The URL can be used to link to this page

03-607ORIGINAL RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT ,�AUL, Council File # O `� ^ � O � GreenSheet# o°d��J l� Presented By Referred To Committee: Date 2 WHEREAS, on 7uly 24, 2002, Arthur H. Tysk, 722 Sherburne Avenue, was ordered to 3 remove an abandoned advertising sign located at 710 Dale Sueet North by the office of license, 4 inspections and environmental protection because the sign had been abandoned or discontinued 5 for many yeazs; and 6 7 WHEREAS, Mr. Tysk advised the City, in a letter dated August 8, 2002, that Lincoin 8 Outdoor Advertising owned the subject billboard; and � 10 WFIEREAS, on August 27, 2002, the office of license, inspections and environmental ll protection ordered Dan Eischens, General Manager of Lincoln Outdoor Advertising, Burnsville 12 Minnesota (hereinafter, "Lincoln") that the subject sign be removed as it had been abandoned or 13 discontinued; and 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 WHEREAS, Lincoln, on or about September 23, 2002, filed an appeal from the Zoning Administrator's decision and requested a hearing before the planaing commission (hereinafter, the "commission") for the purpose of reviewing the order of the zoning administrator; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the appeal was set for October 17, 2002, with notice to interested persons provided; and WFIEREAS, in a letter dated October 16, 2002, legal counsel for Lincoln Outdoor Advertising requested that the October 17, 2002, date be reset to November 14, 2002; and WHEREAS, On November 14, 2002, a public hearing on Lincoln's appeal was heazd before the commission's zoning committee where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard and, at the close of the public hearing, the zoning committee moved to deny the appeal and sent their recommendation to the commission for final deternunafion; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2002, the commission, based on the recommendation of the zoning committee and all the files and reports in the matter, denied Lincoln's appeal based upon the following findings: The advertising sign in question is a free standing billboard on a parcel of residentially zoned land. There is currenfly a coxnmercial building on the parcel. The land is adjoined by a vacant parcel to the north. 2 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 51 52 ORIGPN�L� 03 �o� 2. A letter dated Ju y 4, 2002, and addressed to Arthur Tysk, owner of 710 Dale Street North from the City's Licensing, Inspections and Environmentai Protection Department (LIEP) stated that the sign in question had no sign faces for many years, and needed to be removed within 30 days. The letter further stated that due to the City prohibition on new advertising sigis, the owner cannot replace the sign faces on this sign structure. The City's billboard inspector was subsequendy informed by Mr. Tysk that the sign structure was owned by Lincoln Outdoor Advertising. A letter dated August 27, 2002, and addressed to Lincoln Outdoor Advertising from LdEP noted that Dan Eischens with Lincoln Outdoor Advertising stated that Lincoln Outdoor Advertising purchased the billboard structure at 710 Dale Street North in 7une 2002, with the knowledge that the structure had no sign faces on it for many years. According to this letter, the applicant also acknowledged putting new sign faces on the structure in mid August, after Mr. Tysk received an inspector's letter ordering the sign's removal. The letter further stated that use of the sign had discontinued for over one year, and thus must be removed. It also noted that new sign faces for the advertising sign were erected without a sign pernut. 4. On September 23, 2002, the appellant appealed the LIEP decision that the sign must be removed, stating that the sign "is presently being used appropriately, and we believe there are no grounds to request our discontinuing that use." 5. In City records, a photograph dated December 19, 1999, of the billboard in question shows that the structure had no sign faces on it. In February 2002, during LIEP's billboard inspection, it was again noted that the billboard had no face. These records indicate that the sign had not been in use for more than two years. Minnesota Statute §462357 Subd. (1)(e) provides that when a nonconfornung use is discontinued for more than one year, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a confornung use ar occupancy. The Ciry's general zoning regulation for nonconfornung structures is consistent with the state law provision. 