owners
of nonconforming uses that allows them to continue the use through maintenance and
repair.
10. In the case of the St. Clair biliboards, the repair work wili cost $3,900 according to the
repair permit appiication. The building permit application itemizes the foilowing repairs:
repfacement of four out of six horizontal wood stringers, replaceinent of one of the eight
4 X 6 upright towers; using steei banding to reinforce the joinfs between the ground stubs .
and the upright towers; and replacement of most of the bracing behind the biliboard. The
permit application says 380 feet of 2 X 6 boards wiii be used. Approximately 100 feef wili
be used for fhe four stringers, leaving 280 feet for the replacement of the A-frame
braces and sway braces currentiy behind the bif{board. PED stafif estimated that the
current A-frame and sway braces for panefs 1 and 2 totaf 340 lineai feet. Thus 80
percent of fhe bracing behind the billboards would be repiaced. All of the repairs
mentioned in this finding are structural repairs and repiacements. The Planning .
Commission concluded that the proposed repairs would be fantamount to reconstruction
of the billboards. These repairs go beyond mainfenance and repair.
• 11. Since "repai�' and "maintenance" of nonconforming uses are not.defined and case Iaw is
not yet avaitable on this provision in state law, fhe Planning Commission sought to
�
Zoning File # 02-223-938
Planning Commission Resotution
Page 6
balance the state law protecfion for owners of nonconforming signs to make repairs
against the City's authority fo place reasonabie regulations on nonconforming uses by
ordinartce. The Planning Commission concluded that the special sign districts'
prohibitions against all structural replacement are not consistent with the intent of. the
"maintenance and repai�` clause in stafe law and, tfierefore, are not fuily enforceable.
8ut, on the other hand, ffie extenf of the sfructural repairs proposed at the St. Clair
biiiboard is cioser to repiacement and reconsfruction than it is to repair. If such exfensive
repairs are permitted, these nonconforming biflboards will probably contEnue to intrude on
fhe surrounding residential neighborhood—where the nearesf commercial comer stor� is
more than a block away—for another frfty years.
�
-_
' - F}€REF(7f2E; 6€ tT RESOtVED, 6y tfie Saint Pau( Planning Commission, under the
aufhority of the City's Legisla6ve Code, that the appeal of the Macalester-Grovetand
Community Council, the St. Anthony Park Association, Scenic Saint Paul, Scenic Minnesota,
Jay Dregni, and Narrah Patmquisf is hereby granted with regard to the St Ciair billboards and
their appeal is hereby denied with regard to the Raymond Ave. biltboard. The permif issued by
LIEP for the Raymond Ave. billboard is upheld as valid. The permi{ issued by LIEP for fhe St.
Clair billboard is hereby revoked.
�
•
I
PLANNING COMMISSION
GZadysMonon, Chair
�3'a�
CITY OF S�II�]'� PAUL
Ran.dy C. KeZZy, Mayor
October 28, 2002
Laura Gutrnann, Comtntwity Organizer
Macalester-Groveland Community Council
320 So. Griggs St.
Saint Paul, MN 5510�-2800
25 L�lestAourrh Street Teiephone: 651-2 66 6565
Smn!PauZ?dN5.i102 Facsimiz:651-228-3314
RE: Administrative Appeat oP Two Billboard Repair Pertnits Issued to Clear Channel Outdoor (Zoning
File #02-223-938)
Dear Ms. Gutrna.nn:
I am writing to let you lmow that on October 3�jr 25, 2002, the Pian� Commission approved your
• appeal of a billboazd repair pernit issued by LIEP for the V-shaped sign on the northwest corner of
St. Clair Avenue and Ayd Mill Road, but the Commission denied your appeal of the repair pemut for the
singlersided billboard on Raymond Avenue across from Raymond Place. The Planning Commission
di�+ between the two pemiits based on the amount of repair work proposed. On Raymond Avenue
the repair work, despite being struchsral work, was relatively minor. On St. Clair Avenue, so much
strucfival repair work was proposed that the old billboard structure was virtually being rebuilt. Thus, the
Pl nnino Commission revoked the billboazd repair permit issued by LIEP for the St. Clair V-shaped
billboazd structure with two faces. (The third face, closest to Ayd Mill Road, did not receive a repair
percnit and was not part of your appeal.) The Planning Commission's resolution is attached and it explains
the Planning Commission's reasoning in detail.
You may appeal the decision of the Planning Comxnission to the Saint Paul City Council by filing an
application and the fee for an appeal at the PED '�� counter, 1400 Ciry Hall Anne� within fif}een days
of the date of tlus letter, ttsat is, by November 13, 2Q02. Cleaz Channel 0utdoor ma,y also decide to file an
appeal by the same date. An appeal should be based on wbat you believe to be an error in any fact,
finding, or procedure of the Planning Commission. Enclosed is an appeal application form.
I am sending copies of the this letter to your co-appellants and to Clear Channel Outdoor. Please call me at
651/266-6575 if you ha�e questions or if I can be of further assistance.
�-
i�� ����F �
,.. �.
� ..�..� -.� � ...
�:J
Attachments: p nnin Commission Resolution
Application for Appeal to City Council
cc: Melissa Matthews, St. Anthony Pazk Communiry Council
Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota
John Mannillo, Scenic Saint Paul
Jay Dregni
Narrah Palmquist
Chris McCarver, Cleaz Channel Outdoor
Mazvin Liszt, Clear Channel Outdoor '
Peter Warner, City Attomey's Office
Wendy Lane, LTEP
L:�mmd��zonv aaaDA-go�i, �
LJ
C�
•
������
�
Saint Paul Pianning Commission
City Hall Conference Center
15 Kellogg Boulevard WesY
a
Minutes of October 25, 2002
A meeting of die Planning Commission of ihe City of Saint Paul was held Friday, October 25, 2002,
at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall.
Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Zimmer Lonetti, McCatl, NSorton, Shortridge,
Present: and Trevino; and Messrs. Alexander, Alton, Anfang, Gordon, Johnson, Kramer,
Mardell, Mejia, and Rosales.
Commissioners Messrs. *Dandrea, *Fiefd, *Fotsch, *Gervais, and *Kong.
Absent:
"Excused
•
Also Present: Larry Soderholm, Plannin� Administrator; Allan Torstenson, Allen Lovejoy,
Rich Malloy, and Mary Bruton, Department of Planning and Economic
Development staff.
I. Approval of Minutes for September 27 and October 11, 2002
MOTION: Commissioner ponnelly-Cohen moved approval of the minutes of September 27,
2002, and October Il, 2002. Comn:issioner Mardell seconded the motion. The motion
carried unarzimously on a voice vote.
II. Chair's Announcements
Chair Morton reminded the commissioners about the Planning Commission Holiday Parry on
Friday, November 22, 2002. Mr. Soderholm stated the regulaz meeting will be moved forward
to start at 9:30 a.m. instead of 8:30 a.m., with the lunch following immediately after the
mee[ing. There will be the regular Steering Committee meeting before the Planning
Commission meeting.
Chair Morton asked for suggestions for a speaker for the luncheon.
� J
Commissioner Gordon reported that at the Steering Commi[tee meeting today a motion was
passed to request an increase in the per diem for Planning Commission inembers from the
current $25 to a proposed �75 and a proportionate increase in the annual maximum cap on
amounts that Planning Commission membets can receive. The per diem has been at $25 since
1975 and over that period of time there have been increases for other public officials and no
increases for Planning Commission members. He understands that some other public boards
receive higher per diems-that the Board of Water Commissioners has a per diem of $100 and
the Parks and Recreation Commission has a$50 per diem. He encouraged the commissioners to
support sending a resolution to the City Council.
t�
IV. Zoning Committee
Commissioner Kramer gave the Zoning Committee report.
OLD Bi3SINESS
�02-223-938 Macalester Groveland Communitv Councit. St. Anthonv Park Communitv
Council Scenic Minnesota Jav Dreani, Narrah Palmquist - Appeal of zonin� administrator's
issuance of permits for structural repair of billboards at two tocations, which raise an apparent
conflict bet�veen the neighborhoods' speciat sign district restrictions on biftboards and state (aw
re�ardine repair of nonconforming uses. The billboards are at: (1) NW corner St. Clair Ave. and
Ayd Milt Rd (LIEP ref. i�518), and (2) 1016 Raymond Ave., NE corner of Raymond Ave. &
Raymond Place (LIEP ref. #123). (Larry Soderholm, 651/266-657�)
�
-- - __ - . -, -
- _—°- °— — °
=_: <-:-_ ___ - - --
Commissioner Kramer stated that for the biflboard on Raymond, the Zoning Commiftee
—
determined that the amount of repair work was reasonable widiin the terms ofthe city ordinance
and the state la�v. However on the St. Clair billboard, the committee found that 80 percent of the
structural bracing was proposed for replacement. The committee concluded that 80 percent
repiacement of the stn�ctural bracing was not a reasonable amount of repair and maintenance for a
nonconfonnina billboard. There is some degree of conflict between state law and city ordinance
that is not at all clear-cut. The state law states that when a billboard is destroyed beyond 50
percent of its market value, it has to be removed. But the law also states that tl�e City can impose
reasonable restrictions on nonconforming uses to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the �
pu6lic Itealth, welfare, and safety. Both the Macalester-Groveland and the St. Andiony Pazk
special sian district ordinances prohibit structural replacement. The Zoning Committee decided
that for a minor strctctural repair this prohibition �vas not a reasoaable municipal restriction, so tl�e
restriction �vas superceded by state law. But for major structural reconstruction of a
noncottformin� billboard, the prohibition is a reasonable municipal restriction in ocder to
implements the City's policy that the number of billboards in the city should be reduced over time.
Weighino both the state la�v and the city ordinance, a small repair on the first bilfboard might be
reasonable, but an major reconstruction ofthe second billboard was not reasonable.
MOTIO\T Con:missioner Kran:er �noved the Zoning Committee's reconunetzdation to approve
t/ee appeal rea artling tke St. Clair billboardr and deny the appe�tl regar�ling tke Rayn:ond
billboarrl.
Corriinissioner Gordon stated that there is an inconsistency in the Zoning Committee's
recommendation because, �vhfle the repairs for the St. Clair bilfboard are si�nificantly greater than
for the Raymond bi(Iboard, they both require structural repairs. The basis for the staff
recommendation was that the Macalester-Groveland Sign District prohi6its structural replacement
as a means of repairing nonconformin� si�ns. A state law, on the one i�and, says that non-
conforming uses may be continued including through repair or maintenance, but then goes on to
say that a municipality may by ordinance impose reasonable regulations on non-conformities to
prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. 7 he MacaIester-
Groveland Special Sign Disuict that has been approved by flie City Council and has the force and
3 i
�
�3�a��
� effect of law �vithin the City of Saint Paut. There is a rule of statutory construction that says that
where you have different provisions that may be inconsistent or have tension, you attempt to come
up with an interpretation that accommodates both so that neither one has to be struck down. In this
case there is an interpretation that accommodates both: that is to interpret the state statute
reference to repair as routine repair. If you interpret the state statute as permitting routine repau or
maintenance, that could exclude structural repair, which would not be routine. You tlien have a
valid city ordinance that is consistent with state law. At the Zoning Committee, Assistant City
Attorney Peter Warner a�reed that this would be one reasonable interpretation that could be given
to the tension between the state and city provisions. Commissioner Gordon stated that this
interpretation makes sense only if it is appiied in a uniform, consistent manner.
AMENDMENT TO MOTION: Con:missianer Gordon n:oved to anze�:d tlte Zoning Committee
recontn:enrlation m grant Uee appea! with respect to both tlte St. Clair and Rayn:a:d billboards.
Cornmissioner Jo/rxson seconded t/te n:otian.
Commissioner Alton stated the repair work on the Raymond Avenue billboard has already been
done. He stated that it didn't make sense for the Planning Commission to order a repair to be
undone that �vas ordered to be done by the City in the first ptace. He said the City notified the
owners of the billboards that they needed to be repaired. In response the biilboard owners applied
for repair permits that were issued by the City's LIEP Office. LIEP determined that it was
appropriate to give to the applicant these repair permits because the state law says that a legal non-
conformin� use may be continued. These signs are legal siQns. The City of Saint Paul cannot
adopt an ordinance that is inconsistent with the state statute, which says that a nonconformity can
� continue unless it has been discontinued for more.than a year or has been damaged to the extent of
50 percent of its value. Commissioner Atton stated that Commissioner Kramer mentioned an 80
percent repair, but he was talking about 80 percent of the lumber that was involved but not to 80
percent of the value of the billboard. There is no testimony that the value of the repairs is greater
than 50 percent of the si�n's market value. The special sign district ordinances were adopted prior
to tlie date of the state statute and the state statute controts. It says that you can maintain a
nonconformin� use; city ordinance says you cannot maintain a nonconforming use by making
strvch�ral repairs. Tl�e two are clearly inconsistent. He is opposed to the amendment to the
resolution as well as the resolution itself.
Commissioner Kramer stated the buildin� permit application for tk�e Raymond Avenue billboard
showed that the repairs that were already done were �vorth a6out $200. Structural elements were
added to the sign but the work was minor in relationship to the total sign. The PED staff stated that
given the amount of work the staff tliinks that that permit �vas within the scope of the state law's
clause alio�vin� owners of nonconforming uses to continue to use them through repair and
maintenance. On the St. Clair biilboards the cost of the repairs �vere $3,900 accordin� to the repair
permit application, which itemized that most of the bracing behind the billboards needed
replacement, about 80 percent of it. This goes far beyond maintenance and repair. The Zoning
Committee decided that the $200 repair on the Raymond Avenue billboard--which the staff and the
committee felt �yas minor work--was reasonable. But flze St. Clair biliboards are bein� virtuatly
reconstructed and reconstruction of a nonconformin� use is reasonably subject to the City's
authority to impose restrictions so that nonconformin� uses don't live on forever.
•
13
Commissioner Faricy stated that Clear Channel informed the Zoning Committee that the Raymond•
billboazd was constructed in 1932 and the St. Clair billboards were constructed in 1947. Neither
LIEP nor Clear Channe! have records of any repairs having been made on these signs since they
were constructed. The St. C(air signs need to come down. At the Raymond Avenue sign, the
repairs �vere make without a permit; when the inspector saw the repairs he informed Cieaz Channel
that they needed to redo the repairs because they had attached braces to a tree and to a pubtic guard
rail. Neither was permitted by code. Clear Channel corrected the two braces. That was pretty _
minor repair �vork.
Commissioner Anfan� addressed Commissioner Kramer's comments regarding 80 percent of the
structural braces. Tliat doesn't matter because state law says the company is allowed to make
repairs to the e�tent of 50 percent of the market value. Clear Channel submitted information that
the si�n had an estimated market value of $45,000. Repairs woRh $3,900 are (ess than 10 percent
of the market value. Therefore, Clear Channel shoutd be allowed to repair the billboards. The
City went to Clear Channe( and requested tl�em to fix these signs toaddress conect a public safety
� - ' _ _ � '-.-_
- - - - - - ,_ , =_- Q
determined that billboards were not public nuisances by a ballot initiahve. LIEP was actm to
protect the pc�biic safety and Clear Chartnel is just seeking to respond to LIEP's concern about
safety.
Commissioner Gordon stated that there is a City policy to prohibit any ne�v bilfboards. The City's
policy to�vard existing nonconforming biliboards should be to interpret the re�ulations for them
strictly as well. As set forth in the staff report, there is also a principle of zonin� lacv that non-
conformin� uses will disappear over time as the propeRies are reused and redeveloped. With the
market values of these signs claimed by Clear Channei, they would never disappear because withi�
the a(lo�vance for 50 percent of their vafue, they could put in ne�v structura( elemenu that would
last forever.
Commissioner Alton referred to tlie statement of intent of the Zoning Code's sign chapter, which
permits le�af nonconforming si�ns esistin� on the effective date of the chapter to continue
provided they are safe and are maintained so they are not unsightty and have not been abandoned
or removed. That is �vhat the applicant intends to do, to maintain the signs and make them safe.
Commissinner Atton referred to Commissioner Gordon's remark tl�at the signs would never come
down. That may be an unfortunate result, but that's what the state statute allows. If �ve have a
policy problem with that, cve need to chan�e the law. 4Ve shouldn't deny somebody the
opportunity to maintain a si�n when it is permitted by state law.
ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE AVIENDMENT: Motion to an:end tlte Zoi:ing Con:mittee
recon:nzendatiotz by grnnting t/te appeal for botlt billboar�ls locations fai[ed on a roll ca[I vote of
7-9 (Anfang, Mejia, Kran:er, Alton, Jol:�:son, Alexander, Sleortritlge, Lo�:etti, and Morton votine
QaQiF1S1).
ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE b'SAIN MOTION: The Zoning Conzmittee's recon:mendation
to approve the appeal rea ardina t/:e St. Clair billboarrls and deny tlte appea[ regarding tTie
Raynronrl biltbo«rd carried nn a roll caf! vote of IO-6 (Anfang, Mejia, Aftoty Jaltrzson,
Alexanrler, urzd Slzortridge).
•
��
MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
� Thursday, October 3, 2002 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd F[oor
City Hall and Court House
15 West Kellogg Boulevard
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
STAFF:
��N�� �
�
Anfang, Alton, Faricy, F'reld, Kramer, Mejia, and Morton
Gordon
Caroi Martineau, Larry Soderholm, Allan Torstenson, and Peter Warner
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field.
Macalester Groveland Community Council et. al. - 02-223-938 - Appeal of zoning
administrator's issuance of permits for structural repair of biliboards, which raises an apparent
conflict between the neighborhood's special sign district restrictions on billboards and state law
regarding repair of nonconforming uses under zoning.
1. NW corner St. Clair Ave. and Ayd Mill Road. (LIEP ref. #518).
2. i0i6 Raymond Ave., NE Corner of Raymond Ave. and Raymond Place (LIEP ref. #�23).
Larry Soderholm stated the Zoning Staff did not have time to prepare a written staff report with
the time cons#raint of the 30-day deadline in the Zoning Code to have a public hearing.
� Therefore the staff recommends opening the public hearing and then laying the case over. To
meet the 30-day deadline, 4his case was moved up to this agenda; following the normal
schedule this case would be on the next agenda.
At the question of Commissioner Fietd, Mr. Soderholm explained that PED simply doesn't have
enough staff to cover aI( the work that has to be done.
At the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Soderholm stated that he calied the appellant and
Ciear Channel and asked if they would consent to holding this hearing two weeks from now,
The appellant objected because, even if the parties agreed now, Ciear Channei could argue in
court, if the case goes that far, that the City failed to follow its own procedures. Staff
recommends that the committee open the public hearing and see what the parties say about
continuing-the hearing in two weeks.
At the question of Commissioner Anfang, Mr. Soderhoim stated the St. Clair billboard closest to
Ayd Mill Road does cross over the public right-of-way line. That "third" b8lboard face at the site
is not part of the case foday. LIEP has not issued a repair permit for that one until Clear
Channel gets an encroachment permft from the Public Works Dept. Today's case involves the
two V-shaped biliboards on the St. Clair-Ayd Mifl site.