6. §66.214 prohibits the establishment of any new advertising signs in the City. 7. §66.201(3) requires unsightly signs to be repaired or removed within 15 days of notification. The definition of "unsightly signs" includes signs that have "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 ciearly recognizable at a distance of 20 feet." (§66.201(3)) Due to the prohibition of new advertising signs under §66.214 and the state law that requires a nonconfornung use that has been discontinued for more than one year to become conforming, the sign faces cannot be replaced. Therefore, the sign must be removed within 15 days of notification. 8. The sign is located in the Thomas-Dale Special Sign District. The Sign District §66.2169(fl(2)(c) of the code states that a nonconforming sign shall be immediately removed from the Special Sign District if use of the sign has been discontinued for a period of three consecutive months. §66.2169(fl(1)(b) prohibits the replacement of a nonconforming sign by another nonconforming sign. The sign at 710 N. Dale St. is nonconfornvng and its use had been discontinued for several years. 9. The appellant violated §66.201 of the code by erecting sign face panels without first obtaining a sign permit from the City. In addition, §66.403 states that no person shall -1 ORiGlf�AL b3 - �0 - 7 erect, install, repair, maintain, or construct any sign or sign structure within the City without a license. The appellant is not a licensed sign contractor with the City, therefore is not allowed to construct or maintain any sign structure within the City. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 WIIEREAS, on or about December 6, 2002, and acting pursuant to Leg. Code § 64.206(a), Lincoln duly filed an appeal from the commission's decision and requested a public hearing before the council of the City of Saint Paul for the purpose of considering the decision of the said commission; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on Lincoln's appeal of was duly set before the City Council on December 18, 2002, after giving notice to all interested parties; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 2002, at Lincoln's request, the matter was laid over until January 22, 2003; and WHEREAS, on January 22, 2003, the matter was considered at a public hearing before the City Council where all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, The Council, having heard the statements made, and having considered the application, the report of staff, the record, minutes and resolution of the Zoning Committee and of the Planning Commission, does hereby RESOLVE, that the Council of the City of Saint Paul upholds the commission's decision in this matter as the Council finds no error in fact, finding, or procedure by the zoning administrator or the commission in this matter and, , as set forth above, the Council adopts the findings of the commission as its own; and be it FCTRTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Lincoln Outdoor Advertising is in all things denied; and be it FINALLY RESOLVED, that this Resolution shall be mailed to the Appellant Lincoln Outdoor Advertising, the zoning administrator and the commission. Reqvested by Department of: By: Form Approv by City Attorney Bl: �W!✓�� J 2 1' - �� by Mayor for Submission to Council By: Date By: Adopted by ouncil: Date �� o� Adoption C rt�ified by Counci Secretary D3 -GO7 DFPARTMFNT/OFFICFJCOUNGL OATEINRIAiEO . , _ . _, . , ,. City Attorney June is, zoos GREEN SHEET No 20�J232 CONTACT PERSON & PFiONE �nqIallDat• INtlallWte Peter Warner - City A" -. ,,,,,,�„ �� MUST BE ON CWNCILAGQJOA BY (DA7� June 25, 2003 � ❑ �,�n,u� ❑ a,ra.�uc xuweenFart rtounxc onnot �wour�s�.amv¢FSO.c wuwu��aFmrnccro ❑ rnvoApie�smsrwm ❑ - TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES (CLJP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATURE) CTION RE9UESTED Memorializing City Council action taken on January 22, 2003, upholding a decision of the Planning Coffiission by denying the appeal of Lincoln Outdoor Advertising of an order to remove an advertising sign at 710 Dale Street North (between Van Buren and Minnehaha Aves.) RECOMMENDASION Apprave (A) w eject (R) PERSONAISFRVICE CONSRACiS MU57 ANSWE0. iNE FO110WING QUESSIONS: ' " 1. Has ihis perswJfrm ever xrorked under a caRract fw Mis departmeM7 PLANNING COMMISSION VES NO CIBCAMMITTEE 2. FiasthisperwNfirmeverbeenacdydnpbyee7 CIVILSERVICECOMMISSION YES NO 3. Does ihis persoNfirm possess a sldll rwt noimallYP� bY any artent city empbyee? YES NO 4. islhispersonlfiimatargeted�doYt � YES , NO E�lain all yes answe�s on separate sheet and attach ta Oreen shee[ INITIATING PROBLEM ISSUE, OPPORTUNIN (Who, What, When, Where, Whyj ADVANTAGESiFAPPROVED � DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED � � DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION S COSTIREVENUE BUDGETEC (CIRCLE ONE) YES NO FUNDING SOURCE ACTNRY NUMBER FlNANGULL INFORMA'iION (IXPLAIN) 03-�0� OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ManueZZ Cervaniu, CiryAnorney CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kellg Mayor May 30, 2003 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hail 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 civil Divisioa 400 Ciry H¢IZ IS West Ke!logg BZvd. Saint Pavl, Minnccoza 55102 Hand Delivered Re: Lincoln Outdoor Advertising File No. 02-244-044 (Appeal of #02-225-453) Deaz Nancy: Telephone: 65I 2668710 Facsimile: 65] 198-5619 b�. ��-. ��`'' ;°�, � ,:t Attached please find a signed Resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council from January 22, 2003, upholding a decision of the Planning Commission to deny the appeal of an order to remove an advertising sign at 710 Dale Street North. Would you please place this matter on the consent agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, �� Ut/c��ti Peter W. Warner �� Assistant City Attorney PWW/rmb Enclosures p^^?;3�fe...i� i":: fie,� r s4n� ; 1 / � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. KeIIy. Mayor December 9, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Reseazch Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: DEPARTMHNT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Manha Fuller, Direuor 2� West Founh Street Satxt Paul, ,LfN 55102 b3-lv�7 �l5 Telephone: 612-266-6i6� Facsimile: 612-228-3379 I would like to confirm that a public hearing before the City Council is scheduled for Wednesday December 18, 2002, far the following zoning case: Appellant: LINCOLN OUTDOOR ADVERTSSING File Number: 02-244-044 (Appeal of #02-225-453) Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission denial of appeal of order to remove advertismg sign Address: 710 Dale Street North; between Van Buren and Minnehaha Legal Description of Property: MICHEL'S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 4, STINSON'S DIVISION W 30 FT OF S 60 FT OF LOT 13 & S 60 FT OF LOT 14 BLK 1 (PIN 36-29-23-22-0095) Previous Action: Zoning Committee Recommendarion: Denial; vote: 8-0; November 14, 2002 Planning Commission Decision: Denial; unanimous vote; November 22, 2002 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appear on the agenda far the December 18, 2002 City Council meeting and that you will publish notice of the heanng in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6659 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Yang Zhang City Planner cc: File # 02-244-044 Carol Martineau Paul Dubruiel Wendy Lane Allan Torstenson AA-ADA-EEO Employer I? DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Martha G. Fu11er, Director SqINT PAUL � AAAA ci� oF sa�T pauL, Rmldy C. Kelly, Mayor December 10, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 ,44� City Ha(, gnnu 2i Wesr Faunh Streer Saint Paul, Ivl1✓55102 Q'3 - C.�`� 7'elephone: 612-266-656� Facs+mile: 6/2-?28-331 A Re: Zoning File #02-244-044 Appellant: Lincoln Outdoor Advertising (Appeal of 02-225-453) City Council Hearing: December 18, 2002, 530 p.m., City Council Chambers Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission denial of appeal of order to remove advertising sign Address: 710 Dale Street North; between Van Buren and Minnehaha Planning Commission Decision: • Zoning Committee Recommendation: Staff Recommendation: Support: Opposition: District Council: Dear Ms. Anderson: Denial, vote: Unanimous. Denial, vote: 8 - 0. Denial. None. None. No recommendation. This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on December 18, 2002. Please norify me at 266-6659 if any member of the City Council wishes to have slides of the site presented at the public hearing. Sincerely, � � .� � ►— � Yang Zhang City Planner cc: City Council members • AA-ADA-EEO Employer �� ° :,. � �� APPUCATION FOR APPEAL � Departmerrt oj P[anning and Economic Development Zoning Section �+-�� 1100 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Paul, MA` SSI01 266-6589 APPELLANT lzZ�ll N+ � PROPERTY LOCATION • • I��Lve,J t �J -s ZipSS33'] Daytime `'�� _ �7 -6�7 �:� � � ° Zoning File Name D�— " �- �s3 Address/Location ��a �w`G ,��' 1� TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: � Board of Zoning Appeais Ij�,City Councii /� under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section ��, Paragraph /' of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision made by the J't Yf,�l C\ktA.tA,M.0 [.11� on IJDJ 2L ,��i Fiie number: (date of decrsion) �e��,,,� b�1�li�xu/�.@. �t �a.3 wtw�s bee o�,,�n� �,S t�, �, b�l�bo4 vw�il ��rJs� ��2-, - N'�Q Gse.