Commissioner Field opened the public hearing for testimony on the appeat dated September
i3, 2002, by the Macafester Groveland Community Council, et. al., to find out if there would be
objections to laying the matter over for two weeks.
. Brian Bates, representative of the appellants, stated they do not object to laying the case over
now that the public hearing has been opened in accordance with the procedures in the Zoning
Code. He went on to say that this is about a potential confiict between state statute and city
ordinance. The legal issue comes down #o statutory interprefation. Brian Bafes stated he was
speaking for all the appellants on the layover.
�5 �
F�e #02-233-938
October 3, 2002 Minutes
Page: 2
Mr. Warner advised that tfie committee shoutd also see what Clear Channel had to say about a
continuance as its billboard repair permits have been suspended during the appeal.
Marvin Liszt, Attorney for Ciear Channef Outdoor Inc., appeared and stated Clear Channel's
position is the appeal has no legai or factual meriS. Mr. Liszt stated they would not object to the
layover 'rf the permit that has been issued is no longer suspended and Clear Channei is atlowed
to do the repairs at their own risk.
�
Af fhe question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Liszt stated Clear Channel is currently using the
billboards, The repairs need to be made because the City has requested the repairs be made.
� '
- --
--- _ -- -___ � -_ — - _ - _ � = =
delayed, wouid the City allow even greater repairs than the signs need today.
Larry Soderholm explained that the Raymond billboard has already been repaired so the
question is oniy relevant for the St. Clair biliboard, which has not been repaired yet.
Manrin List agreed and said the repairs for the St. Clair signs were minor and Clear Channei
would fix them at their own risk.
Jeff Fschbaeh, LIEP, confirmed that he had informed Clear Channel that their permits were
suspended because of the appeai and they have not done any work on the St. Clair billboards.
At the question of Commissioner Field, Mr. Fischbach stafed when there is an appeat,
enforcement action is suspended. Normally work under a permit has to be done within six
months or the permit expires. When there is an appeal and the City suspends a permit, the six
months get extended. The structural engineer stated that the billboards were not an imminent
hazard in 2001, when the first appeal on the St. Clair signs was brought to the Planning
Commission, and there has not been any sign'rficant change in the condition of the signs.
Marvin List had concerns about the condition of the billboards changing and who would be
responsible if someone was hurt because the City suspended the permits and blocked the
repairs. He reiterated that Clear Channel would be willing to make the billboard repairs at its
own risk if the City would grant permission.
Peter Wamer indicated that there was no legal authority to suspend zoning enforcement
pending an appeal.
Marvin Liszt reflected that the whole concept of suspending permits is applicable where a
buiiding is being built and there may be a question about the legal rfght to buitd ft. ThaYs
completely different from an er�forcement situation where LIEP is ordering an action to protect
the health, safety and weifare of the cify and its citizens.
Brian Bates stated Clear Channel has been ordered either to remove the billboards or to repair
them. The appellants do object to the billboards being repaired during the appeal process.
At the question of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Soderholm stated that the state statute provides
that any nonconforming use may be confinued including through repair and mainfenance; but ff
the nonconformity is discontinued for.a year or destroyed to an extent greater than 50% of its
market value, any subsequent use shall be conforming. Owners of nonconforming uses have a
�
•
�
•
File #02-233-938
October 3, 2062 Minutes
Page: 3
o
righf to repair and maintain them. The Special Sign Districts sfate fhat you can't replace
structural elements of biilboards. Staff believes thaf structural elements are being reptaced
under these repair permits. Is this clearly permitted by state law, making the Special Sign
District provisions that profiibit replacement of siructurai elements unefiorceable? Thaf is the
key legal question. Mr. Soderholm felt that there has been no change in the condition of the St.
Clair billboards in the past year and an addifiona! two weeks isn't going to be a very big risk.
Commissioner Alton moved to continue the case on October 17, 2002. Commissioner Mejia
seconded the motion. Commissioner Feld said that alI parties would have a chance to speak
again in iwo weeks since today most of the testimony had been about procedures and not
about the substance of the case.
The motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
Adopted Yeas - 7
Drafted by:
. Ca� ine���
Recording Secretary
•
Nays - 0
Submitted by:
, � �
+�t�- Ir"1.t1_i �
�.�. - .
�
MfNUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE
� Thursday, Octo6er 17, 2�Q2 - 3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers, 3rd Ffoor
CiEy Hall and Court House
� 15 West Kellogg Boulevard
r �
�J
PRESENT:
EXCUSED:
STAFF:
Anfang, Alton, Faricy, Gordon, Kramer, and Morton
Fieid (had to leave midway through hearing) and Mejia
Carol Martineau, Larry Soderholm, Allan Torstenson, and Peter Wamer
The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Kramer
�3.a � �
MacalesEer Groveland Community Council et. ai. - 02-223-938 - Appeal of zoning
administrator's issuance of permits for structural repair of billboards, which raises an apparent
conflict between the neighborhood's special sign district restrictions on biliboards and state law
regarding repair of nonconforming uses under zoning at: 1. NW corner St. Clair Ave. and Ayd
Miil Rd. (LIEP ref. #518), and 2. 1016 Raymond Ave., NE comer Raymond Ave. and Raymond
Piace (LIEP ref #123).
Larry Soderhofm presented the staff report with a recommendation of approval of appeal
regarding St. Clair biilboards and denial of appeai regarding Raymond billboard.
At the question of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Soderholm explained that the special sign district
regulati prohibit mainiaining biliboards by repiacing structural elements. He also explained
the City has determined as a matter of policy that there are too many billboards in the City.
Biliboards in certain locations are harmful to the attractiveness, economy, and beauty of the
City. The St. Clair biliboards are in a residential area, not in a commerciai area. The Planning
Commission's billboard study recommended removing biliboards from residential areas, the
river vafley, and historic districts as priority areas. He aiso stated the structural repair of the
bi4lboards might be good for public safety but bad fior the public welfare, i.e., for beauty,
attractiveness, and residential investment.
At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Soderhoim stated replacement costs for the
billboards, as he recalied Clear Channel's estimates, would be approximately $48,000 for the
St. Clare biliboard and $18,000 for the Raymond biilboard. The proposed rspairs at both
IocaUons involve structurai repairs.
Commissioner Gordon asked if the "repair and mainfenance" ciause in state law has been
interpreted by the courts. Peter Wamer responded that this was added to the law just a
couple of years ago and that he is not aware of any interpretation of if by the courts.
At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm stated that the link between City
policy on billboards and the Speciai Sign Districts' maintenance provisions is found in the list of
purposes of the sign chapter of the zoning code, which is quoted in Finding 5: "to reduce the
number of'nonconforming sigrts in the city, particulaiiy billboards°.
! Chair Field reopened the public hearing, which was continued ftom October 3, 2002.
Brian Bates of Scenic Minnesota, speaking for the appeilants, stated that section 66.214 in the
zoning code, which prohibits any new advertising signs in the city, lays out the policy for
�
•
Zoning Case #02-223-938
October 17, 2002, Minutes
Page: 2
�3-a�7
reducing the number of biilboards in the city and iisting the anticipated public benefits. Mr.
Bates regretted thaf a number of peaple concemed with this case coutd not make the meeting
this aftemoon.
Mr. Bates stated that the key question in this case is whether the state law and our local
ordinances can be harmonized. There is a conflict only if the stafe sfafute allows something
which fhe municipal code disallows or disailows something that the municipal code allows.
Both the state and locai provisions aliow repairs. Our local ordinance disailows renovation ana
repiacement of structural elements. From his knowledge of Minnesota case law, he does not
believe that the difference between the state law and the locai ordinance is an actual conflict.
Laws are interpreted to give effect to the public policy underlying the laws. T.he public policy is
that bil(boards will eventually be removed overtime. The rights of the property owner should
be cQnsidered against the rights of the City and the public.
Mr. Bates continued that property owners have a right to continue a nonconforming use,
whereas the City has a right to adjust land use over time. The speciai sign,district ordinances
balance these rights by distinguishing between replacemenf of structural elements and
replacement of nonstructural elemenfs, and may be the only practical way for the hvo rights to
be put into effect. A biliboard owner can do maintenance and repair woric, but the City can
know that eventuaily billboards wiil ccme down.
� Mr. Bates disagreed with the staff report on finro items. First, he disagreed with staff's
assumption fhat these billboards are legal when the staff hasn't produced permit records that
allowed them. Second, the staff shouldn't overlaok structurai repairs of the Raymond biliboard
as minor when the special sign district prohibits such repairs. One minor structural repair
could be followed by monthly minor repairs which would put off the timely removal of the
biliboard.
John Mannillo, Scenic Saint Paul, remarked thaf these two biliboards have been around fos a
long time and should come down. He has tracked the billboard issue in the city for twenty
years. The intent of the law was to be fair to the sign companies by letting billboards stay until
they wear out. Then they are supposed to come down. The rivo signs in this case are good
exampies of wom-out bifiboards and they should come down.
At the quesfion of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Mannilio stated that in 1980 when the City Councii
dealt with the biiiboard issue, they intended that nonconforming signs, citywide, could not be
repaired. When they wore out, they should be removed.
Marvin Liszt, Attomey for Clear Channel, addressed the committee. He started by asking Mr.
Bates if he was representing the appeliants. VI/ith Chair Fiefd's permission, Mr. Bates affirmed
that he was representing the appellants. Mr. Liszt stated that it was important to clarify
whether Mr. Bates was the appeilants' attomey and legal guardian. He believed that Mr. Bates
did not execute the appeal form as the appellants' attomey. He questioned whether the
appeal was properly before the Planning Commission because of the appellants' lack standing
• to appeal. The !aw is clear on standing and none of the appellants have standing to appeal
LIEP's decision. This matter concems the City of St. Paul and Clear Channel, not other
miscellaneous groups. The Minnesota Court of Appeals has been clear on whaY the
requirements for standing are. An appellant must be a person or entity whose property rights
or personal interest is directly and adversely affected by the decision. None of the appellants-
�
�3-�t�t7
Zoning Case #02-223-938
• October 17, 2002, Minutes
Page: 3
-the Macalester Groveland Community Council, the St. Anthony Park Community Council,
Scenic Saint Paul, Scenic Minnesota, Jay Dregni, "or Narrah Palmquist—has alleged such
effects.
Mr. Peter Wamer responded that he understood Clear Channel's arguments, but the sign
cfiapter in the Cify's Zoning Code says fhat any person affected by the decision of the Zoning
Administrator may appeal to the Planning Commission. The general provision in the Zoning
Code has similar (anguage--that the granting or denial of other types of permits by the
Planning or Zoning Administrator is also subject to appeal by any person. The City's Zoning
Code regulations seem to give standing to the appeilants in this case. Mr. Liszt has made his
argument and it is not possibie at this time to determine whether or not the individuals are
harmed in the sense that is set out in the particular Court of Appeai's opinion. The argument
has been introduced and if it ever becomes an issue in district court the City will at that time
have an opportunity to argue the legal merits of having accepted the appeal. The public
hearing should move forward to other issues.
Mr. Marvin Liszt continued. He stressed this case involves constitutionai rights conceming
private property; if it didn't, this would be funny situation, given that the City ordered Clear
Channel to repair the St. Ciair signs. �
• Mr. Liszt remarked that the Planning Commission's normal procedures have failed in this case.
A public hearing was opened on October 3, 2002, but there was no staff report and the
hearing was continued until October 17, 2002. This time the staff report, which is usualiy
mailed several days before the hearing, was faxed to him at 11:32 a.m. on October 17, 2002.
When he read through the report his first reaction was that something was going on. He had a
serious question as to whether the zoning staff was conferring with Scenic Minnesota while
drafting the report to come up with ideas on how to try to get rid of some signs. He would like
to know if the zoning sta,ff had been communicating with the appellants directly, and would
question the propriety of such communications. This is a serious issue because other City
staff had already looked at Clear Channels' applications for the repair permits and issued
them. He characterized the staff report's discussion of nonconforming uses as "gibberish at
besY' and where it is embarrassingiy wrong he feared that Mr. Bates' thoughts may have found
their way into the planner's report and could lead the Zoning Committee toward some absurd
decisions.
Mr. Liszt asked everyone to return #o what the state statute and the cify ordinance actually say,
which is that nonconforming uses can be repaired and rimaintained uniess they are damaged
beyond 51 peresnt. He gave some examples of repairs to other types of nonconforming uses
and stated that the distinction about replacement of certain parts was baloney. The city
ordinance that deals with nonconforming signs, section 66.301, says in part, "it is further the
intent of this chapter to permit Iegai nonconforming signs existing on the effective date of this
chapter, or amendment thereto, to continue as legal nonconforming signs provided thaf such
signs are safe, are maintained to as not to be unsightiy, and have not been abandoned or
� removed subject to the foilowing provisions.° Under this subdivision 2 says, "Should such sign
or sign structure be destroyed by any means to an extent greater than 51 percent of its
replacement cost, it sha11 not be reconstructed... ° He went on fo explain that a permit
application was submitted to make repairs to the signs because the City asked Clear Channel
repair them. Now the Planning Commission is supposed to decide if they have a right to repair
these biliboards after it was the Cify that initiated the repairs. He reiterated that special sign
�%J�l 1
D 3�a�7
Zoning Case #02-223-938
� October 17, 2002, Minutes
Page: 4
districfs that prohibit repairs to structurai elements are ciearly iUegal, unconstitutional, and
against the state statute. There is no evidence at this hearing presented by the staff or the
appellants thaf the repairs are greater than 51 percent. The only evidence is what Clear
Channel submitted to LIEP when they applied for the repair permits. The value of repairs in
one case is less than one percent and the other case maybe five percent of the value of those
sites. The speciai sign districts were contrary to the case law in this state at the 6me they were
adopted and now they are contrary to the statute Secfion 462.357, the amendment which
incorporated and codified the nonwnforming use case law.
Commissioner Faricy asked when the biliboards were built. Mr. Liszt said he brought Clear
Channel's oid records and forgot to pass them out during his testimony. For the St. Clair site,
he distributed copies of a building permit from January 6,1947. For Raymond Avenue, he
didn't find a building permit, but he distribufed their oldest lease with an advertiser, which was
dated May 22,1930.
Commissioner Faricy next asked about what repairs have been made over the years. Chris
McCarver of Ciear Channel addressed the committee and said that the company has no
records of repairs at either of these sites. Commissioner Faricy asked about the catwalk that
overhung the sidewalk at St. Ciair. Mr. McCarver thought thaf it had been cuf back. Safety is
� very important to Clear Channei. If biliboards are not repaired someone could get hurt. For
the safety of the people of the city, the Planning Commission shoufd aflow the company to
repair their signs.
Commissioner Gordon asked Mr. Liszt about the tardy staff report and whether Mr. Liszt would
like more time to go through it and respond. Mr. Liszt stated he did read the staff report
quickly and he was comfortabie with the case proceeding today.
Commissioner Alton asked Mr. Liszt how he interpreted the state law provision about what
reasonable regulations municipalities can impose on nonconforming uses. Mr. Liszt replied
that the law means fhe types of regulations that the City has had for a long time that
nonconforming uses cannot be enlarged or expanded.
Commissioner Gordon asked if Mr. Liszt believed that no other limitations on repairs couid be
imposed by a municipality other than not exceeding 50 percent of value. Mr. Liszf replied that,
based on state law, they could riot be imposed and that this also has to do with the security of
financing and lending based on corporate assets. If a billboard is destroyed by a naturat
cause, then the asset value is covered by insurance. Mr. Liszt agreed with Mr. Gordon that the
law doesn't allow rtonconforming signs to be compietely rebuilf.
Commissioner Alton asked if the LIEP staff wanted fo add any comments about this case.
Wendy Lane and Jeff Fischbach of appeared. Ms. Lane stated that everything was covered
pretty thoroughly in the testimony and she did not have anything to add.
� The chair asked the appellants if they wished to respond to the pubiic testimony, but they did
not. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Faricy asked who made the measurements of the linear feet of bracing thaf
would be replaced at the St. Clair site, as written in the staff report. Mr. Soderhoim stated that
Ricti Mailoy of the PED staff made the measure�. She asked if a structural engineer from
�`
��,a��
Zoning Case #02-223-938
• October 17, 2002, Minutes
Page: 5
LtEP coutd go out and take bifiboard measuremenfs. Mr. Soderholm supposed that was
possibie and Commissianer Faricy said she would like to have that as verification.
Commissioner Alton said that fhere isn't any evidence that the repairs at either site wili cost
more fhan 50 percent of the billboards' market values. The company submitted eosts and
they're in the best position fo know. He thought the speciai sign districts are more restrictive
than state law allows. He asked Mr. Wamer if it is reasonable to interpret the state law to
mean the owners of nonconforming uses can make repairs up to 50 percent of the property's
value. Mr. Wamer responded that that is a reasonable interpretation.
Commissioner Gordon felt the committee should have infortnation from more than one source
and that he would Iike to know what the cost would be to completely repair these biiiboards so
that they would be fuily up to code.
At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm stated the zoning staff is arguing that
fhe prohibition against replacement of structural eiements is a reasonable regulation because it
carries out the intent of the code thaY nonconforming uses should disappear over time. For
biilboards, without that prohibition, very few nonconforming signs would disappear. As part of
its 1999 billboard study, the Planning Commission recommended a change in the rules
� pertaining to the repair of biliboards. The commission proposed that structural repairs shouid
be prohibited citywide and defined what parts of biliboards are structural. The commission
said that the face panels on biliboards were not strucfural and replacement of faces should be
pe�mitted. The Cify Council disagreed with the Planning Commission about replacement of
faces. They felt that when the face panels blow down, they shoufd not be replaced; therefore,
they deleted that part of the ordinance from the Pianning Commissions recommendations and
no changes were made conceming repairs of nonconforming signs.
Also in response to Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Soderholm concurred that the speciai sign
districts were passed before the state Iaw amendment on maintenance and repair. He was
making the argument in the staff report that the special sign district provisions on structural
replacement qualified as reasonable regulations under the law, not that they were adopted
pursuant fo the state law.
Comrnissioner Alton made a motion to deny the appeai. Commissioner Anfang seconded the
motion.
Commissioner Gordon and Faricy stafed that they wouid vote against the motion because
there shouid be more informafion submitted in regards to the value of the signs and fhe cost of
compiete repairs to bring the signs up to code.
The mo6on failed with a vote of 4-2 with Commissioners Gordon, Morton, Faricy, and Kramer
voting against.
• Commissioner Gordon moved to reopen the public hearing with a request that the city staff
provide information with respect to the market values of the signs at St. Clair and on Raymond,
and the cost of completely repairing the signs and bringing them up to code. Commissioner
Faricy seconded the motion. _
Commissioner Alton stated it should be the ob�n of the appeliants to provide that
�
�
Zoning Case #02-223-938
October 17, 2002, Minutes
Page: 6
informa5on that the burden and expense should not be Yhe Cit�s.
After further discussion the motion failed by a vote of 4-2 with Commissioners Kramer, Anfang,
Morton, and Alton against.
Commissioner Morton moved approvai of appeal regarding the St. Clair bitiboards and deniai
of appeai regarding the Raymond biliboard based on the findings in. the staff report.
Commissioner Faricy seconded the motion.
Commissioner Alton stated the staff recommendation could not be approved because it is
contrary to the state Iaw, which supercedes the special sign districts and sfates that you can
maintain and nonconforming property unless it is destroyed beyond 51 percent. No one has
made a claim that these repairs exceed 51 percent of market value.
Commissioner Gordon felt satisfied that there is a reasonable legal basis for distinguishing
between structurai replacement versus routine repair.
The motion passed by a vote of 5-1 with Alfon against.
r Adopted Yeas - 5
Drafted by:
"�/�t'
Carol Martineau
Recording Secretary
�
Nays - 1 (Alton)
�3,�'� 7
�
Submitted by: Approved by:
5umm�t H��i qs5ociation 612Z221558
.. . � .. _ � I ���.L
September 30, 2002
a
,
;
Saint Paul Planning Commission `
GO Larry Soderholm, PED: _ .
14th Floor City Haii Annex `
25 Wesi Fourth Street � '
Saint Paui, Minnesota 55102 �
RE: Zoni�g File Number 02-223-938 .
Dear Members of ihe Planning Commissfon:
. On behalf of the Summit�Hiil Association/Oistrict •i6 Plan
support of the appeal of the Macalesfer-Groveland Comi
zoning administrator's issuance of permits for structurat
the NorFh West corner of Ayd Mill Road and St. Clair Ave
, Comer �of Raymond Avenue and Raymond Place ° Our z
`reviewed the appeat•at our meeting on September 24,
The Summit tiill Association agrees that the issuance of
provisions of the (v�acalester-Groveland and Sain[ Antho
Plans which iequire that no non-confQrming sign shall !if
damage in an amount exceeding 50 percent of its` repiac
'_ We support th� city's continued moniToring and enforcen
Plans and #herefore encourage the Saint Paul Planning �
appeai. .
Ifi you have any questions about the discussion or'recom
me or Eqen Biales; SHA Executive Director, at 222•i222
SiR ely, �
.-• . . ;
, • p
� �`f - �� �
�:
--.., �..�.. ,
3 and Land Use Cammittee •
Macalester-Groveland Community Council;�,
Saint Anthony Park Community Council �
Scenic Saint Paul ;.
Scenic Minnesota � • �
Jay Dragni & Narrah Palriiquist �
_.... .. _ .. ...—. . � Z � t
�isinct 16 Planni
860 Saint CI
Saint Paut, Minne;
' Telephone 651
Fax 651
e-mail summit.hilt@
P
7 �
j i
:, p3 �
:,
t�n .
�
%9urioi! '
yenue
SSi05 '
'-1222 .
'-� 558
�1.gov
;;
1 , t
i . �
:� .
� .. �
�( ' . .
,•
:f '
y ,.
� . .
i .
�
� . .
1 . :
. I
�
i
a
�
ing Councii, I am writing in
unity Counci► et. al. to the
:pair of biitboards located on
ue and an the North East
ning and land use committee
:pai[ permits viota#es the
y Park Special District Sign
reconstructed after (ncurring
ment cost.
of
ial District Sign
to grant the
you may contact
# ':. . .
s
�
i •
�
� �.
;
3 -
t.
� . .
S �
S . •
� �.. :
i
� `
� '
;.
- � - .
- - ' ' v - . . . - '� � `, - - - - -
,_ . ' _
_ _ . , � .. :: . _. _ ... �
- , 101�'? _. . s ��„� ` ..
� 35M 3� _ , FoR �o��oR . - r,e,v,,; � :�3�a'��.
� � "� . , � �--�.��. � f ; :
.
cryo sF��v?�p�v!. � ] �j
�� � - _ � ._ ' 'D29DZOIv 0& BL�Dl�'G ZV9PECdOR - � �� � / ." . � �
. � e
l _
� � . � - - . � � _ __ .. _ . ��ii-�`� - . _ _ - _
T � e�
:. ' � _ ���V�� ,
� TOTA*_ F"T�CA L,�C,TED � r _ . . � � � � �- ' �
c_ - . _ -- _ - - ,
� �. - x
� l.� ' _ ' - ' - _� ��`�; � � .- y {g�
'' Date � � � _ ('
_ - i -�� ` � 3 ��•�`� f .
� .DOII3e.L PL CALLECf� . - { � i
� '" ACCAUN* oHDINANC" . - S��Z . t - �k S�R1�tI�e
.�' VIQF.ATiCN., �, : ` � .'_ �� USEC�AS. ' _ . �- = 6 Pemuf:DFo "
,. ��ussLOU is rxr�srEa - . " - - - _- - -� _
� >` � F
� , , �� � . � - - . - - _:`_ _ � tc r _
� O'wmer ak��. ,:�y � r�..�. ��,c..-� r - � �
�. _ ,�"'"'#}� Address, _ - -
�,,,
� _ . �_ �° '�.: i , - . _ -. ° ='. = }- � , � � ��� -
ContracLOr� � �! ��:Address �� h,.
� .�._ To cmxy ont'fhe woxk speeL'ied m thss peymrt Qa ffie followiag desa�ibed pmperip sub�ect_to �alI rules��'3 as ofa5e ss�xfny Da�qnent, pro. �
xe9nlatic
� vssvoris o? fhe- BuiI3iaq.Code, v7l.otaer oxdin�cas of ihe :Crty �o& Smnt Pairl, all othex cppficable xn�es, xegvl¢t{�s, �d Pi�swns of I¢w eaacted �d fzomvly¢ted �{.. ..
. bY muniaPCI, sEate �d�ox fedeial.,au;houtY.��d maP be vswkad nPOn vtalatioa'of �R af tfie W?ove stiP+��ions: -- ..r:, �:'S-. � _+;_.^:�-. ) r; _ 1
� �,.Coac Maso ' . . t . _ ' �, . ^.' :_ .- ,- :,' f ` .. - .
�' T�FAHlv2 gEk?. .. SIGNS `2' z,-� �- � � .
' & Fm. Cemeai I �. $UII.DFi7G -''� _ 'ELECl`. -.. � � -PLUMB:' � 'r PLASTERING �� "' IiEiITING : • � ''Steam =fYthn4 ;. � � � liRDS1t � EI.EVATORS . ,
"' - OER NEW BSdME � HBICE. CORCBEE'lE STEEL i METdL NO�` �. - . � Com6lvttm �^
- tLLIIbiI ILL4DSC�, S�QS 'rY%O 7ESTL 'S, 8orimatat � l
� . ` � r` � � _ '� '�' $ � ' '� � �� J° _ , ' � � S . s„ " "�3y,1,+ ��.
N6'S&D N.ATF.D � �J&CTIN6 ZON'FdL -C8L saQierttath ?.
� ? i y
_NIIHBEB � ; BTBEET ,T i ^I � gIDg <� _ �. ,BETWEFV tiC86T.ST�LEb.Ta x �� E� - .,,� �,,,g ,
b
t � <.>. . - � .T. '� � ° r' { 4 ' �s"�r^^ ��,<,�a
� � s
< � f^w }. .. S� ��^�
WABD �S.QT SZOCb 6DDII'IOSLOS ��+�, a. r v �
��.' �"i�����°l-�7. . ' � _�..:_';.�f��� . �"v�Lu..'`._�:.��w��.'�, �j1}?....,� ����.q� � ,�����c
���'" _• :: -'_;' � r "=-r ? ?_.
Y,f-� Eh ,.CDNCE6L&D�. C(
'S._e_l _. - .
'� � No. : �_ INSTAIS.ATtON
� `� i �-� - -�;= � ..�:.> y'...;e`
.:.r ���� .� .Ff.2QjiTQR$,
: • � - . _ D�TYfM05.5`�'.
�,_ ;.- �� � , , , . ..,._.
�. .� ' ^ STGP75'-=:'� , '� .„: �.
� �•. � ..S2t�N5H'OB*dF',%".
RATTS
_ (�� '
ut -... ;
��_ �__�_:...`_�„
4L . -
�..._.�` : - .
BESSS6EBdT08 :• ,O - - c �BLOP� 51N%. -.' . 'EO.TINTA'QS� ^ _: �:_`_. `+- HEI6E
- OS�BFJRNffi ' - .�Gd9 STOFE: .�A8A4E ': '.t�'F..
� � _ S1aozDealn
�g � CaLeh Baz3n .. � *.;c' ;
� - LOOR STOVES _ wat¢�Seate .Gomecrim ' � p'
. ;setrremawx..,,...
HE.41'ERS' � - ^ .8ax9ID§ ' D%AIA - � BVZLDING05
°� '. ' � � � � � �itvicellaneove. . " .+ S8IREINED
� ��� � � Gd3IIE9IC$ H1mzDnln ' �F'68D3N
• NtOT9AS � F�tuses � No - _ i.,o:az.snc � � eas �, m �.' ;
�' � No_ E3_ P. FncTi .: , caross xeer , snxPive .. _, orsNSrus. .
� _ _ - ' . 'SIDE'. �. J .. -. No� ' �.- . �B.�dcP �� y �. ' x i` ,, . - :�.
,� , . - � Ste� 4.• � . _ CAN
� � ' . CEI'itNG � S. - :' SOII.ERS. ' ' � Hi F -~ �. � i�7:B.=. -CUB.'OR'S(
� �:
-' - CbRDS' . . No. r
+°�` � t. = C$$E - � :::� � 3.Roiomed lhut '' ��
� FIEATr.'RS ila;:.Veatii¢t'or
' �wixPnova ' -;�te�..fIdt Wafer': `f ' �
�.- � _ - " - PE��RMiT:
- TYJTAL '_ ` "" . .---- - - . � - Aa _ - , .' AS-5TH!
' ' -'. ..> .':--_--,»� ' � _
'NO ^ ��' ,SECUREi
¢..� - _ . :;'RADL4TORS,_.. ""Ste�' _'.FL$J" _ ' "
,._ =_ . . : . .OUTLETS .. _;:,. ''. ". - _
�'
a
fi"
� -
TS - _ MC3T68S �_- - ': - .�.'' •;
O A `ExPect to a ��� � C kPa3ied•�
C:�ES MEfE@S � � ; - St�t � T94 q �� �
St�t
' �ti -.' F �^„ -EzPeet to " - -_ � EaPecE ta
oNS �Piaasmxmevs w : Fimsh� . .194 y's Fmish �
��C - � TOTAL .� . ' �'^ ..Kind r " No. Yds -�- y� � 't
" ` FOR PIOLtITtOAT�OP AN°'OF TF��PRQ-_� � '---
VtSIOIVS 6F BUII.DINCz CODE, 7y10 � - �
. . FILIE OF FROM FiVE DOLLARS TO--ON€ �HES23DRID , _ _ '�`� �"'�'.
'. AOIZAAS OR IMPRSSONMENT FOR FROM;&I}�E TO �� .` ��'�
NINEi'P', DAYS. . 1 - COMNIISSIONEfi (�JF
- _ _ _, . . .. . �� . - _ T RU58 Pa
�
i�
�
�
.�.,...�., �.:
ton OLb.II &L '� -.
��r���� �
�
ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT
FILE # 02-223-938
1. APPELLANTS: Macalester-Groveland Community Council
Saint Anthony Park Community Council
Scenic Saint Paul
Scenic Minnesota
Jay Dregni
Narrah Palmquist
HEARING DATE: '10.03-02
continued 10-'17-02
2• TYPE OF APPLICATION: Appeal of zoning administrator's decision
3. LOCATIONS:
• Westem-most tv✓o-faced biliboard at NW comer of Saint Clair at Ayd Mill Road (LiEP
reference # 518)
• 1016 Raymond Ave., NE Comer of Raymond Ave. and Raymond Place (LIEP
reference # 123)
4. PIN & LEGAL DESCRIPTfON:
• Billboard at NW comer of Saint Clair at Ayd Mill Road: PIN 03- 28-23-44-0120; NO
PART OF VAC ALLEY ADJ AND LOT 13 BLK 6.
• BiUboard at NE Comer of Raymond Avenue and Raymond Piace: PIN 29-29-23-13-
0029, Registered Land Survey 339.
� 5• PLANNING DISTRICT AND PRESENT ZONING:
St. Clair/Ayd Mili is in Macalester-Groveland (District 14). Property is zoned B-1
• Raymond Ave. site is in St. Anthony Park. Property is zoned 1-2.
6• ZONING CODE REFERENCES: §66.408, §66.2164, §6fi.2169.3, §62.102(b)
7. STAFF REPORT DATE: October 15 2002
BY: Larry Soderhoim
DEqDLINE FOR ACTION: ,11-12-02
A. PURPOSE: Appeal of zoning administrator's issuance of permit5 on 8/16/02 for the
structural repair of deteriorated and potentially hazardous biiiboards at two different
locations.
8. DATE RECEIVED: 9-13-02
B. PARCEL SIZE: St. Clair. 6,000 sq. ft.
Raymond: 2,900 sq. ft.
C. EXISTING LAND USE: St. Clair: Billboard on wooded lof
Raymond: Billboard on steep wooded lot
D. SURROUNDING LAND USE:
Sf. Clair.
� North: Ayd Mill Road R.O.W.
East: Ayd Mill Road R.O.W.
and single-family in R-4
wifh apartments in RM-2 across Ayd Mili Road
�3 "a" �
�
�3-a��
Zoning File # 02-223-938
� Zoning Committee Staff Report
Page 2
South: Another billboard direcfty across St. Clair in R-4 zone, fhen single-family in R-4
West Electrica( Substa6on, then apartments and sing4e-famify RNf-2
Ravmond:
North: Multi-Family (RM-2) 8� Industriai (I2)
East: Industrial (!-2)
South: lndustrial (I-2)
West: Muiti-Family (RM-2)
E. ZONING CODE CfTATIONS: Section 66.408 of the code states that any person affected
by the decision of the zoning administrator may appeai the decision within thirty (30)
catendar days of the decision. Section 66.2164 in the Saint Anthony Park 5pecial Sign
District Plan states that no nonconforming sign shall be maintained fhrough replacement of
structural elements. Section 66.2169.3(e)(1)(e) in the Macalester Groveland Special Sign
District Plan aiso states that no nonconforming sign shail be maintained through
replacement of structural elements. Section 62.102(b) of the code defines legai
nonconfosming use of tand or structures.
In Minnesota state statutes, Section 462.357 describes municipalities' regulatory authority
regarding nonconforming uses:
• Any nonconformity, including the lawfui use or occupation of land or premises exisfing
at the time of adoption of an additi6nal contro! under this chapter, may be continued,
including through repair or maintenance, but if the nonconformity or occupancy is
discontinued for a period of more than one year, or any nonconforming use is
destroyed by fire or ofher peri( to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market
vaJue, any subsequent use or occupancy of fhe land or premises shall be a conforming
use or occupancy. A municipality may by ordrnance impose upon nonconformities
reasonable regulations to prevenf and abate nuisances and to profect fhe public health,
welfare orsafety."
F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION:
The oniy zoning history on the Raymond biliboard is that a complaint was made to LIEP
about its deteriorated structural condition in 2001.
The zoning history on fhe St Ciair biilboard is as follows:
In early June of 2001, LlEP received a compiaint regarding its deteriorated structural
condition. On 6/22/01 and 6/28/01, Frank Berg, LIEP Structural Engineer, investigated the
site and wrote a site visit memo saying that, `�he sign strucfure was nof an imminenf hazard
however, many of the structurei members of the sign were severely deteriorafed, whicl�
constitutes a hazard and needs to be repaired wifhin a short period of time': On 7/17/01,
Wendy Lane of LIEP wrote a letter to Clear Channei Oufdoor, Inc., and ordered them to
remove the sign because structural elements of the sign were badly deteriorated and
� constituted a hazardous situafion, and, under the provisions of the Macalester-Groveland
Sign Special District, the structural elements couid not be reptaced.
2�
�J
Zoning File # 02-223-938
Zoning Committee Staff Report
Page 3
On 8/15/01 Clear Channei appealed LIEP's removal order to the P(anning Commission. In
the appeal, Clear Channel argued that the Zoning AdministratoPs order was based on the
Macalester-Groveland Special Sign Disfrict jSecfion 66.2169(e)(9)] provision that prohibits
maintenance through replacement of structurai elements whi(e ignoring other references in
the cifywide sign code and in the Maraiesfer-Groveland Special Sign District that allow
repairs unless a sign is damaged beyond 50 percent of its replacement vafue. Moreover, a
newiy enacted stafe law provided tFiat nonconforming uses can be maintained and repaired
unless they are damaged beyond 50 percent of their market value. Clear Channel
submitted cost estimates that showed that the deterioration could be repaired for much less
than 5d percent of the billboard's replacement cost.
The Pianning Commission decided that the Zoning Administrator had erred in issuing the
order to remove the biliboard because the LIEP structural engineer had determined that the
billboard, though badly deteriorated, was not an "imminent danger to life or property", which
was the criterion in the Macalester-Groveland Special Sign District for issuance of a
removal order.
G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION: The Macalester-Groveland Communify
Councii (District 14) and the Saint Anthony Park Community Council (Disfict 12) are
appeliants in this case, and they wait the Planning Commission to revoke the repair
permits issued by LIEP.
� H. FINDINGS:
i
On 6/20/02 Clear Channel applied for repair permits for the St. Clair-Ayd Mill biliboard.
Repairs are proposed only for the V-shaped biilboard structure with two sign faces at
the west side of the site. No permit was issued for repair of the adjoining sing4e-faced
bi{Iboard at the east side of the site because it appears to encroach on Ayd MiII Road
right-of-way and fhe encroachment issue musf be resolved between Clear Channel and
the Pubiic Works Department before LIEP wi11 consider issuing a permit.
As described in the zoning history secfion above, the St. Clair biliboards were the
subject of a previous zoning enforcement case. in 200'I, LIEP ordered ali three of the
biliboard faces at this location to be removed due to their deteriorated structures and
the Macalester-Groveland Special Sign District provision that prohibifed the
replacement of structurai efements. Clear Channel appealed and the Pfanning
Commission in September2001 decided that LIEP had erred in issuing the removal
order because the signs did not present an imminent public hazard, wMfch was the
standard set by the Macalester-Groveland Special Sign District.
On 5/17/02 Jeff Fischbach of LIEP wrote to Clear Channei and said fhat the rotted and
decayed condition of the St. Clair billboards constitufed a hazard. They vio�afed code
standards and fhe violations needed to be resolved by either removing the biflboards or
restoring them to a sound condition. On 5l29/02 Clear Channel submitted a repair
permit application to LIEP but it was returned as incomplete because it lacked
documentation by a structural engineer. On 6/20/02 Clear Channel resubmitted the
application with a description of the work to be done, which was prepared by W. T,
McCalia, a licensed professional engineer. On 8116/02 LIEP issued a billboard repair
permit.
D 3,a�?
%
�
Zoning File # 02-223-938
Zoning Committee Staff Report
Page 4
When LIEP received the present appeal, they suspended the repair permit and, as of
10/15/02 no apparent recenf repair work had been done on fhe St. Clair billboards.
2. Also on 6120/02 Clear Channel applied for repair permits for fhe Raymond-Raymond
Place biilboard. in the Raymond case structural repair work had aiready been done
before the permit was actually issued on 8t96/02, the same date as the St. Clair permit.