�¢ v�.QJp.✓ � rw-hc,� a� p�r�1�,�J � r GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel tfiere 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 Pianning Commission. � �,bdde ve�e�ced b�11b�.� W� pe�r�E�eEQ �. b��l� �5 �- 4J "10 �1N.+1 �✓��w6b ui�'tt'S^.*, ��. I'F �S dW '4Wi��7'�.d_ -Ek.is 4 S� tey�.� wr+�` �O'^-�vJ""a bl (�'b�! a"'`� `lA,e�r� �� P��D�� PJL�S�� u J ��+ 5 b; �,�,�✓� �� 3 b � °� ` 30�� t 2 '� c � � , Attach additional sheet if ApplicanYs � Date� � �''" ��City � v �lD� �� C� 3 -�°O`� � city of saint paui planning commission resolution file number oz- date November 22, 2002 WHEREAS, Lincoln Outdoor Advertising, File# 02-225-453, has appealed a Zoning Administrator order for removal of an advertising sign that had been abandoned for more than one year at 710 Dale Street North, legally described as MICHEL'S SUBDfVISION OF BLOCK 4, STfNSON'S D1ViSION W 30 FT OF S 60 FT OF LOT 13 & S 60 FT OF LOT 14 BLK 1 (PIN 36-29-23-22-0095), under §66.408 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on November 14, 2002, held a public hearing at which ail persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and • WHEREAS, the Saini Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the following findings of fact: "fhe advertising sign in question is a free-standing biliboard on a parcet of residentialiy- zoned land. There is currentiy a commercial building on the parcel. The land is adjoined by a vacant parcel to the north. � 2. A letter dated July 24, 2002, and addressed to Arthur Tysk, owner of 710 Dale St N, from the City's Licensing, Inspections, and Environmental Protection Department (LIEP) stated that the sign in question had had no sign faces for many years, and needed to be removed within 30 days. The letter further stated that due to the City prohibition oh new advertising signs, the owner cannot repiace the sign faces on this sign sYructure. 3. The City's biliboard inspector was subsequently informed by Mr. Tysk that the sign structure was owned by Lincoln Outdaor Advertising. A letter dated August 27, 2002, and addressed to Lincoln Outdoor Advertising from LIEP noted that Dan Eischens with m��/ed b}/ Kramer seconded by in favor Unan�mou5 against Zoning File #02-225-453 Planning Commission Resolution Page 2 Lincoln Outdoor Advertising stated that Lincoln �utdoor Advertising purchased the biliboard_ structure at 710 Dale St N in June 2002 with the knowledge that the sfructure had had no sign faces on it for many years. According to fhis letter, the app(icant also acknowledged putting new sign faces on the structure in mid August, after Mr. Tysk received the inspector's letter ordering the sign's removal. The tetter further stated that use of the sign had discontinued for over one year, and thus must be removed. It aiso noted that new sign faces for the advertising sign were erected without a sign permit. � 4. On Septerriber 23, 2002, the appellant appealed the LIEP decision fhat the sign must be removed, stating that the sign "is presently being used appropriately, and we believe on inuing a use. 5. In City records, a photograph dated December 19, 1999, of the billboard in question shows that the structure had no sign faces on it. in February 2002, during LIEP's biliboard inspecfion, it was again noted that the biliboard had no face. These records indicate that the sign had not been in use for more than two years. Minnesota Statute 462.357 Subd 1e provides that when a nonconforming use is discontinued for more than one year, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. The Ciry's general zoning regulation for nonconforming structures is consistent with the state law provision. 6. §66.214 prohibits the establishment of any new advertising signs in the City. 7. §66.201(3) requires unsightly signs to be repaired or.removed wiffiin 15 days of notification. The definition of "unsightiy signs" inciudes signs that have "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 recognizable at a distance of 20 feet." {§66.201(3)) Due to the prohibition of new advertising signs under §66.214 and the state law fhat requires a nonconforming use that has been discontinued for more than one year to become conforming, the sign faces cannot be repiaced. Therefore, the sign must be removed within 15 days of notification. 8. The sign is located in the Thomas-Dale Special Sign District, The Sign District. .§66.2169(fl2c of the code states that a nonconforming sign shaii be immediately removed from the Special Sign District if use of the sign has been discontinued for a period of 3 consecutive months. §66.2169(�1 b prohibits the repiacement of a nonconforming sign by another nonconforming sign. The sign at 710 N. Dale St. is nonconforming and its use had been discontinued for several years. 