LIEP received a complaint that repairs had been done to fhe Raymond biliboard. Ciear
Channel Outdoor, owner of the billboard, had not appiied for or received a building
permit. Jeffi Fischbach, LIEP biilboard inspector, investigated the site and found that
repairs had in fact been made, and furthermore that the repair work did not meet code.
Projecting from the front side of the biilboard, a brace was nailed to a city-owned guard
rail post in the right-of-way along Raymond. in the back a brece was attached to a
tree. Neither method of bracing is permitted by code. Jeff Fischbach wrote to Clear
Channel on 5/2/02 advising them to get a permit and to do the work in conformance
with code. Before getting a biliboard permit, a Ciear Channel repair crew removed the
brace connecting to the tree in back and in the front they substituted their own large,
new stake in the ground as the anchor for the new brace in the front, which they had
previously nailed to the guard rail.
��
3. On 9/13/02 the co-appellants (rivo district counciis, two pubiic interest non-profit
organizations, and two citizens) filed an appeal of LIEP's decisions to issue permifs for
the repair of the St. Clair and Raymond biliboards. On their appeal form, the appeliants
assert for both billboard structures that: (a) the propased repairs are illegal under the
Saint Paul Zoning Code; (b) the billboards fhemselves are iliegal; and (c) the billboards -
are pub(ic nuisances. The City staff responses to these ciaims are as follows:
a. Repairs illegal under fhe Zoning Code. On this claim PED staff believes that the
appeal has merit and caiis for detailed consideration of the interplay between the
SainY Paul Zoning Code and state law. Arguments can be made both for and
against allowing the repair work described in the permits, as outlined below in
findings 4 through 9.
r�
�J
b. i'he billboards themselves are illegal. The appeai says: "The su6ject billboards
were iUegally construcfed - issuance of repair permits could be consfrued to convert
illegal strucfures to /egal non-conformfng structures.° Obviously both the St. Cfair
and Raymond biliboards are nonconforming uses since no new biilboards are
permitted anywhere in the city or specificaliy in the special sign districts. The
question is whether they have /ega/ nonconforming status. All nonconforming
structures that existed continuousiy for fwenty years prior to the adoption of the
nonconforming use regulafions in 1976 were grandfathered as legaily
nonconforming [Secfion 62.102(b)]. Nonconforming structures built later were legal
nonconPorming uses if they were built with valid building permits. Without knowing
the year of construction, it is very hard to find oid building permits. They are kept in
chronological order, not by address, or by applicant, or by fype of construction.
Without knowing the year when something was builf, it is a laborious task to search
for oid buiiding permifs. City staff are virtuaily certain that both the Ayd Mill and
Raymond billboards, given their wooden construction, were built before 1956. By
the 1950s, biilboard companies were buiiding their signs with angle iron.
D 3�a� �
Z�
.
Zoning Fi(e # 02-223-938
Zoning Committee Staff Report
Page 5
Be fhat as it may, the appelianfs have submitted neither evidence nor even an
argument to substantiafe their assertion thatthe billboards are iilegal. The staff
think the claim is unfounded.
c. Public nuisance. Chapter 45 of the Saint f?aul Legislative Code elaborates on
pubiic nuisances and spells out procedures for aba6ng them. No acfion under
Chapter 45 has been initiated. As with fhe previous claim, fhe appeilants ofifered
neither evidence nor an argument for why the biiiboards are public nuisances.
In the sign chapter of fhe Zoning Code, Section 66.413 reads: Any sign which is
erected, altered, or converted...in violation of any of fhe provisions... jof this chapter]
is hereby declared to be a public nuisance per se, and may be abated by order of
any court of competent jurisdiction." Apart from doing work on the St. Anthony
biliboard without a building permit, the City staff do not see a violation. When, later,
the permit was issued for the St. Anthony repairs, the permit fee was doubled,
which is the standard penalty for doing work without a permit. The staff think the
public nuisance claim is also unfounded.
�
4. Retuming to the question of whether the repairs that LIEP approved are legal, the staff
compared the state law to the local special sign district regulations to assess their
degree of consistency or inconsistency. To tFie degree that they are inconsistent, the
local regulations are unenforceable.
The state law, Section 462.357, reads:
`Any nonconformify, including the lawful use or occupafion of land or premises existing
at the time of adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued,
including through repair or maintenance, but if the nonconformity or occupancy is
discontinued for a period of more than one year, or any nonconforming use is
destroyed by fire o� other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market
va/ue, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises sha/1 be a conforming
use or occupancy. A municipality may by ordinance impose upon nonconformities
reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health,
welfare orsafety."
In short, the state law allows for repair and maintenance of nonconforming biliboards
and aiso allows the cify to adopt, for exisfing billboards, reasonable regulations that
protect fhe public welfare.
•
5. An estabiished principal of zoning law is that nonconforming uses will over time
disappear as property is reused and redeveloped. With most {aws, compliance with a
new law is required upon enactment. With zoning, because of fhe size of real property
investments, grandfathering has always been part of the law to mifigate the hardships
that immediate compiiance wouid cause. Nevertheless, zoning taw has always been
built on the premise that nonconforming uses would over time be replaced by
conforming uses so that fhe community's comprehensive plan and zoning would be
fulfiifed. The Sig� Chapfer expresses this intent, among others, for signs in the lisf of
purposes of the chapter, Secfion 66.101:
�3-a� �
��
Zoning File # 02-223-938
� 2oning Committee Staff Report
Page 6
"The purpose of this chapter is as follows:
(8) To reduce the number of nonconforming signs in fhe city, particulady billtioards;
(9) To control the quality of materials, construction, elecfrificafion and maintenance
of alI signs;°
6. The Sign Chapter of the Zoning Code gaes on to give regulations for nonconforming
signs. The citywide Sign Chapter in the Zoning Code, Section 66.301 on
nonconforming signs reads:
°..It is furtherthe intent of this chapterthaf nonconforming signs shall not be enlarged
upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other signs or uses
prohibited elsewhere in fhe same district. It is further the intenf of this chapter to permit
lega! nonconforming signs existing on the effective date of fhis chapter, or amendments
thereto, to continue as legal nonconforming signs provided such signs are safe, are
maintained so as not be unsightly, and have not been abandoned or removed...."
in the Macalester-Groveland and St. Anthony Park Speciai Sign Districts we find,
neariy idenfical language, further restrictions regarding maintenance of nonconforming
signs. The Macalester-Groveland version, Section 66.2169.3(e)(1), reads:
• "Regulation ot nonconforming signs within the Macaleste� Grove/and Special Sign
District which lawfully existed prior to the effective date of this sign plan or any
amendments hereto and which would be prohibited, regulafed, orrestricfed underthe
provisions of this pfan, may continue to exist as legal nonconforming signs regulated
, underthe provisions of section 66.300 pertaining fo nonconforming signs, [i.e., from the
citywide sign ordinance] subjecf to the foliowing additional requirements:
(1) Non nonconforming sign shal! be:
(a) Altered orenlarged in any way; or...
(e) Maintained through replacement of structural elements."
The matching provision for fhe St Anthony Park Special Sign District is found in
Section 66.2164.
7. ln summary, the locat Sign Chapter. (a) allows nonconforming signs to confinue; (b)
seeks to reduce the number of billboards in fhe city; and (c) ailows some, but not all
types of repairs and maintenance. The purpose of the prohibition against maintenance
by replacement of structural replacement is clearly related to the goal of reducing the
number of biliboards over time. If structurai elements are replaced, the biiiboards would
stand, as nonconforming uses, unti! destroyed "by fire or other peril" or until the
property is totaliy redeveloped.
8. Neither state law nor the locai ordinance defines "repaiP' or "maintenance " Dictionary
• definitions span a wide range of activities. Thus, in the view of PED staff, the Planning
Commission is left with the responsibility of ma[cing judgment cails iri the cases of the
St. Clair and the Raymond billboards on whether the repair permits issued by LIEP are
within the scope of the maintenance and repairs permitted by state law, or within the
D 3-a��
�l
\ I
Zoning File # 02-223-938
Zoning Committee Staff Report
Page 7
scope of the ° reasonable regulations° of nonconformities to protect the pubiic weifare
that municipalities have the authority fo enact.
9. In the case of the Raymond biliboard, the repairs have already been made and we can
see them. A large stake was driven info the ground. To it was nailed a 2 X 6 that heips
to support fhe sign. A(aterai sway brace was nailed diagonafly across the backs of fhe
upright posts fo reinforce them, but the brace is not attached fo the ground. According
to the building permit application, the work cost $205. Structural elements were added
to the sign, but the work was quite minor in relafion to the total sign structure. PED
staff think the strucfural work was in violation ot the provision in the St. Anthony ParEc
Special Sign District; however, given fhe minor amount of work, staff think fhe permit is
within the scope of the sfate IavJs protection of the owners of nonconforming uses that
aliows them to continue the use through maintenance and repair.
•
10. In the case of the St. Clair biliboards, the work on the St. Clair billboards will cost
$3,900 according to the repair permit appiication. The buifding permit application
itemizes the foilowing repairs: replacement of four ouf of six horizontal wood stringers,
replacement of one of the eight 4 X 6 upright towers; using steel banding to reinforce
the joints between the ground stubs and the upright towers; and replacement of most of
the bracing behind the billboard. The permit application says 380 feet of 2 X 6 boards
will be used. Approximately 100 feet will be used for the four stringers, leaving 280
feet for the replacement of the A-frame braces and sway braces currentiy behind the
billboard. PED staff estimate that the current A-frame and sway braces for panels 1
and 2 total 340 lineal feet. Thus 80 percent of the bracing behind the billboards would
be replaced. All of the repairs mentioned here are structurai repairs and replacements.
PED staff think this is tantamount to reconstructian of the billboards. These repairs go
beyond maintenance and repair.
I. STAFF ANALYSIS:
In summary, the staff believe that the Planning Commission needs to interpret to the best
of its ability the meaning of the state law with regard to repair and maintenance in
relafionship to the City's power to place reasonable regulations on nonconforming uses by
ordinance. PED staff believe that this must be done on a case by case basis until such
time as local ordinance incorporates a ciearer rule, or state law does, or the courts have
made some rulings to serve as a guide. PED staff befieve that the special sign district
prohibition against a!1 structura! repfacement is not consistent with the intent of the
"maintenance and repair" clause in state law and, therefore, is not fuliy enforceable by
LIEP. Buf, on the other hand, the extenf of the structural repairs proposed at the St. Clair
billboard is closer to replacement and reconstruction than it is to repair.
J. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
PED staff, based on findings � through 9, recommend approval of the appeai by the
• Macalester-Groveland Community Counci(, the St. Anfhony Park Association, Scenic Saint
Paul, Scenic Minnesota, Jay Dregni, and Narrah Palmquist wifh regard to tfie St. Clair
biilboards and denial of their appeal with regard to the Raymond billboard. The Raymond
biilboard permit issued by LIEP should be aUowed to stand. The St. Clair biliboard permit
should be revoked. '
�.
�3-a��
Minnesota Statutes 2001, 462357
requirements, or �anufactured home setback requizements in any
saau=actu-ed home par'� constructed be£ore January l, 1995, if
�he s.znufactured 'aome park, whea coastruc`.ed, complied with the
�her_ exis�ing densitv, ia�-size and setbacc requ±re�ents.
Subd. lb. Conditional uses. A maau_actured 'nome
park, as dePired ia section 327.14, subdivision 3, is a
conditioaal use ir_ a zoning district tnat allows �he
construction or placement o£ a building used or i�tended to ne
used by two or more families.
Subd. lc. Amortizatioa prohi.bited. Except as
otherwise provided in this subdivision, a municipality must not
enact, amend, or enforce an ordinance providing £or the
elimination or termination of a use by amortization which use
was lawful at the time o£ its inception. This subdivision does
not apply to adults-only bookstores, adults-only theaters, or
similar adults-only businesses, as defined by ordinaace.
Subd. ld. Nuisance. Subdivision lc does not prohibit
a municipality from enforcing an ordinance providing £or the
preventioa or abatement of nuisances, as defined in section
561.01, or eliminating a use determined to be a public nuisance,
as defined in section 617.81, subdivision 2, paragraph (a),
clauses (1) to (9), without payment of compensation.
Subd. le. Nonconfoxmities. ��*�'�*"���`v�`
including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises
existing at the time oE the adoption of an additional contiol
under this chapter, �.y,,��f���� , .�p�� ��r.�.��
or �aik��a�c.e�'� z��:�� �i�z��a-����aF>�,�... . ��.'�".�
Page 2 of 5
D3�,���1
.;.' �
�E-Fa:�„�e,�. �rnis subaivision cloes not prohibit a municipaliEy
from enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults-only
bookstores, adults-only theaters, or similar adults-only -
businesses, as defined by ordinance.
Subd. 2. General requirements. (a) At any time afte�
the adoption of a land use plan for the municipality, the
planning agency, for the puxpose o£ carrying out the policies
and goals of the land use p1an, may prepaxe a proposed zoning
ordinance and submit it to the governing body with its
recommendations Por adoption. ,
(b) Subject to the requirements oE subdivisions 3, 4, and
5, the governing body may adopt and amend a zoning ordinance by
a majority vote of all its members.'; The adoption or amendment
of any portion of a zoning ardinance which changes all or part
of the existing classification of a zoning distxict £rom
� esidential to eithes commercial or industrial requires a
wo-thirds majority vote of all members of the governing body.
(c) The land use plan must provide guidelines £or the
timing and sequence oP the adoption of official controls to
�
S41NT
rwv�
�
�sAA
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
Department of Planning and Economic DweZopment
Zoning Section
1100 City Hall Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, 1K1V SSIO2
266-6589
�`,PPELLANT
c��vST P�wt. st.��� �'����
/�� �
��
PROPERTY
LOCATION
Zoning File
Address/Location �
TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to t e: �j��f1'T7
❑ Board of Zoning Appe I� City Council ir� �(q�,n,��,�'�
under the provisions of Chapter 6��ction��Par �h� n � of the Zoning Code, to
appeal a decision made by the_� ��Y�W Y�
on
(date of decision)
File number:
GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement,
permit, decision or refusal made by a� a�minis4r�tive oi`ficial, or an error in fact, procedure or
finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or 4he Planning Commission.
� °..� q-PI'' '—'"`
Attach additiona/ sheef
ApplicanYs
<
U � , � , ���i
���
�� v
�-City agent�
�.�
C
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL �
TO: Departiaent of Planning and Economic Development
Zoning Section
1100 City Hal1 Annex
25 West Fourth Street
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102
APPELLANTS: Macalester Groveland Community Council
Saint Anthony Park Community Council
Scenic Saint Paul
Scenic Minnesota
Residents Jay Dregni & Narrah Palmquist
- __
- ,- _ _ _: --,-_ __ _- : °
- PROPffitTY LOCATIONS: -- -- --- -_— --
1} Western-most biliboard
of St. Clair and Ayd Mill
(LIEP reference # 518).
2) 1016 Raymond Avenue; NE
Avenue and Raymond Place;
TYPE OB APPEAL; Application is hereby made for an appeal to the
Planning Commission under the provisions of Chapter 66, Section
66.408 of the zoning code, to appeal a decision made by the
Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection on or
about August 16, 2002, to issue repair permits to Clear Channel
Outdoor, Inc. to repair billboards at the subject locations.
GROIIIIIDS FOR APPEAi,: 1) issuance of the subject repair permits
violates the Saint Paul zoning code; 2) the subject billboards
were illegally constructed - issuance of repair permits could be
construed to convert illegal structures to legal non-conforming
strnctures; 3) the subject billboards are nuisances and nuisances
per se.
FEB: A fee of $225 is included with this Application for Appeal.
""i
� - �
Applicant's Signature
(Z-faced) at NW corner
Road, Saint Paul, MN
Corner o€ Raymond
(LIEP re£erence # 123).
��
Brian Bates for appellants.
�u b"��
�J�r3�o �
�
0
,
May 17, 2002
CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Narm Cofeinan, Mayor
� J
Chris McCarver
V/P Real Estate Manager
Cleaz Channel Communications
3225 Spring Street N.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55413
OFFICE OF L[CENSE, INSPECTIONS AND 11 4�a� �
ENVIRON,RENTAL PROTECTION U✓ V'
Rogu Crvtis, DireUOr -
LOWRYPROFESSlONALBUILDING Telephone: 651-266-9090
350 S[. Peter Stree,, Suite 300 � Faaunile: 657d66-9124
Sain[Pau[,Minne5o1n55103-J570 Web: wvnv.tistpaul.mn.us/.+iep
Re: Clear Channel Billboards Located at the NW Comer of St. Clair Avenue and Ayd Mill Road
- With Our Referenca File #'s 517 and 518
Dear Mr. McCarver:
v
In 2001 you successfully appealed to the Planning Commission orders by this office for the
removal of the advertising billboards referenced above. This property is located in the
Macalester-Groveland Special Sign District.
On June 22 and 28, 2001, Frank Berg, LIEP Structural Engineer, inspected both of these signs as
part of the preliminary invesrigation leading up to the orders for removal of the billboards.
During his inspection, and as outlined in his Site Visit Report, he concluded that:
"The sign structure is not an imminent hazard. This is, however, a condition that must be dzal[ with
beginning now, and concluding within whatever is established to be a"reasonable" period of time. The
combination of decay and the apparent haphazard positionin� of original, added and restored members has
resulted in a structure that is virtually impossible to analyze. When decay at connections progresse> to the
degree observed in some areas of this shucture the transfer of loads from member to member ranges from
totally unpredictable to nonexistent. Despite the fact that the artangement of inembers has to this poinf
passed the test of time, decay continues to worsen as does the degree of hazard. Many members need to be
replaced. Members must be aligned so that connections result in a logica( load path that can be analyzed by
principles of engineering. Accompanying catculations must be perfonned to show that the smtcture is
engineered to withstand code required wind forces."
•
In summary, the sign has rotted and decayed to a condition that constitutes a hazard and
something needs to be done to correct its condition.
Additionally, as you were informed by Larry_Soderholm with PED in his Zonin� Committee
Staff Report to the Planning Commission for your appeal, the canvalk of the double faced v-
shaped billboard at this location (with our reference file # 518) projects over the sidewalk for St.
Clair Avenue, and the easterly vertical upright and easterly 2 feet of the single face bitlboard at
this location (with our reference file #517) are outside the chain link fence line that delineates the
Ayd Mill Road right-of-way.
Enclosed are Sections 66.201 (3), 6621693 (e)(1)(a) and 66.2169.3 (e)(1)(d), and 134.02 ofthe
City of Saint Paui Legislative Code relating to unsighfly and rotting signs, reconstruction of
nonconforming signs in the Macalester-Groveland Special Sign District and p:ojections into the
.
Chris McCarver '
May 17, 2002 �
Page 2
pubiic right-of-way respectively. You will note it states that unsightly and rotting signs must be
repaired or removed within 15 days of norification, nonconforming signs in the Macalester-
Groveland Special Sign District shall not be altered in any way nor reconstructed after incurring
damage exceeding 50% of its replacement cost, and that no person shall construct and maintain
any projection or encroachment within the public right-of way except with written
permission of the Director of the Department of Public Works.
The violarions of these two biliboards must be resolved.
Billboard with our reference file #518:
- __,_ - __ --
"-- —_— ___ —_- __ --= — `� =—= °_—_
You must either remove this billboard from the pcoperty within 15 days of the date of this letter
or restore the structure to a sound condition as outlined by following the steps below. If you ---
choose to remove the structure, a demoiition permit must be obtained from this department
before �vork begins. -. .
If you choose to restore the structure to a sound condition you must perform the following steps:
1. Submit a billboard repair permit application to this office with informarion including
al] proposed repair work to this billboard (including the total cost vaIue of the work),
certified proof with which our structural engineer can verify the proposed work will
meet code requirements, and information about the replacement cost af the billboard
within 15 davs of the date of this letter.
2. Immediately obtain authorization from the Department of Public Works to allow the
projection of the catwalk over fhe sidewalk or remove the projection from the public
right-of-way. The person to contact regarding this authorization is Linda Murphy at
266-6127.
3. Should a permit be issued authorizing repair of the structure, all repair work must be
completed within 30 days of the date of its issuance.
Billboard with our reference file #517
You must either remove this billboazd from the property within 15 days of the date of this letter
or restore the sh-ucture to a sound condition as outlined by following the steps below. If you
choose to remove the structure, a demolition permit must be obtained from this department
before �vork begins.
If you choose to restore the structure to a sound condirion you must perform the following steps:
1. Submit a billboazd repair permit application to this office �vith information including
all proposed repair work to this billboard (including the total cost value of the work),
certified proof with which our structur2l engineer can verify the groposed work will
meet code requirements, and informahon about the replacemenY cost of the biIlboard
within 15 davs of the date of this letter.
�
�
�
p3 ,a� �
� Chris McCarver
May 17, 2002
Page 3
2. Immediately obtain authorization from the Departrnent of Public Works to allow the
projection of the billboard's easterly vertical upright and the easterly 2 feet of its
sign face into the public right-of-way for Ayd Mill Road. Nonconforming sigis in
the Macalester-Groveland Special Sign District, all billboards in the Ciry are
nonconforming, cannot be moved or altered in any way. Therefore, failure fo
obfain this authorization will result in the requirement that this biIlboard be
immediately removed from fhis location. As stated above, the person to contact
regazding this authorization is Linda Murphy at 266-6127.
3. Should a permit be issued authorizing repair of the siructure, all repair work must be
completed within 30 days of the date of its issuance.
I have enclosed a copy of all reference� reports and sections of the Legislative Code. Should you
believe this decision to have been made in error, you may appeal the matter in writing to the
Planning Commission within 30 days of the date of this letter. However, because of the nature of
this matter, please inform me of your intentions within 15 days. If you have any questions
� regarding this matter, I may be contacted at 266-4085.
Sincerely,
l "'"' Y'�n�L"�'�-t//
Jeffrey Fischbach
Billboard Inspections
c. Linda Murphy, Department of Public Works Right of Way
•
AA-ADA-EEO�r
�
•�
haz a r d o u s s i t u a t i o n. U n d er the provisions of the Macalester-Groveland �� es� S�d.. p..cia i�n ���
District, ihe st; uctural elcments cannot be replaced. ��Ss. Lane advised the compa�}' of its ri�ht to
a ea� �tithin 30 days. (Ler�er a�tached J
2 �. ,� � � = o3-a�1
'"` vr � sfi. � � � i ��i .
r lear Channel O�door, Inc., and order�d them fo
On 7/17/O1 Wendy Lane o� LIEP «TOte to C �
rc��ove the si�n because structural eleme�ts ofthe s�� ����e badly deteriorat�d zr!dS onst i Szd a�
PP • � .
S. O="i 8/1>/O1 Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. submitted their appeal (attached). In the 2ppeal, Clear- '� ��
Chacuiel argues tiiai the `/_oning Manager's orde; is based on on� lin� in ihe �4zczluter-Cirovelan
Sp�cial Sign Districi (Section 662169(e)(1)] ihat p;ohibits maintenance throngh replacement of
structural elements ��°hile ignoring several references that allo��' repairs unless z s�� is damaged
beyond �0 percent of its replacement value or, in the case of the ne��� state la«, its market value. ),
eKB
Clear Channel cites references to a>0 percent dama�e test in the I�4acal�ster-Gro�'cland Special �
$ign District (Section 66.2169(e)(1)(d)) and in thz cit}Z�'ide Sign Chapter oftlie 7_oning Code � pti�'
[Section 66.301(2)] and, since August 1, 2001, in th° hlinnzsota n4unicipal Plannm� Siatute
(Section 4623�7(1)(e)J. Clear Channel gozs on to c�te one �Visconsin and thrze i�finnesota court �
cases that uphold the rights of o��ners of nonconfornzing uses to maintain, renair, znd evzn
reconstruct their propert}'.
�
•
I�Text, Clear Channel claims that the dzt�rioration can be repaired for much les� t:zn �0 percent of
th� replacement cost. Th� company submitted a ���orkshzet estimzting the rzpat; costs at 52,909
compared to the replacemznt cost of tne billboard structur:s at 53� (r�pa�r zesals eight percent
of replacement). A najorit}' of the repair cost is for labo; and the other mzjor cost is for lumber.
On� si�n face «ould be replaced «'ith a used one from the compan}''s stock. Tr.� repiacement cost
is e�clusive of site procurement, oz•erhead, and profit.
On 8/27/O1 the PED zoning staff (Larr}� Soderholm) eaa*nined the deterioratzd bi!Iboards.
«�est-facina board (along electrical substation properi}' line). I�o concret� footing; are risible for
an}' of the tnrez bitlboards. The ti�'est-facin� board has four upriaht vertical post�. The}� �cerz
ori�inally 3 X 6 posts. At some point they had 4 1 6 rei�:orcemznts sistered oa:o them �cith bolts.
Halfwa}' up the southerlp vertical, 2 X 6's have bezn sist�red on both sid�s to support a fi��e foot
extension. Thzse extensions are on all the veRicals. The t��o nor�h�rl}• �•zrical; zre supported b}�
�vood braces that run dia�onally back to the ground. The>= braces (and'th� ones attached to six of
the eight uprighcs on the other t���o boards) are comprised of i«o boards that m%e a"Y" an8
attach about 40 percent and 7� percznt of ihe �t•a}� up the back of the sign face>. 7�he t«'o southerl}�
vzrticals are buttressed b}� five boards that interconnzct �� the adjoinin� soutn-facing billboard.
b4an}• sections of the upri�hts and the bracin� are rotten. Parts of boards arz ez'�n a«'a}�,
especiafl;• at the ends of boards �vhere the pieces are nailed or bolted to�ethzr. Tnz si�n face is
supported b}' three �ti'ood horizontal strin�ers. I� onz of tr:�m are continuous; zli of them have been
patched. The cat�calk is supported b}� angle iron braces. �Ihe single up-light, et��ndin� out near
the cente; of th� cat�valk, works, altnough the lens that co� ers th� bulb is bro:�r.. Part of thz trim
kit around Lhe si�n face is fallin� do«n and bent.
South-facino board on el�etrical substation side. This bozrd also has four �ericzl uprights. 4 7i
6's are buried in the ground and estead up to t��'o or thre� feet; tnen oth�r 4� 6's are sistered to
th�m. The i�estzrl}' �p�ight, closes:to St. Clair A�z., hzs no bruin�. The nex: upri�ht is th� one
tnat ties hack and foYn ��'ith the «'z_:-facin� bozrd. The easterh' ri�'o uprigh:s r=_ve the "Y"-shaped
�cood braces running diagonall}• to th� ground in b=_ck a the board. The ezs: zn3 of this boud is
listin� to��'ard St. Clair The cat�rzl.l projects o�'er the S_. Clair stdeti�al� t��o-zad-a-half feet at a
', />
� - V ;:��
J �,
,>
�
heiglit of eight-and-a-half feet above the side«alk. A�ain, many boards have si� ificant rot,
especially aiound the connections. .
Soutli-facinq board on Avd A4if1 sidz. This board is free-standing, unconnected to the others e�cept
for an electrical conduit. Like ihe oth�rs it has four vertical uprights supported b} the same `Y"-
shaped bracing that nms to the ground in back Se�•eral boards have significatit rot, esp�ciall}•
around tii� connections. The easterl} vertical upright and the easterly iwo feet of thz sign are
outside the chain link fence line ihat delmeate; ihe A}�d Mi11 Road right-of-tica}. Ayd A1i11 Road,
built in the 19�Os and 1960s, seems to have come a8er tlie construction of the signs.
10. 7�he purposes ofthc Macalzster-Groveland Sp�cial Sign District [Section 66.21693(a))areto
pro'�eci propert}• va]ues, eril�ance naNral fcatures, and encourage im�estment through neighborhood
beautification b}• reducing th� visua] clutter of advertisin� signs.
�
11. The billboards are deteriorated to such an e�tent that the}• are a s ��nificant pot�ntial hazard.
in� staff discussed �zith the structural eneinezr Frank Berg cvhat hc meant in his site visit report
-= t' — '-'- " ` •-
hat th„ billboards arz not an tmmincnt hazard butTh��ii�ust t�� t s��t -�o�c.= .. Fzs � e-= -a - -—
- �• po = ,
he d�dn'c think the Cit} needed to put }�ello« capc around the site and keep people alca}�, but on the
othcr hand, he can't sa�� that the strucnires czn «i[hst2nd 3�-mile-per-hour �� �chich �ce can
2n[icipate �vitl occur e��ery� }'ear. PTh:: coiid�tion is h2zzrdous and gettin� �vors� as tim� goes on.
The �lacalester-Groveland Special Sign Dis*.rict sa}'s that a nonconformin� si� must be rzmoved
immediatelq if'`it is an imminent danger to 1�;� or propert}
12. �Vith this group of billboards, the issuz is deczrioration o�'er time. The problzn is one of
maintenance Therefore, the oper2ti� z parzgraph in the hlacalester-Groveland Special Si�n
District is 662169.;(e)(1)(e): "No nonconfo-ming sign shall b� maintained Ytuou�h repIacement
of structural elements.' Th� preceding paragraph (d), ���hich Ciear Channel clzim; should apply
� and «hich includes the �0 perceat tesi rela[es to reeonstraction of signs afre, incurrin� damage.
l�o specific ccent caused dantaged that trio�ered a cit�� inspection. The special sign distcict
regulation also supersedes the �0 percznt d=_ma�e test in the city��ide si�n re�ulztions. This is
based on the Zoning Code's generai rul� tha: the sp�cific takes przcedence o� er th� sznzrai and
also th� explicit statemznt in the \lacalestzr-Gro�•eland Special Sign District that ti�'here it is more
restrictivc, it supersedes thz cit}1�ide sign rzgulations.
I;. Th� Alacalest�r-Groveland Speciai Si�n Di>trict prohibits the replacement of structural elements to
prevent nonconforming billboards from remaining in ptace forever throu�h r�consiruciion pari by
part. The und�rl}•in� premise of l��al nonconforming uses is that they «ill rzmoved over time as
the structures wear out o.- becom� obsolztz. Indeed, in the ver}• blinnesota $uorem� Court case
that Clear Channel Outdoor cited in its appeat Counh� oi Freebom v. Clauss�n. the Court went on
to sa}�, "The public policy behind that do.trine (that nonconforming uses not be allo��'ed to expandj
is to inerease the likelihood that such uszs ��'ill in ti-ns b� etiminated due to obso:�scence
eshaustion, or d�struction This in tum ai!t lead to a uniform use ofthe land co�si;tent �cith the
overatt comprzhensire plan."
14 Effective Au�ust l, 2001, a ne«� paragrapi in the statz's �4unicipal Planning Act gave cl�arer
protection to nonconforming uses ]z�allc zsisting on iha: date. Ho���ever, this ca;� ���as initiaied
be.Eore the changz in la:c and is b'ina ha.�: ied und�r th� legal standards for r:onconiormin.g uses
that ��•ere applicable bzfore Auawt 1.
�
�
..: � . . -
,f ' }����}�; of cight-and-a-half fcet above th� side�.a?k A�aiz, many t�oards havc significzn[ rot,
.=� especiall}' around the coan�ctions. _
South-facin board on �'d D4ill side. This boarc! is frec-stznding, imconnectcd to thc others excepi
for an electrical eonduit. :•c the otners it l�as four vertical uprights supported b} the sarne `Y' -
shaped bracing that n�ns to the - ound in bz�;. Se�•eral boards ha�•e significan� �ot, esp�ciali}'
zround the, co:u�ections. The easie -' �'����cal unright aJ�d ihe easterly t�vo ieet of th� s�gn are
outside the diain link f�nce line that de. �� 'at�� th-� A}•d Mi�l Road righc-of-ti�z� . A}'e T�1i11 Road,
Uuilt in tl�� J 9�Ds and 1 JoOs, seems to na��c co�;c afr�r fl�e eons*.ruction o,`tii� si� s.
10.
ll
12
�
Th� purposes ofthc A4acalcster-Groveland Sp�cial Sign District [Section 6521693(a))areto
protect propeit}' �'alues, eiiliance natural fcatures, and encourage investmeat i:ro��h n�ighborhood
bcautification b}' reducin� th� visual clutter o* advertising signs.
7'}�;, billboards are d�teriorated to such an e�tznt that the}� are a significant po?e�nial hazard.
Zonin� staff di>cussed �rith ih� strucmral en�ineer Frank B�rg «'hat he tneanc in his s�te visit report
that the billboards are not an imminent hazard but the}• must be deal[ ���ith no�c. H� responded that
}7z d;dn't think tlie Cit�� needed to put }'ello��' tapc around the site and keep p�opl� a�ca}', b�on the
other hand, h� can't s1�• that th� struceures ca� ��'�thstand 3�-mile-perhour �cinds, ��hich"\i'e can
anticipate �� ill o:.cur e�•ery' }'ear. vThe conditi�n is hazzrdous and gettm� wore zs tim� goes on.
7't�e �4acalester-Groveland Sp=.cia1 Sign District sa}'s tliat a nonconfom�tng so� tau�! be remoti�ed
imrnediatel}' �f ���t is an imminent da:�ger to lii or prop�m :" "
�Z'ith this group of billboards, th� �ssu� is decerioration o�'er tim�. The problen is on� of
maintenance. Th�refore; die op�rzti�'z parzgraph in the `lacalesterGroti•zlznd S��cial Sign
Disirict is 662169. �(�)(1)�e) ���� nonconfo:ming sig; k ch C1�zr 1 clz :ns should appl}i
o:` stnichual el-�ments.' The preczdin� para� raph (d),
and ��'hich includes th� �0 percent te>: rela::s to rec�astruccion of si�ns afr-�r i:icu*ring damage.
I�o specific e�'ent caused daniag�d that tria �red a cit}' inspection. 1he sp�cizl s6gn district
re�ulation <lso supersed�s the �0 pzrcent d'-mage test in th� cit}��ide sign rz7i:lz:ions. This is
bzs�d on the Zoning Code's general rul� tna. the specific tal:es przcedenez o� er tne oenerai and
zlso th� explicit statement in th� D'Izcalest.r-Groveland Sp�ciai Si�n Distnct Lh=_� nhere it is more
res:ricti�•c, it supersedes the cit}��'id� si� � regulations.
13. "rh-� A4acalester-Groveiand Special Sign D'=>trict prohibits the replacement of structural elements to
pre��ent nonconforming billboards fro�n r�maining in plzce forever through r:co�s4ruction patt b)'
part. The und�rh'ing piemise of ]egal nonconforming uses is ihat theY ����1 remo:zd over time 2s
th� s[ructures ��'ear out or become obsolete. Indeed, in the ver}' I��innesotz Suo;�me Coun ease
that Clear C}iann�i Outdoor cited in its aop�al, CounR� of Freebom v. Clzuss�n. fnz Court «'ent oa
to sa}', `�The public polic}• b�hind that doctrine [that nonconfomung uses not b� zlloti�ed to eapand]
i; to increase th� likelihood tnat such uses �� itl in tim� b� eliminated due to ob>o:zscznce,
eshaustion, or destn�eeion. This ir. tum «i!l lead to a uniform use of the 1»d coasistent �cith t}te
o�'erall compreh�nsi�•c plan."
� s, Efi=�cti��e August 1, 2001, a ne�c F'- ?alla e�ist no on tha datnlcHo��ever�thi czs paas inivated
p*etection to nonconforming us�s 1=� �
b��or� the change in lan• and is b-�`°_ haa_ied und�r the lzgal standards fx r:o�zonformin� uses
� that ��cre applicable before Au��>: l. .
�3-���
�
� . OFFiCF.OF LiCE�+SE, t� 1SPECTIO�S A�D ��/� �
;�_s::,:� � ENVIRONME�ITALPFOTc
:;� Roger C�rtrs, Director
CITY OF SAINT FALTI-
T'orn: Co!eman, Mc}'or
LO1�P.YPROfESSIOJ'.4L BU�LDI�G
350 Se Pe�er S�rec�, S+��ie 300
Sr,inrYnu!, hfir.nuota Si10?-Ii10
Tel¢phone: 651-266-90
Fncsimilc:' 6i1-26G-909
.651-?66-91?=
lYeb: v.u�i'.ci.slpmd.mr..vSR¢y
SITE �'�SIT REPORT
By: Franl: Ber�, P.E.
I,IEp Structural En�ineer
Date(s) of visit: 7une 22 and 28, 2001
Project: Si� structure at the comer of St.
� v
Ciair Ave. and Ayd Mili Rd, St. Paul, Nft�T
Purpose of visit:
The purpose of the visit was to observe the extent of distress to the si� structure and to
determine the City's position as to the degree of hazard Qiven the si�n's current condition.
� '
�
Procedures:
I�•isitedd the s �n structure from pi�R ea ° n'e S PenlenB�teaz taOnficial. Wa
obserG
I visited the site a�ain on June 28, 2001, this time alone. I took eleven photographs and a fe�v
measurements of the supportin� structure_
Obser�'ations:
The sQ�n 5[ e The support n� structnre onsists o sepa ate gound mount d frames behn d each
facm�
sign face that overlap due to the "L" arran�ement. The frames are of wood construction
comprised of various sizes of heavy timber and dimension lumbe;.
�Vood deca}' ;ha ever, throu hout the ye b ppearsto li t tae h}lneloraeason as to the
reconnected,
configuration of structur2l members. Connections do not nece�sarily alion properly and in man}°
areas decay has pro�ressed to 1��here a cannection is no longer intact.
�6
�
Pa�e 2 �
Site Visit report, comer of St. Clair Ave. and Ayd Mill Rd., St. Paul, MN, Gl22 and 6/28/0}"
Conclusions:
The sign str ucture is nof an imminent hazard. This is, however, a condition that must be dezl[
with be�innin� no�ti, and concludin� �i�ithin whatever is established to he a"rzasonable" period
oftime. -----__.--
The conibination of decay and the apparent haphazard positioning of ori�inal, added and restored
members has resulted in a structure that is virtually impossible to analyze. ��'hen decay at
connections pro�resses to the degree observed in some areas of this structure the transfer of loads
from member to member ranges froni totally unpredictable fo nonexistent.