9. The appellant violated §66.201 of fhe code by erecting sign face pane(s without first obfaining a sign permif from the City. irt addition, §66.403 states that no person sfiall erect, instalt, repair, maintain, or construct any sign or sign structure within the City without a license. The appellant is not a licensed sign contractor with the City, therefore is not aflowed to construct or maintain any sign or sign structure within the City. � • O� -S' •Zo�ing File #02-225-453 Planning Commission Resolufion Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul Planning Commission, under the authority of the City's Legisfative Code, that the appeal of Lincoln Outdoor Advertising of a Zoning Adminisfrator order for removal of an advertising sign that had been abandoned for more than one year at_710 Dale Street North, legally described as MICHEL'S SUBDIVIS(ON OF BLOCK 4, STINSON'S DIVISION W 30 FT OF S 60 FT OF LOT 13 & S 60 FT OF LOT 14 BLK 1(PIN 36-29-23-22-0095), is hereby denied. u • 63 -� � Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Conference Center - 15 Kellogg Boulevard'R'est Minutes of November 22, 2002 A meeting of the Pl annin° Commission of the City of Saint Baul was held Friday, November 22, 2002, at 9:45 a.m. in the Conference Center of Ciry Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Zunmer Lonetti, McCall, Morton, Shortridge, Present_ and Trevino; and Messrs. Alton, Anfang, Dandrea, Fotsch, Gordon, Kramer, ' Mazdell, and Mejia. Commissioners Messrs. *Alexander, *Field, *Gervais, *Johnson, *Kong, and *Rosales. Absent: *Excused Also Present: IvIartha Fuller, PED Director; Larry Soderholm, Plauning Administrator; Allan Torstenson, Yang Zhang, Rich Malloy, Penny Simison, AIien Lovejoy, and Mary Bruton, Depaztment of Plamiing and Economic Development staff. � - - --- -- _ _ � #02-225-453 Lincotn Outdoor Advertisine - Appeal of zoning adnvnistrator order for removal of advertising sign which had been abandoned for more than one year. 710 Dale St. N, between Van Buren & Minnehaha. (Yang Zhang, 651/266-6659) Commissioner Kramer stated no district comment was received. No one spoke in support. No one spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee recommended denial on a vote of 8-0. MOTION: Commissioner %ramer moved the Zoning Co»unittee recommendation to deny the appeaL The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote i . O� _�- MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, November 14, 2002 - 3:30 p.m. � City Councii Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hail and Coutt House 15 West Kellogg Boulevard PRESENT: Alton, Anfiang, Faricy, Field, Gordon, Kramer, Mejia, and Morton STAFF: Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, Pefer Warner and Yang Zhang The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. Lincoln Outdoor Advertising - 02-225-453 -Appeal of zoning administrator order for removal of an advestising sign which had been abandoned for more than one year. 710 Date St. N., between Van Buren and Minnehaha Avenues. Yang Zhang presented the staff report with a recommendation of denial for the appeal. Ms. Zhang stated there was no recommendation from the district council. Rod Krass, attorney for the appeilant appeared and stated they are a small sign company and this is the only location in the City of St. Paul that they have erected a sign. The billboard was purchased in June of 2002, and there was no notice that there was any issue invo�ving the sign. It was in August of 2002 that they received the first notice that there was a problem with the sign and the sign face was already installed at that time. He quoted a case precedent that was • before the Minnesota Board of Appeals back in 1984 involving an appeal of an individua{'s boathouse that was a nonconforming use and was destroyed. The boathouse was rebuilt without a permit and the court of appeals sent the matter back to the county recommending that the county reconsider the matter on the basis that the appellant acted in good faith and made substantial investments and improvements and that it was completed before they were informed that it was not done properly. There were similar structures around the lake and the minimum benefits to the county were outweighed by the detriment to the property owner. He reiterated that Lincoln Outdoors was not the owner in December 1999 through June 2002, when the photos of the empty billboard were taken and that they purchased the biliboards in good faith and withouf knowledge of the issues. He stated that the sign is not intrusive to the neighborhood and there have been no complaints concerning the sign. At the question of Commissioner Fieid, Mr. Krass stated most of their signs are in Scott Counfij, where no licenses are required. They were not aware that they had to be licensed in the City of St. Paul and they would apply for a license. At the question of Commissioner Anfang, Mr. Krass stated they did not apply for permits because no sign permits are required to change a sign face. At the question of Commissioner Anfang, Dan Eischens, the appellant appeared and stated Lincoln Outdoor Advertising owns 60 signs that are located in Scott County, Dakota County and Blue Earth County and have never had to deal with getting permits to change a sign face or put new copy on a sign. • Commissioner Field, pointed out that this was an empty biliboard with no sign face. Mr. Eischens stated that putting up a sign on a biliboard is general maintenance and doesn't require a permit. Zoning Case 02-225-453 November 14, 2002, Zoning Minutes Page: 2 At the question of Commissioner Anfang, Mr. Eischens stated they bought a billboard structure that was already constructed and utilized it. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Eischens stated they bought the billboard from Metropolitan Outdoor, who is no longer in business, and the seller toid them there were no violations with respect to the biilboard. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Eischens stated they started putting the billboard up in July of 2002. No one spoke in support or opposition. � The public hearinq was closed. Commissioner Gordon moved denial of the appeal. Commissioner Mejia seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 8-0. i Adopted Yeas - 8 Drafted by: ��u��J Carol Martineau Recording Secretary Nays - 0 Submitted by: � Yang Zhang Zoning Section Approved Chair � • b�-�o? ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT � FILE # 02-225-453 1. APPLICANTS: Lincoln Outdoor Advertising HEARING DATE: 10/17/02 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Administrative Appeal 3. LOCATIONS: 710 Dale St N, between Van Buren and Minnehaha 4. PIN 8� LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: (PIN 36-29-23-22-0095) MICHEL'S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 4, STINSON'S DIVISION W 30 FT OF S 60 FT OF LOT 13 & S 60 FT OF LOT 14 BLK 1 5. PLANNING DISTRICT 7 PRESENT ZONING RM-2 6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §66.408(a); 66.201; 66.214; 66.201(3); 66.2169.6(fl(1)b and 66.2169.6(fl(2)c; Minnesota Statute 462.357 7. STAFF REPORT DATE: 10/10/02 8. DATE RECEIVED: 9/23/02 BY: Yang Zhang DEADLINE FOR ACTION: 11 /22/02 � A. PURPOSE: Appeal of a Zoning Administrator order for removal of an advertising sign that had been abandoned for more than one year. B. PARCEL SIZE: 4,200 square feet (60 feet on Dale by 70 feet deep) C. EXISTING LAND USE: One-story commercial storage building D. SURROUNDINC� LAND USES: North: Vacant land (RM-2) South: Single-famify home and duplex across the alley (R-4) East: Single-family homes (RM-2) West: Bar/restaurant (B-2) across Dale E. ZONING CODE CITATIONS: §66.408(a) of the Zoning Code, which is part of the chapter on signs, states that "Any = person affected by the decision of the zoning administrator dealing with the provisions of _ this chapter may appeal this decision to the pianning commission within thirty (30) calendar days of the decision." §64.209Q), which is in the administration and enforcement chapter of the Zoning Code, provides that appeals of administrative decisions to the Planning Commission must be heard within 30 days. §66.214 prohibits advertising signs in the City. §66.201 states that no person shall erect or maintain a sign without first obtaining a permit from the City. §66.201(3) states that • unsightly signs must be repaired or removed within 15 days of notification. §66.2169.6(�(2)c states that a non-conforming sign shall be immediately removed from the Thomas-Dale Special Sign District at the cost of the owner if use of the sign has been discontinued for a period of three consecutive months. §66.2169.6(�(1)b prohibits the Zoning File # 02-225-453 October 10, 2002 Page 2 replacement of a nonconforming sign by another nonconforming sign. Minnesota Statute 462.357 Subd. ie, states that "if the nonconformity [which was existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control] is discontinued for a period of more than one year, ... any subsequent use or occupancy of the Iand or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy." HISTORY/DISCUSSION: No history. G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS: No recommendation from the Thomas-Dale Community Council has been received at the time of this staff report. � H. FINDINGS: The advertising sign in quesfion is a free-standing biliboard on a parcel of residentiaily- zoned land. There is currently a commercial buiiding on the parcel. The land is adjoined by a vacant parcel to the north. 