_ -
_= , __ — --= = ---- - - - _ _
Despite the fact that the arrangement of inem�er�a�o �fii`s�omt gasse es ._ �� - _
p decal• continues to �F'orsen as does ti�e degree of hazard. Many members needto b..replaced.
r4embers must be ali�ned so that connections result in a.lo�ical load path th�t can be anal}2ed by
principles of en�ineerin�. Accompanyin� calculations must be performed to shon� that the
structure is enginezred to �vithstand code required «•ind forces. _
Remarl:s:
'The photo�raphs have been marked as to ]ocation of the si�n and dated, and �;�ill be kept in
�
I,IEP's office. -
If there are any questions or comments I may be reached at (651) 266-9072.
•
�
a�l�� � �-�v��J� �� �3-a��
�•� •��
• Sec. 66.201. All signs—Permit, zoning district. LS
(3) All si�s which aze unsafe and/or unsightly shall be repaired or removed. Unsafe sib s must
be repaired or removed within twenty-four (24) hours after norification. Unsightly sia s must be
repaired or removed within fifteen (15) days ofnotificaYion. The term "unsi�htly" shall mean a
condition in which the sign has deteriorated to the point where at least one-fourth of the surface
area of the name, identification, description, display, illustration or other symbol is no longer
cleariy reco° i'able at a distance of twenty (20) feet; or where paint is peelin�, chipping or
flaking from the structure surface; or where the sign has developed significant rust, corrosion, .
rotting or other deterioration in the physical appearance, or is so faded that it is not cleazly
recognizable at a distance of twenty (20) feet; or where an illuminated eleFtrical sign is no longer
in proper working order. Removal, in the case of painted wall signs, shall mean a complete
repainting of the background on which the sign was painted, or a sandblasting of the surface to
reveal an exterior finish compatible with surrounding surfaces, so that no part of the sign is any
longer recoa izabie.
Sec. 66.2169.3. �VIacalester-Groveland Special District Sign Plan.
(e) Nonconforming signs. Regulation of nonconformin� signs within the Macalester-Groveland
� Special Sign District which lawfully existed prior to the effective date of this sign plan or any
amendments hereto and �vhich would be prohibited, re�ulated, or restricted under the provisions
of this pian, may eontinue to exist as legal nonconforming signs regulated under the provisions of
section 66300 perfainin� to nonconforming signs, subject to the following additional
requirements:
(1) No nonconforming si�n shall be:
�
a. Altered or enlarged in any way; or
d. Reconstructed after incurring damage in an amount exceeding fifty (50) percent of its
replacement cost at the time of the loss, as determined by the city; or
Sec. 134.02. Permission required.
No person shall construct and maintain any projection or encroachment within the public right-
of-way except with the written permission af the director of the department of public works.
��
• OFFICE OF LICENSE, [AiSPECTIONS AND �J ��� `�
. ENVIRONMEYTAL PR07ECT[ON
Roger Curtis. Director
CITY OF SAIl�T PAUL
Nann Co(emnn, Mayor
June 7, 2002
Chris McCarver
V/P Real Estate Manager
Clear Channel Communications
3225 Spring Street N.E.
Minneapolis, NIN 55413
LOWRYPROFESSIONRLBUILD.NG Telephone: 651-266-9090
350 Se. Peter Street, Suite 300 Facsfmile: 657-266-9124
SaintP¢u7,Mirsnesota5.i/01-1�70 Web: wvnecis[paul.n:n..r�s/f[ep
Re: Clear Channel Billboards Located at the NW Comer of St. Clair Avenue and Ayd Mill Road
With Our Reference File #'s 517 and 518 -
Dear Mr. McCarver:,_
On May 29, 2002 you submitted a billboard repair permit application to this office for the
repair of the two billboards at the above referenced location in response to my letter date
� 5/17/02. This property is located in the Macalaster-Groveland Special Si� Dish
Contained with the sin�le application was a combined cost estimate for the repair of both
structures and a combined estimate for the replacement cost of both structures.
Unfortunately, you failed to provide both the required documentation explaining your
proposed work and certified proof with which Fran Berg, LIEP Structural Engineer, can
verify that the proposed work will meet code requirements. Therefore, I am retuming you
application as incomplete.
--�___
As I outlined in my letter dated 5/17/02, and our recent conversation, the hi•o signs and
theirstrucncres must be treafed independently. We need information to show compliance
with sections 66.2193 (e)(1)(a) and (d) of the Legislative Code. You must submit a
sepazate biiiboard repair permit application for each sign containing information about
�vhat the repair work will consist of, the cost of each item and/or service used in the repair
(including labor), certified proof the proposed �vork will meet code requirements and the
cost of replacing each sign. You should contact Frank Berg at 651-266-9072 if you have
any question regarding what proof is required to show the repairs will meet code
requirements.
Additionaily, there are other matters mentioned in the letter date 5/17l02, that must also
be addressed before repair permits may be issued. Specifically, the projection of the
catwalk of the 2 faced v-shaped sign on the west side of the property «�ith our reference
file #518 over the sidewalk and the encroactunent of the single face si� on the east side
A>-ADA-EEO mployer
�
Chris McCarver
7une 7, 2002
Page 2
of the property with our reference file �517 into the Ayd Mill Road right-of-way. You
indicated having contacted Linda Murphy from the Depamnent of Public Works
regarding this matter.
The billboard repair permit applications for these signs contaiuing the necessary
information mentioned ab6ve, and in my previous letter, must be submitted to this within
15 days of the date of this letter. Should a permit be issued authorizing repair of the
structure, all repair work must be completed within 30 days of the date of its issuance.
I have enclosed a copy of all referenced letters, sections of the legislative code the
original billboard repair permit application you submitted on May 29, and the infortnation
contained with the application. If you have any questions regarding this matter I may be
contacted at 266-9085.
Sincerely,
Q� �; �-"��� /I
�V
� Je`ffrey Fischbach
Billboazd Inspections
enc.
Q�
Linda Murphy, Department of Public Works
.
�
� �-a��
AA-ADA-EEO Emyla�r
��J l
`�
CITY OF ST. PAUL BILLBOARD PERMiTAPPLICATION
OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Q��^ ��
• 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 rj,
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTAS5t02-1510 VSit OUr Web Slte dt www.Ci.SYpaul.mn.US/liep
: S
wi � , � I
, : ,.
:_; _-
Contact Person�
/ Owner
Include Contact
New Billboard Alte�.
s�ut
❑
r
r�, f Q.-� � ,c.
�' �_��•,��
C /��:('i�..�r
Addre55 (Pem:itwjlf
���, 3 z z.� ��.
stau,Z��-4 M��.���oI;S�.
isting BillbOard Esfimared Start Da e Estimated flrzish Date
3 Demotition /
❑ ❑ � /��Z 0�2 ��2
="`F- � Billboard (Advertising Sign) Information
Type of Billboard (Check applicable box.) Billboard Total Square Footage
:eStanding� Wall ❑ Roof � s �
qoo `��
Fill out this section for Electrical Billboard.
A separate Electrical Permit is REQUIRED when the Billboard is electrical!
al Contractor. Phone �:
Approvals � Required
SirucNrai Review
St Ave. Blvd. Etc
�:11,Po1• (=" <, :i
Approved
ZoningDisVict _
� ,ry r�"� � '
�...�, � � ;,, �...�,pl �
Plan Review Remazks
Building Name I�ate ',
`- S�zs L �'
�hcConsactar'sAddress) phone �f2� ��
�
ss�/J �J� -> >no
Phone
ESTIMATED VALUE OF PROIeCT
� 3, g8�.11
Billboard Dimensions
Width Leneth Heieht (Above Grade) '
7 Z' x z; _' 2D'�f'f-�f.
DescriptionofPr DistancetoNearestBillboard
"/�2P� r f �� i� ; S on the same side of the sveet
S, C� r �� S (In Feet):
���� �1�� �� i
S/17/L (i
SUMMARY OF FEES
s
Applicant certifies that all informaiion is coaect and that
ordinances wi(t be compiied with in perforrry�t� they�G
:
•
�ertinent state regulations and city
rk for which this permit is issued.
- - --- --J i1 _
Billboard Permitl
Fee �
Plan Check Fee � $
al Permit Fee I $
FAX IT?
Would you like your permit
faxed to you?
If yes, enter fax k
/ �
�
�3-a��
__ l/��i : ��J ��ti�.,�.s��4s ___ _'__" _'_
7
J t.'- S'
L
� � � i �?` — � ;�? .
. � y _ _"—
. . j j — ;' Il 7 N'� _/..,=�afo-: � - --- _ ° _�`3"t'�..
- —�°' -- -
e
!°s F' i� � ! d` ° , r' i s�a . i '!'-`i C t�. � —� . � � _
l �'
. . _ w.G - `c v 1 Y.t1�'..[rv.�.,.�i>/�� � �� S �li
. �j ° a-�i � C`�
� o t z,- -- U> _�/ �f .
— �.,.�:�-�... 3 �L� ' =%�� �3 c r„L,,, ° a 3 � � •�--:� _.
. T��1"c_�–A_ `— v�`JJ ,!-1
1
_ i ✓' -r L C.� r�..c�� �a r2`7;^...�-r.w�
. �/3 G v rK. (� i 2..G-� = G av, c•J
, • l Tc.":�-L�-2..'_y /L �� = Y �o. c��
U �U� G�
r� _`' 3�8��
�: � .
s
� . � S, �.�.�.., �:�� �3�a��
"��,��F ��I3�'�R�'tT47'I�
�il ST?'F�'RO - , FT��?�1T-
- � faces d' 3 �r� face.
To =� site proct=�men? --- 5 I= ',S�J
� —
�` �ASIC ST'2t TTC'Tili2F M�, TAT :
- Purcl�se of basic s�vcture, inciu3ing
uprig6u End fascia:
SU �iC�IAI- ------------------- ---------------- ��751.5'�
- Estimatedcost------------------------� 5�!3`?lirG �i
-DeIiverycharge- ---------------------- r,�7s,co
- Salest2X@ (��'�%---------------- e� 36t� ll
�'1 L�1-SHOP F A 7 ATION:
- Labor to remove basic maLeziats &om truck;
in-shop fabrication and assembiy; in-shop
P��B
�
-? man crew @ /� houzs @ .
,�lhr- -------------------------- 5 �-G�' '
SL�TOTAL SSD2C�� .
- Proceduze includes {a) crew & equipment necessary to baul strvcuue & materiai to
site and -(b) employ an auger to dig hole and haul dirt:
(a) ,�? man crew @ � �ours @
�? �/hz. to dig hole and haul
� 5 LB,a�
('o) use of auger for g hours @
�—�'�• -^------------------- S 7e6,o-U
- I.abor to fsbricate footiags at siie and pour
- c .�_ an czew t � hours @
S `�� /hr: ---------^--------------- S 3-6"�.aJ
- J� yardsconcrete@ GS � /j�d. ---------- S/l7cs.o
- Eguipment reqni; ed:
(a) one � ►� �uck @ `�? houis
II�. D" /fir_""_-_--"------' y^ 2U CrfYJ
(b) one a:F:T�.� Quck @ `� fiouis
@� `=U 1'nr.----------------- S /Go,�rn
SJRTOT T.------------------------------------
�?o�2,i UZ?
Pa¢e : oi
. . .. . �
�
. : - 0�'��7
�P_RA€SAL #
a,�iCA7i�J:V �
�`
„ �I-PL�AC`�±;" RFPIsAC .M�'�4°I' .i1S S 7.F.SS I3F��FC'TAT'IOr1'� f�rJ2ti�'Ii`, �D)
u1: 1' ' : l J. • ��
- IncIudes assembly of faseia, striage:s, platfozms, ladders,
brackeLs, etc. on_site_
-�. man Crew @,4 e- hours aC
��•-------------------------- 5 �//l �a
•
- Equipment requi�ed:
(a) one t3o�v�. #��k @ 3� hours
@S �-a l�r. s /Gv-°J ..7J
(b) oae �'-�°T�.s? truck @ 3 �-- hours
@� � /bz.----------------- S��O,�l1
e� t T2�- i�en. a-t � Z /�"� c�0 � wJ
� Po l' �i�
A
S TOTAT 3SG32�cr
,
�—
- _ � - - - - : i�,r --�- - ' -
- - ---- --- _ --
Pa�e = of
�
�
����
�n����:� ;
o3�a�?
" ,n�i-PT.d�:x,� � FrLTT?�j?' r�f)STS'. T.T � `'^r
�=- � _- -.. ��.. :,F� � .�4�-f�'ti f .fl?V'Tf7v�-.-�1
��� �
. �: : /I u!1► : � s
- Purchase of b�ic eIectdcal material including 1'ag.ht fixtures, balI�-ts, laa:ps, boxes,
hangers, breakers, ctocks, ausc�IIaneous items such as'condui; end connecfors, clamps
andciips,etc.@ S • - � G3g��
- Sales tax @ l � � % ior materials - - - - - - - - � '�/� '� 7
- Load and unload equipment at site = a 2 man
crew @ �',.— hours each � g Q � /hr. - - - S '�'�'�°�
• - Install electrical panels, run conduit, pw1 w�ire, install frxtvres and bali_asts:
Z- man crew @ �-'� hrs_ @
c �gs lfu_ -------------------- Zv9'O,
- Equipment required:
(a) one r�.�r'_.��. truck (a3 -/� hour
@S 5� /hr. 5 �czJ
(b) one � hvck @ $curs
@� /hr. �_
(c) one Sruck @ hours
@��� ----------------- -�,�
s zoTe�.---------------------------------=-- s3GSr��7
x
�-
?��
O
- �����5�.
�LDCAT'3{�P+T :
_ a�a�7
"fi�'-�i.� �'Pr.p x,_ , iiT C�35�'S;.F'jc ��v,�qR^TATT:fl7�i CCt3'viT�t� -T+.D�
rt .� x • . •: nu ._
- Crw to paint uprights including stcucti:.*-at
steel, Iadders, s�ingezs, tr;m, eic., alI
items �G�pS fascia.
- � iusa'i creri � � � • hoti' �r
� /C� /hr.-------------------------� udl�rrC7
- Eqtupmeat required:
(a) one paneI avck zequired for
� hours @ „�_..�- - - - - - - - - 5' �;�U'"cJ , G :J
S�TRTOTAi.------------------------ S ��'�'���
u! - 1 i
Permitcosts--------------------------- S S.I ���
SviIstests ---------------------------- �.'��rfr%te7
susTOT�I,------------------------------------ s 3�u,c-a
�- - -- - -
DIRECT/HARD REYRODUCTIOIti COST (I"TEMS 2-� - - - - - S /P��/�'` - S �
• • �
The 2bove costs are for j�9o* �d raw mate:ials on?v and do not includs "indirect costs" including ssch ite:ns as (
ssandard overfiead allowance and {2} en�egreneurirl/profrt --- Ps explPaned in tne na_r:xiivc oi tne rcport-
—�-- -- ------ -- - -- ---
-- - - - P2 . o
. �4
AYY #
. �a�ArTOx fr '
�
�I)
�2)
:- s : -. � s
vli8 p cure:ne..t
PO *+ ___________.
� /O>�
In-pIace �pIacement (dit�ct cost) = S /
(P�Se I)
tP��s?>
Sub2otaI --------------------- � ��`
Overhead/contracYO�s allowaace @ 5`.S °/ - - - - - - - - � C� yr f g', c�j
Entrcgreaeurial profit @ / � % - - - - - - - - - - - t G' � Cj� �--
a 3-a��
REPLACEME NTCOSTNELV---------------SAY, S�T���JilYZ�
- �-_...a
�� �♦ rtu • t
� er consideriag:
(1) actuaI a�e of tYe in-place outdon: advertising shvcture and -
(2) recogxziang tha stti�{ � 5;,���e applied to ouidoor advertising structures and -
(3) *he conditioa atid quslity oi co�struction and -
(4) the Ioca�ion ane' economic Iife expectancy of the outdoor advertising smseture ----
We have arttved at the concIusion tbat t�e overati depreciation estizuate of
%* should be applie3 or as follows;
Ta�r�. v��x�craTro�r �sr�� - - - t��
' YOTE: DEFRECIA'TION IS °/, OF DIR�C3' COST (DEPRECLABLE ASSETS)
�'QNCLUSiO�i,S;
T`OTAL REPLACEMEItT COST iYEW ------ 5
LESSI ---- t� 1
REYLACEME�T CflST LESS DEPRECiATION VALL� _ gay, S�
- � j � d • - - -- --- --------------- —
`� -.
Page 5 cf �
o3-a� �
BILLBOARD/SIGN CITY OF SAINT PAUL
Otfice of License, Inspection
& Environmental Protection
350 St Peter Street, Suite 300
PERNIIT #:20 02137060 Saint Paul, MN 55702•15�6
Issned Date: August 16, 2002 PHONE: (65�) 266-9090
`�" Fnx: �ss�� zsss�za
CO_NTRACTOR: OWNER:
CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR
3225 SPRING ST NE 3225 SPRLYG ST NE
MPLS MN 55413-2908 MPLS MN 55413-2908
PERIVIIT ADDRESS: 1017 ST CLAIIZ AVE BILLBD
ST PAUL MN 55105
SUB TYPE: Billboazds WORK TYPE: Commercial Repair/Alter
.. .. ..,,..�.,. ,,. �u �a�. �u �
.�ui, n�au.
Estimated Start Date
Billboard Type
Billboazd Width
Billboard Height
Sign Creditsi3sed
Jul 1, 2002
Free Standing
12
19
0
Estimated Value of Work
ted Complerion Date
oard Sq Ft
board Length
Sign Credits
3726.00
Oct 1, 2002
300
25
0
IFEES
Fee 137.26
I TOTAL 137.26
S1RUC'I'URAL PLAN REVIEW, fb, 7/12/02, as a condition of the permit the structurat engineer, W.T. McCalla, will 1) perfozm at least one site visit
when the work of replaciag members and reconstructing connecrions is nearing complerion, and 2) provide LIEP (to attn: Frank Berg) with a site visit
report documenting what was accomplished and ihat the work completed was consistent with the inteat of Mr. McCalla's June 5, 2002, letter and the
aTtachment to that
Permit valid only for work proposed in accompanying documents. No electricai work proposed. .TWF 8/14/(
The inspector assigned to this Pemiit is Jon H. who can be reached at 651-266-9022 between 730 AM and 9.00
AM Monday through Friday
i
��
� CITY OF ST. PAUL BILLBOARD PERMITAPPLICATION �`
OFFICEGFLICENSE,INSPECT�ONSANDENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION _ o�`���]�7 �
' 350 ST. P£TER STREET, SUITE 300 /
ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55702-1510 Visit our Web Site af wNitiO.ci.stpaul.mn.us/liep
• �'", �c •
umber
,_.n)�
Yor ���. C
Contact Person) I
� ! Owner
ti
?. l,/c.. �/��
7 Jo�a ; 1�c
il't�L+2/
9
c�ty 3 ZZ S
State, Zip+4 � n r� F
... , ..._. �
!.._.. i'•i; .
�
n a m���a m m-
S1 !J�
� � 4��� .
:mrs aaa�) Phonefdi z:'.
�
�oS- Si����
Ciry
IncIude Contact Person s�ace, Zip+4
NewBillbozrd A1terE�sting Billboazd £stimatedStartDae EstimatedF ishDare ESTIMATEDVAI.UEOFPROJEC7'
Billboazd Demotition
❑ ❑ ❑ ��i�� � �S-v � �3 �z6.00
C't� ��/-•"rF�^��F—�C 0' Billboard (Advertising Sign) Information
Notice: A Si ed Lease A eement, a Site Plan, and Structural Plans must accom anv this ermit a lication.
Type of Bil board (Check applicable box.) Billboard Total Square Footage Billboard Dimensions
Free Standing � Wall ❑ Roof ❑ Widt � Len2th Heieht (Above Gradz)
- t�Od =�--�-� / Z � �- s ��z) Zo ��p�-� �-
Fill out this section for Electrical Billboazd. Description of Project Distance toNearesc Billboz:d
��� '� �� - _ on the same side of tht s[:ee:
Note: A separate Elecuical Permit is REQUIRED when the Billboazd is elecu - ,,J (tn Feeq: ,
ElectricalContracroz: PhoneH: . s �,`� �' ``��'7J /
,� � s-� . � ��� ;,��;�_ ��i�-
For Office Use Onty
Approvals Required Approved PlanReviewRemarks SUMMARY OF FEES
Siructural Review
Billboard Permit
Fee .
_�, � �� 7 . �v
�`!3�
SI�C CD�ii�i IIC�� U��i
,t ;�a.:r,t P; Y� r��/7�.�t, ,—_ � ,'�,
'. J a:.,Fs��ut'i/
i�a� -/37G�G
Fr�z..�;K�..<�:..�n
' Y !� � ��� z/b`L
Applicant certifies that all in ation is Eorrect and that a11 pertinent state regulations and city
ordin�will co ied it iri perfomming the work for which this permit is issued.
�, ' gna e Date p ��/
complete the Collowing informaKn� f�� �.oa�...,.e ..-.•---•
•
Plan Cfieck Fee � $
7ota1 Permit Fee $��'� � �
FAX IT?
Would you like your permit
faxed to you?
If yes, enter fax �
�
Jun-05-O"?
.
fl1:03A W T McCalla,P_E_
� �
612 560 7446
P_O1
o3-a�7
W.T. (Mac) McCalla, P.E.
6600 75'/z Avenue North, Brooklyn park, MN 55426
(763) 560.7446
June 5, 2002
Mr_ Thomas J. Klees
Director of Operations
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
3225 Spring Street N. E.
Minneapolis MN 55413
re: 3 Eacisting Posters
St. Clair Avenue at Ayd Mill Road
- St. Paul, Minnesota
WTM Job No. 1972.
�
\ J
Deaz Mr. Klees:
This is to certify that I visited the above ground build strucrirre June 4, 2002 in your presence.
In my opinion the sibm, which has been in piace for many years, and has been performing
satisfactorily, is repairable with reasonable effort. I checked the 4x6 uprights and their supporting
4x6 stubs with an ice pick and found them to be sound. Two of the stubs are checked and should
have steei bands placed around them. I have reviewed your Fax of June 5, 2002 and it is in
agreement with our discussion on site. I have marked this Fax SKi972-I.
Please feel free to cat] me should you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
�/; ���� ����
W. T. McCaila, P. Eng.
Enclosure: SK1972-I.
Sfructura! Consultant
Sridges • Structu�al Concrete • Expen Testrmony
�
1 hcrcby cutiCy Ihet �hi5 plan, 5pccification or report
wes prepered by me or under my direct s,pervision
and ttfet I am a duiy Licensed Protcssionnl Engineer
unda [he laws ofthe Sqte of Minneso�a.
W.'f. Mdalla G
✓G�. T.. �— �s�Q.efi
Date fi J�'� No. 1054q
b�-a�7
�
� �LEAR��it�►7VNEL . Sf�I �I �2 � �acsimse
� ovtnooR Gt/7'N7 6�
,�02
To; H C"Hac" *SCCa11a p� Tom Klees
ry� 763-Sfifl-744b y �� 1
� 763-556-7446 �� 05-65-QZ
� St C1air 6 Grigg� _�
II tirgerct IE Tor Rsvlew a Plaese conu++ent Q Pisass Re�p1y Q Ptsase iSSCycie
e CoaemymEc; '
Mac,
ouz proposa3 f Qr repair on the wooden structure at St Clair 5 6riggs
is as follows: -
1) auspend each Face and replace woodstzingere ae needed.
2) Replece rotted wood in £rames as needed
3) replece 4A6 uprighz on pane2 ¢F3 tower{t 3 6 reanchor to eaciating graund atub.
4) Hrap uprights �,ith 3/4" steel banding at junction oF gro�ad atubs and upright
� tovers. Through bolt each for aZl towere.
5) rap2ace 4 broken trim pieces
6) Tie "A" £rame support structu:e togethez caith 2%fi sway svpports.
*iateria2e 1-20' 4X6 treated lumber tower
548' 2%6 Treated lumbar
55 3/B" R 8" bolte w3th washers fi nuts
L pieces used trim
L8 piecee 3/4" szeel banding material
I hope this gives qou enaugh informat�oa fot your reco�endatio¢. Any
questions, give me a call.
ThAnk you�
��t/
ToA X2ees
, 1 1
u
�
�rCf�.mado�aoor � � i�'A�I " '] +_< �1 "j)�YAwI !1 D �
3725 Sorieg Saw� �J£ e�Sinoopolia, M[i sia:3 °°Sooc 612,'859-:9Q0 • Yx 512: 859-70ffi (�rL�-^^� con
��" 7
�
Cost of Repairs
St. Clair & Griggs N/S
Repair Panel # 1 & 2
Materials
380' 3x6 @ .54 ft.
3 pieces used trim N/A
35 8" bolts @ 1.06
32 pieces banding material @ .23
Total material
Tax
Total _
Labor
3 Men @$22/hr X 24 hrs
1 Boom C� $50/hr X 8 hrs
1 Flatbed @$40/hr X 8 hrs
Total
Materials
45 % Overhead
Total
•
$ 205.20
$ 37.10
$ 7.36
$ 249.66
$ 16.23
$ 265.89
$ 1,584.00
$ 400.00
$ 320.00
$ 2,304.00
$ 265.89
$ 1,156.45
$ 3,726.34
5�
p3-��7
U
�
•
Summarv of Repairs
St. Clair & Griggs
Panel # 1- Detail
Replace 2 2x6�4 Stringers/back of face
Replace tower # 1 2x6x24 A-frame to stub
Replace 1 2x6�4 Kick from panel #1 to panel #2
Replace 2 2x26x24 Sway between A-frames
Panel # 2 — Detail
Replace 1 2x6x12 Tower support to A-frame
Replace �. 2x6x24 A-frame to stub (tower 2x4)
Replace Z 2x6x24 Stingers
Replace 2 2x6x24 Sway between A-frames
�J
� �5/q
' `? a
� ��.�,���?��I,
� curacaR
•
�une i9
�Is. Linda �iurphy
Public Works Ri�ht oi Way
ZS W. 4�' Street
800 City E3a11 Annex
Saint Paul, �T 55102
RE: North�vest corner of Ayd Mill Road and Saint Clair Avenue
Dear Linda,
Per your request, please find a site plan for the above-menrioned property. As we
discussed eazlier, our sign has been in existence lonj before the constsuction of Ayd Mill
Road.
When Ayd iVIili Road was constructed, we never received any compensation for our
property or our sign. Additaonaliy, there also was never a condemnation on the property.
What we aze requestin� is permission to overhang thE Ayd Miil R.O.W. As you can see
frem the attached drativino, the total overhang is appr-�ximate2y 6 feet.
The catwalk for one of the sib faces overhangs the sidewalk for Saint Clair Avenae. We
will be cuttin� or moving that catwalk so it does not overhang your sidewalk.
Please contact me when you have had a chance to review this matter.
.P. Real Estate and Public Affairs
�
Enc_
earCSanaei Onsdoor
�
�3-�� 7
� ' 864 • :900 r��:
6:2 i.—
i ;
322j Spcicg Si. i1E � Minncapolis. MN 55413 ^ www.cicarchaanelomcdoot.com
v°J
� s,� . �3-a�7
•`Tid+-PI?C'k"' FP ,A _,�7�'"r L`QSTS 7 RSS 12FP F A'YTOI�i
j �- -f �� i � �'°`",,,,� °``��
1 c�7T'r,3�fl .TiRF.?vs*21T: , ' `�?
- ? fSC°S R� 3 faCe.
^ Toti site proc�e,zeat - - - � 70�0
t�i-fr1cL t� E N. Z �3q-w�2
�l � c cr� 4TRUC�iRE MA7�RTAT S_
- Purc�rse ofbasic stiuch:re, ;nclu:iing
uprigE�ts and fascia:
-Bstuaatedcosi------------------------ 54�3'1'3.�t-
-Deliverycharge- --------------------- 5 7S�-�
-Salestax@ L=�%-------------------- S �Ea .
SL�TOTAL--------------•-------------------- ��1�•3y
�) �t.T-�F30F Fr�RRCATION:
- Labor to remove bzsic materials Szom truck;
in-shmp fabric�tion and rssembfy 14-Sh6A
P��S
- o� man crew @ z houzs @ _
g�v !�• -----------`--.------------ �� 2.�:uU
• CTTRT4TAL--- --------------- S .S7-S'����
4 hli� �ritB,^�*,C;• i'L FOOTFN sG Ah�D STRUC'F`UR�' TO/ON ��' �ND DIG FIDLF:
- Procedure inciudes {a) crew � equipment necessary to h�ut struct�u= � mafenai to
site �ad -(b} employ an auger to dig hole and haui d"ut
(a) � msn crew @ � hou,-s @
S z`� Ikz_ to dig hbie �d haul
dirt--------------- � S�:c:.7
(b) use of auger for � houzs @
�nr. --------------------- $ "���?
- L.abor io febricate £ootings at site end po•ur
_ coacreL iootiags at site.
- 3 man c:ew @ `� bours @
� Z'��: """"-""'--"-'-'--- � �
'l. c.^'J
- ��o yardscoa�ic'ie�Jr z` �;y� ---------- 5 /oyo.cJ
- E4uigrn�L requiz�: .
' (H� OIIE .�iaa q �C� �, � }20IIF5
��5"D �/�tr ��drU'.�
\"} 6�6 }GRTCiyGC tLS1C�C � � }IOtFIS /
U '-'-'---" lac�.c?'1
@�`f /h�-------- -----�----
� 7RG Z ---------- S�Gs.
Pa3e 1 oi
�
e
D
APPRALSA�
•t3CP_�gI�i ,
:. �1 .. - �l u � � - `- - � � - � --- �
..a- r - [ ): • ■
CJ
- Fncludcs assembly of fazcie, stzv.zgcrs, platfo�s, ladders,
brackets, etc_ o*+- ite_
-.3 n2n crew @ 3 Z- hOtss @
� - yv /fiz.--------------
_ E�uigm�t required:
(a) anet �uck @ '� �° hours
@$ � /h*.--------------- S /GOo.crJ
�
Cb) one ?�r , truck @ 3 y houis
li�� �IL------------------ ✓ /2.�Q,U�C?
� n �� �
�1 r rtia r� a�"c. rr� 3 Z v.�-o o�
t � �� w�-
,S�jiF3TOT�T.------------
�
��
sS/ 3 Z�c�t?
pa�e � o:
����
� I.00ATION
a 3-a��
e'T* PP d"� ,� �ZRPT Af`&'7vS�'i1T'I' �f�6^t $%�SC �'rF`T��.FC`,�A i�C??� fCL3�4'�F�I1`���Dl
. �: : / u �
- Purc'a�se of bzsic elec�ical materia! including Lgh: 5�res, balIasts, lamps, boxs,
hanger�, breskers, clocks, m:scellan�oas it,ms sach es conduit and corfztecbrs, clamps
a�� cLps, etc. @ 5 - - - - - - - - - � {� `-'��rcr..J.
i
- Sales tax @ � � � % for materials - - - - - - - - � 4�l• �G
- Laad snd ttaload eguipment at site^ s 2�an �
crew @ �. houts each @ S � S� lhz. - - - 5� `�� `�'J
� - IBStaIi elee�ical panels, zvn condeit, pull wire, instail fixtures and bzllscts:
- 7i ZIIEIl L7.'•W @ E �+ �23.�$_ �Q a
�—f�37_ """'_""'_""'"$�f1�`JtU'.T
- EC�LTZD111eZ2C SCqllIL�d.:
(a) one �r, �� truck (a3 . 2 . hours
@� � /hr.----------------- SL60.cso
(b) one f rclt � ttuck @-/ z aours
@� �' Ihr.------ ------- � �7'O,:p.7
(c) one truck @ hours
@S !hr_--------- �
�TTBTQTAT_,------------------------------------ �39os .�to
�
_��..
P�
����� �
�o����� �
•,�-n- at i r: •• �pT A�'� 1FL*-�' i3 �'S 3,K 3c �.�,?� ^•, (CO1.V?E�t'
s �Ilx- '• ►i :_
- Crw Lo gain: uF:ights including st�u..^�:�t
steel, Iadde:s, s�ingers. tzsm, etc., aII
iteas �"r rt fasci�
- � � �w � � �ous �
s� /y /�r.---------- ---------s�`d''
- E4tipiaeat reqv.ired:
(a) one psneI tzuck zcquired fa:
?-c� hovrs @ �u? /'nr. - - - - - - - - 5 ��� cz3
STTF�TOT�------------------------------------ S�S"D�c�
� � �l i � ��I �
Permitcosts--------------------------- S s�„rf?
Soiistests ---------------------------- �J53,o�
SLBTQT.4L'------------------------------------ 5 3dd�u
�
o3 �a��
DFRECTl73ARD F2EPR0➢tiCTIOR CQS'E` (TTEMS Z-'� ----- S!� 84P'.l�
j{ l) L!h 1 2O�
ine above cosr �e �or jB�or nd �w mate:?a�s onlv s�d do not iaclude "iadir�.t c�sts" i.�cIuding such ite�s•as (
�an�d overhead allowance and (Z) entteo:enav-'i'. `��=ont -- •
�
�
ge! o
�u a stiryiJtaL if
- �����r�� � � � �
� _P �•� F rk�. .� G�i! . � , 'F
�U?vftv�ARV pp ���OD i 'I�Ot„ rO�T�:
(1)
(Z)
Site grocure�e�t - - - - - - - - - - - - S io,7J .ar
In-pfac� re�la�emrn: (dir�,.ct cost) = S �B�81Q�
(page i j
�aa3es 1, 2, 3 & 4)
Subtoti ---------------- -------------Say, S�S��i',r�
Overh�d/con�acto�s allowance n� � % - - - - - - - - � /lGS'� �
Eatrep eaeurial prafit @ /� %- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - s S6 33 •c�1
F2E�PLACEiYS�h"f COST?tTEW---------------SAY, 5�.3/8'Sr/U
_ �
f� •: •. . a,. - e
�r co.^sider:ng:
(I? a��I z�e af tae in-place o*stdoor advertising ssuctez�-e snd -
(2) re�o8i�i�ng Fhe s„ict mRiate:za�ce schedule apg?ied to outdoor adv�tisiag ;�uc�lues aad -
{3) the conciiuon and quafi.ty ai constructian and -
(4} :he Iocztion snd econo�ic Iifc e�pectancy of the outdoor adver`�sing s=uctvre ----
T�Ie hsve a<T:ved a : tlle Coaclusion thai the ave;slj depieciation es�*nate af
�`� %o * sho•�.Id be apnlied o: rs follaws:
i aTAI. I3EPR�C�4TTO:V ESTD2vfATE --- 3(S� •
* R F)�Fr ECIATdC3�t ZS % O� DTR€CP COST (DEPRECE.�;F.,E ASSE'FS)
s y •
T�'�ALREPLQCE.NEZE"I'CQSTPi'EW------ S'
L�SS BEPRE� CT�TIOA ALg,£3�§'A2i CES ----(S 3�a�.:n,; }
FZ��LAC'E11'f�r'F CQS£ LE�S I3EF�CL4TIf3N VAI,U� - Say,
�owtwp3
�
s34y�s;6 c�
�
Peze 5 0= �
�-
� S % C�%� �^n��
y��� � : � �-
�� ;�s��
s�wz
e
�
� _ � � --- ` --- - -- -
---- �U '���o w c=3c�3 � _ 27 2•Sa ---- ----
---- -- � !� � �' � 2; � (__ 5`:,y..� �z � G � 3 � u z 1_: F �
-----------------� - -
---- - ----
�f � �. � x L v' }^ - �r�.o,,.e_ g� / Z � � `�- ---- � � . •.
--- ` 2__
Z z :� v
- =�-------- x Z / S 'v.� �-- � � ` ' � 1 --- -
— , - -------- - --- �-- - � � — --- --
i
;. t -a �- k-ty lCrc.�..n i1 _G,`��-- ---- --
-- - ' " - t�" / o�..' 1^.rw _Y�r.��s,�r �. S " � Z-- ----------- - - ' � ` � �- ----- ----- --
-
�- P�L c,-��[n .�_ - s �Ge�. 6:� !f.�•OY�
-- (J-_`� _�-------------
------------- -
� � e� � :
J J 3 - `f��`l-!'`� -- / �S- ? �—
• ---�------- �. � L) ---- -----
� � - I �. �, j�y�'�Cir � � s . _ ---
" • 75 /��0'a
_..------'--- -'-----------------------------�---------'--------
' � � - � T � 1 t^'t
--- ;.. ----- --- ----- - -----�— � 73 �, so��-�c-� /Y7s , c�
;: - - - --- ---- ------- - - - -
::
:: (� - '- ^� � L� 5-ir�;�,�,� � � Z. � � 7 �, c �
--- ---------- � �. �.-------- -- ------- - ----------- --. . _.. -- - ---
„ ---- -
�;.
t ��`b':,�, � s�s--er� �-°"� � i� J�'�� j=+ �:'a,.'.7�
--------- --- -------- ----- '
.. -- -------- ------------., . ,.
- - - --- --- ------ . . . .
�� F �' �' 2 }
_ __""_ �� � � � �� G'.>'`.r.d �w . i `' m 'v'i e, ? � ... �
•'_ _"____'_""=—_'_"_' "'"'_—_—____"'___'_"'_—__' —__'_" : i+
; _ _ + ., � "" ' — ___'--_"' _ '
__ ___—_" ^�,c„�j./ .f < ��,�;•�
._. '
.-_ ,:' �.� _�',�. ,� � .�� 73,50 .
-... --- --- -- ---- --- ----
- --------.._.
; � : -_.-�-�------ ---- - -
t;:
-- ------- :: . _. 3 ; , d Z
: i ; . . .. _ ___. _ ____ A
....
' _.. . ..
•�
q-
j `•
---------- ----- � ` - __a 8 z ' 3 � --
..
- ------------------------- -- -------... ------ --- ---- - -- ---- - -- ---- --- --- - .
.E
_ r � ,
,,: . a
--- ---- ' �'I ��,°. =�=�'��°°�'`= ------------ ---- -------- - --
,,.
_.
::
,, `
� i � f"' i %�. 9 �- L"i.�� � 1 �_ � �� .�f !n K. J��
f ` v
__,____ . . � � : . �[ �
n- _� .
:-; ... ___ _ ______._
' � ` . . . .. . .
f F J
- -- � � i � % r � ��• y: ,.,,rt F::�r=-+� � / �G �G'U
:.. . �
.- � , � !.....,�
____ —'___'_' __ -C_=�yc'_ -"__=_____"""____'_' _—___ ___"_'_'—' -'
___'
�:
/
��:
.; l ..� .-E/`.� _�v'.- �-� v-g I�+ZJ =:J'r.?
.. � , �
- ---- --_— -------:---�--�
,: . _ ..------- ----
, - -- ----- ------- --
;
---- ------ '—' -- � UY'---- �- oz . Z3 '? � r� i o:a
.
.. : � -- L- -------- --- ---- �
� - ---- -----
?' : ,.
'`-' j ?U ry / r+✓ .� 'S,!i;3
�:
.;9 ; � � ' 1� � • r/'t�
.-.
,-, ,
' -- — --�--------=' —
:._ ---- --'--.._.._.-------.__----- �---------
iei
,. . .✓
'
_ :_; v�,.��
- --- --------- --_ -.- ., . <
,_.
,:
,' y/�FG
---- -
. f "�`-- - - -- '
---- -... -- -- - -
,._ - --- - --- ... -- --- ----- - --- . ._ .
:� _. . .-- --
•
,
i; .
L�
\
�J
�
\n
�
_ -. -�
,
�.
a�
; ,�:
. __=<
_;:_� -_ _: �-�-�_.Y - _ _-_ _--_ —�.
�_ -- . � � ` -� ---- - ;
=�-` .- - i
��>;; � , � -
' -,� '-J .-
� > ._. . �
- '�, �
� � �' i ^l�
� "� �
� �
._� 4 - -:
;� . `.€ r ,
:.t J
� '� �i�?-.�` � _._..i�.
�� � , '^� ,
� � �� - T
� � � �_
a "``:�.�^,-
�� � '_
,� �-� � . , �... '� «...
a
i gs 4 _,
� 1 -
�t
,__ - ;�.r _.
•
=- `.:a�-. `.
; `�:.:;
1 ${ f��
�' f :' ^�Y' ' � ....
`� . .� - � ���
�+ 1
[ � °
�'� ,
� ' . �
�
�3-a�7
�
�.' ' -r
�;�=.
'� } i � •� ����. >
� �ea� �.
�, �'-� . -.. �s
.' "'�
� �� � t
�� . _ � �,,�
� l � T � ' ��� b
-. =Ja ;..' �� '
."�� ` �P'-$ �-�-€'a'�-:
� r , : P'"`:.'''��' `�. a�
� R. � 5' � �� �
�-.-at�i�"?� �
�-�;_ - �� - . � ;: ;
_ � _ \ �'�;��
- __�`'��-�.
�_ ., ' j^! s�.. ,i
�. _
"� . ��� ..
G
' :�. - ._ •
_ ��
` .��T i..., ,
}• . ,� 4. - �[[{lll��-f��•777
� �� i �
1 ; - 1
�- f't .
�,� ll jj�� Yf
� '�"���• - f > � �yay.
.r` �a _
'� - � i ' #�- , ���
�r • 4 ��'1�
��.
7 � ` y"��� •
; _�:�-,
..
,
-�;�;
�;._ ��, ��i�� ��,
l��1 ���
,� 3 .,t,�a�'#aal
-� '. - �.f,'��
. .�
:�' L '���.+r
_ T ' �.'r
_ "'' 9 _ t ,�. Y .
♦ `�
� �'` A
� 1��f{ �����'3
� zr p
' ��..
t- � �
�� .::
- -- �. - - ,: _ - -. �F' Y _ �3 � �- -�
- =� _�:_ , ': _ ��-�-� ��
� .. A � �.tn } ,
i'_. Gy .r �. ' 'e µ �� i '�
� s v _ y'> � t;. -.:'.+ ^��'!
� '- _ ' . _ ' o�' ,i' f' �, �,. �
. � ', y � ' ��.
�� � ' ___ ��•'���
�.i..n+✓. - �^ _ � s� '' �,"tn"/+ �t�p. -�
�� . . /� �.�`, �'� � - `"ysa-� .1
+ac
r y " ' �f
_"." i t _°_�- r�:r£ � J .�-_ +''` ?a . "�
�;s�,.s�� .,�. .� t _Q.' �, _'� " :� .e"�
�: : � s._ - - _ � .'� ^��.'"'u.c�''v":Y� � :s.
� ,__� ��_
� � 4 � ' - r � ��. , +'�''�I .e�
E _� � �-� ti t . .
: _ q � »� ����� � x � �x
� .� 3 r � � - �=
. �'' y � a A T �� ^ _
y t - . _
. Y ' ' _ " "°�'4..} J � �
v s � t - �, �
,� . .�� - - -- t .
� ��
�_ , , � �.3. ��a__ � �, =
<_�'� �,� n
� __.�
�
�
��` r.�✓r ,�� -
v�_ :
F �.. ,
..-F`S� z.r .,eo� . "
:.,-� r .d`�`� �<_' -- '.: '�� �:
,.._.
-� �x ry~` � 4 _ ' .
� �. _ _
1
Y � �
��` � ^
��
��`� � � _' :
. ;.�.,� . . - . . _
-=:.;�- - , �. - . _
� . , r-�"�A. ...
���� � .. . . - �
�
g'_.` � . � . - . .
, _.:-
-�-"�_n.. ;:.-.. ..
_. -- -�- . . . . . .. . � .,,
.
_ '� �
� '' ,'
� h �. ";:_.M.. .-�._.. __. _: ._... ._...
� � s r .
t
�,,, � _ ._ . - - -
_ � � �
�.m.�-.�a.�
� .' = �",c� , w. ;=v: �..v.v�=v � ., ':
� z ; —"�'::. �
x{ _, . �
�':. .:....
` `-?�
.,, ... . ::-..� ".. . .,
, ....' __ .._: .. , _i. ' .. . �i:c::-� .za.'s', A�
�:: � . _ . . . .. �. .
.'�_ �..... . ... '� ..- .
q: .
.,
�
_: .'.�'-�;: ��'^.: �-'^�;
_`.=ti: '+ � `Y
__T ��
�,�- ,.'`�.� .
_ �
t � � .
�.
�' 1
�.�.
�� ��
-:�
i
. ,�=--
" � j
,,
�,
� - t.
�
�
� � �;- -
�.
z... '
�!
� �
� s 'n
�� �
�' �
��
�
� �
�
�
�
' 4r 'f.,.,�'�"¢ -; ' f. -
t 4.
� � .. �� �a„" L � �
� �� �� � - - � ' �
�� T �
Y � ad �
1 "�:� ,= .2� -�" '
" �'�"a�'r►_-�'' �
_ �", �
� �s
_ � -} � ��
� �
� �": � .o-- - � : _ � -
' r � _
.. .
r
, ,� ., . � � � -.�-... - � . . ,� .
� , � � '�
- .,�'.� - �, - ��i
^ " � _ , � >
� - �'�` \ . �.
. . , [ :
" - . - . , � ;`:,.
���� � � . �� � �i
� � `� �' :>
� ��
- - _— �
- �.
� ��V�'� � F�
. . ..3 � a ��'
� ��� �..._
. '�� _ ] , .�....._..�. ^-- „syq
- �..-�
� � �s �
I,_ : - ' , _
° •:
� .,�
, �,� -.
_-.�`�`c�ar�v�-.'_ _ - - � s .�,-� ��
2 -�
. � �.:.
�..� -�"_�"°°-'�'� �,,� �
��H.. � , . .. � �" -
�° ..,.,� '
'�.�- : _.
k --=„, , P
.
.� % -
F '
y�
r _. ?,_ r ;
�.=.s�,a. �' .:�. -� � ..._-�
_ �
i"1 "' .,
=�
_S � .
`
_i . : ` ,':
\ �_ �� _
( �!
`� f
, • ' J; •.��
j ����
5� a �( , �, v
. � q . .
J
_ �-
f f �
� ~/�
� t �
- . ,� Ar£ =
; ` =
f
I
f �
� �� � ..�° .
� � �
i
�
� � .✓�� _t= �
.3�.°-�'���-'�- � a � -
_ �„" � ... � c
�`�� 4
_ ... _ ,-,.._w.. .._„- _�., s�.:r. ._
F, ,
_ ;
It �
9
., � �,
.� � ' .
y ° �
�
� = �,
� �-�
.� . t _. S : �- . -. "
�� " }i. . s.� J'-;» I -
£ _ - :�
J .i
� ' �' -':.
� ' �' ' �'�
�'�S i - ji � .. .
6 � -.T
< 'i^
�.� `i . $ _::.: ' _
s"_s:._
,�: j :�:"`' -
a :�
. = -��"- .�'� . .
� _ ±s�`
• � o- -°'�`�
Y�yy- -"� +-�+-'
,� r- ..
� #
s V � y5
.� r- a �_ " j �-.,a
�� , 1
- �`� ` _ f- ' 3u
r;' : - y
���� ' '� ' .~�
';,� ?�
�.s�
r •t.?
,._ ..,� . _r:t
'�.I
�:
4 �� �
/;� ' �
� i
. <
a
�
�i '
i ` �''
a
, � �
�' i .
a � :
i ., ' t "
#. .e >
3.�:..
t};� :' .
.a i
�� a k :
�"�
-�'- i �
��� i
::� _i ;
�
•
�..������ � .-� - ��
� },.�� �M- , .�
,�, �s�� � ��
-�' �� ', �`.0 i r � �-
� '��" ��Ik � i
�... : T � �..'-�-'.��� �' �� . � . _ :
�� ��`t �'}�, - ��
��` � � _ _ :- ''.e--..- �` - ' I
i. r x � � } c - � � _„� � / f
`4i L � • { i .t
4 "�
� / � K 'M a ��� jv . i
� �. �'_s- 'ti C
�. � .� � r.. _ �... .._
>� ... .°�,.,.. � � � ���� ,
'S i �J�""a .
4 � � '`�������a�
'�� ' a u
r " ,� � ++.,�,, . ` . .
�
� � 5` � �
�a r_ t �.
.. i• � ..,. ti_u. ' S �_�
� � ^
.. Y� M, , . � (�. � 'i`,*,.
..�'� , _. .. . ...... _. . �'E�
^ . � .. . .. � '.
� � . . . ^a , .. ._ .. -L :
��
�. �� _
: c.
µ �
� � ���
� �� ..._ '� . } �-[„ _.
� :,.. .o ,�_ .
� �+n....<a^^' ..' ..... � �
��
�.i-
� ;; x � .: ; e � k:.
� 4 � .
ti �{
_ � - �� �" ���� � � �II I¢ , ._
C � .{ �
?'�!� rr..-r.`,+^ „ T K :F
ro
�.".._ � ... � . '-f3.� �.� y
�r..r�..�':� . � ►''...`.
�'-^'R. v._ �� ` � . ... �
�.;:� . � � �-
-�;: b ��
- _- ----- -______; --�
� � �-� � �' ` , `
�^' _ ._ i��` e:�. � '�
v 4 �
C ..�� � 4• �� .j
i/��G�.--•�a�^' �^ � "—' . v'aJ
�G�.�e � q
� ��'�-5?a. y r � . � -� E
� ./''' . ...._..._,._ . � .:z.
h
� +'h
y ��.: 1
f�
Y� � �
. . �� . . '� ��.
� ,;. _ ._ . ��
`"`i �. � ,. ,..,, '
'e -+z
y .
- ,..��.- g -
f� ' i..� , . _
a
} � ��—�.' t` �� � . 1 4f f a"`�r' � �. .
Y. � �.�� �� � � ",� `�`
'"�`!!�. � � � :4.. _ . � � (.:,�,. � "� -
' �� �. � t. � � . s... .
. � � , � . .._ �'>
+as'� :tE S� ' ^ � !`� r „�.��-_ .._
, > � r.
�� ��%� --,w% - sfjy ,:_ ;. � ,.� ��4#-
,i¢-� 3 r" _ �, �, �. , ; :. f.:.t.. , . -
fj! S � T ���.
r l i � P
`� � , � � .. _ .
' ��' �� , � y z ;3�� �`�' � ... �.f.�
�.y .;�t# 3 � �„ . -_ .
, 1„ � `.�: �.�'�'�.' .,, - ,,
_ � � . ,�:
_.: r� _ -
� � • � y3 J �y ;. rz, � r ,:Y' w .JgT
�:> �i. . ! i ���� ` ;� I �..� i ��'�!a ^
P1� a C� 1 7 3. i7 ��� d"3'"' ��` .``r'� ' <
_� � . ��'.,,�..;-y :�'� i.i.(.L �_ �... �� ' '\ ��
� � M
! . � Mt. . .' � 4. ��.,- � „ �r. f� .ry . z �`
• .Z'yl,ia f 1 . _. ` . � 1� � � 1 . e �' ��3' � � L "!�a-�..�,.�'�" F .� s.T .J ��_�L s.
�,?� � � ��t �! � . sa� � �� � .�' y-�� C� y.•i �.�
f . 91; ,,.r- _ � F = a �'."�--
{ : ��� � s � �, .� : � 4� .L � � ��
' � i �; ` ! i �k-
a j ' � � s �, ! . �� f ,: - � €�v
� - ��..> t
r t 1 r
t � _I f,.�?,�_��,r^i��_:�s'� .a �._� l����' �,�+_ �..��`'l����..� 1 .�Y:'� _
I?�- ta f `.' "^ -; �- —A �,� ; :71- �_� i � . ��i r -,..� ,� �
r �'� �"' �r-� L=� �� � � =P �- '� �- , �
� - .; ■ r � E .,-:��
�
� � � -,�� ; n r
�' �' `� c � = F � y_ -i . �' -"��. '- � ; - � �1 x
rr ' � — -
��� ' t� �- � , ` l�t-: _ _ < ��.�" .�t, .:-��,� - �.
r '� a '..�� {�..�t..� ,�- ._t .j� ::�� � '��s " t i
.� s� > �.^ i !'� : f - �� _ � ..,�-,�f#�g� :-}• �r .
`T } 11��"`'�' _ ::� ' w 3 - - � �y' - ��: � � _ '—` -{ t'6 � �..
� ; � 9F� _ �� �'�'_ r �s^ > � � (� _ *#3_h .
� ,� f + i 7' R- +�. 33
—} ) � y tt
t� .+, i
i i �^---."1:,� . r$�,� ` j� . ����� � � � � � r 1��� � � { ,3•
'�'�' J. _-a.r-� .: F
�. ' �'S!! . � Z �'�'�' �i� -� � t .. . � �
a.,-I ... F ,_ ~ � -}.�. �i'.� � j�'�-�'i o ' � ��r � � � � ��.
`.� . +� " � ` ( a F' `� R .�,•c1Y' -.•_.- .� � _ _
� `'
•�/�-: � r �"i ') �� °� .
� � �r )s:�, ' � > `, � � i r } � .`- �` � : ` -�`"
f � - a �! � ; ' � -��#�` i(' _
s
�-��� �� �,� � � .t + � `;�.
� � �� �� ' �.:. � .'�_� �'� _��'- �,T+-'�.'11i s �x.
+. � �' �rf ' "�' ,.
E— � s��, ''�' _�-r �3 � � y „�-� ��� � ¢'�r �!-'- �.
� ` �
� , '��' ��-u�� ��`'�� .� 3 -� +��� � '.�-� '��II ���
�-�¢ : �-, ,� ,; � � ,, � � ���} �<t�; �
� _t.; �� -- -
` � ; - �n�-��� - -� ;
�t : �- � `� � - ' - �� � "''_`�" . y � -- � -i j �� � i
--� � �� ! � E- � ~ ! � � ` � ' y, � as � � �,+
.� � `�- i ' �I! L ,�
$ � t 3t� • i ':J7t` �' 1� �, ( s � � S �� . �-� i ,:� .� — �.-
t��� .. � µ 2- .e 't_ � ` ���� \--..T y ��
i
�� � � . a j � . _}.�' :�� r '� r_ 7 '-.-� __� �`. _� -- �k'`� � _;.b
� � � t � ��'f' -. 1 �- ,. - �� 1T .. ` ` ` a � -ss�"-,:,�t� � . �
--.....---�-�'—i�i-..� _ r ��. � � ) � r . y � � � � � � � -.F I f '� - t, €>. f .
� !!�� r �+;.�. �.
4 C ` G , A
�' � JL�r T -..} �r�
r� . �� � [ � - �� �' � � �• � r �
� ; ! [ t - 'r ���F'
� k � � l_ "� >� e' L .'..� ��.'. i ""'^'.?.�
�,, �_ ��k��1�G'��� �,,, Ti! - s:'. . �/ _
' �i �� ��� �.;�� ;T � �' I. �. 1 t i > ' If � cf ii.-t11 'a . �� i i� :{.:
-� �- - `�� ` �v:�i �. I = Y , a -�..-.� �,� � 1'�.. � � . ! <A 'r� �'7 � �'f_': � �
j� � t � ; S ! �
� �� � �"`M 7-L �t," -� { � � ' � } j ,�' � � � -� y`� ���j � . i �_' j' .
�s- �y� L ��'/�
',� d � . i j �- � �[` . � c �,-�`3 � + ... � S � ��
�� .. � r r�- :�-�' �� _- � l / - 1 - ' ' ) �t - .++�_
A � +�- ri�; � 7-7 1.:�.a� _� � L '� � 3 3 1 ii ! . . ?���� � �� �
� 'aS �. .i �`� a t��-�'`y y � .`�',�-. r. l a'._ . �- ^ - �� _� �G�i.� � -�%..
z , -�- :— �.' �� - �
� ' �'_� + �� ��_ = � _ F ������� �Ti'•?1 _
� 3� 1 �-1��� � P -r � ' � � �,� .:, 1- � t !'� ^��r
'7 p t � �..� • .Y .rr .� E
..l_I� i � '..
�- � , t � ;,. � � � �,-� � ►- ��� ,, l � j � � �, � .
� ��- � ' _ _ � ._ -F "il . :� �' � _ ` � - � fr i . r t :
f_-_i� �7 {�� � �� J .. � � �_ �'l i 3 � �� �T?wt ! �- .L"
r,F;'.^�;� -��."'F s3` :��;_.�� . ` �'" '� � ��� � �+���. i:� _.
r ,� � f � I — � � S
i� � `"" ,_ � '"'Y� .�c'�.Yr:a _ _"'1 -- � a ' - �.; , � s{ �' ���' ��r :: y�_� Y
_ � xt�-_� � f`' "�'� ` � �^-� "`°`� ti�"'._ _�ir r� }i_ A'-f.��•-.
� '������
` ������f� .
l