2, A letter dated Juty 24, 2002, and addressed to Artfiur Tysk, owner of 710 Dale St N, from the City's Licensing, Inspections, and Environmental Protection Department (LIEP) stated that the sign in question had had no sign faces for many years, and needed to be removed within 30 days. The letter further stated that due to the City prohibition on new advertising signs, the owner cannot replace the sign faces on this sign structure. 3. The City's billboard inspector was subsequently informed by Mr. Tysk that the sigrt structure was owned by Lincoin Outdoor Advertising. A letter dated August 27, 2002, and addressed to Lincoln Outdoor Advertising from LIEP noted that Dan Eischens with Lincofn Outdoor Advertising stated that Lincoln Outdoor Advertising purchased the billboard structure at 710 Dale St N in June 2002 with the knowledge that the structure had had no sign faces on it for many years. According to this letter, the applicant also acknowiedged putting new sign faces on the structure in mid August, after Mr. Tysk received the inspector's letter ordering the sign's removal. The letter further stated that use of the sign had discontinued for over one year, and thus must be removed. It aiso noted that new sign faces for the advertising sign were erected without a sign permit. 4. On September 23, 2002, the appellant appealed the LIEP decision that the sign must be removed, stating that the sign "is presently being used appropriately, and we believe there are no grounds to request our discontinuing that use." 5. In City records, a photograph dated December 19, 1999, of the billboard in question shows that the structure had no sign faces on it. In February 2002, during LIEP's billboard inspection, it was again noted that the biilboard had no face. These records indicate that the sign had not been in use for more than two years. Minnesota Statute 462.357 Subd 1 e provides that when a nonconforming use is discontinued for more than one year, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shali be a conforming use or occupancy. The City's general zoning regulation for nonconforming structures is consistent wifh fhe state taw provision. • \ I �7 �� r � �J Zoning File # 02-225-453 October 10, 2002 Page 3 6. §66.214 prohibits the establishment of any new advertising signs in the City. §66.201(3) requires unsighfly signs to be repaired or removed within 15 days of notification. The definition of "unsightly signs" includes signs that have "deteriorafed 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 clearly recognizable at a distance of 20 feet." (§66.201(3)) Due to the prohibition of new advertising signs under §66.214 and the state law that requires a nonconforming use that has been discontinued for more than one year to become conforming, the sign faces cannot be replaced. Therefore, the sign must be removed within 15 days of notification. 8. The sign is located in the Thomas-Dale Special Sign District. The Sign District. §66.2169(fl2c of the code states that a nonconforming sign shall be immediately removed from the Speciai Sign District if use of the sign has been discontinued for a period of 3 consecutive months. §66.2169(�1 b prohibits the replacement of a nonconforming sign by another nonconforming sign. The sign at 710 N. Dale St. is nonconforming and its use had been discontinued for severai years. 9. The appellant violated §66.201 of the code by erecting sign face panels without first obtaining a sign permit from the City. ln addition, §66.403 states that no person shail erect, install, repair, maintain, or construct any sign or sign structure within the City • without a license. The appellant is not a licensed sign contractor with the City, therefore is not allowed to construct or maintain any sign or sign structure within the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings above, staff recommends denial of Lincoln Outdoor Advertising's appeal of a Zoning Administrator order for removal of an advertising sign (sign structure and sign faces) that had been abandoned for more than one year at 710 Dale St. N. � swINT rwui � IIIIAA APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Depanment of Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section II00 City Ha[I Anne.e 25 Wes! Founh Street Saint Paul, M1V 55102 266-6589 APPELLANT J City �u�N.SV��P St.K/+�ZipSS337 Daytime PROPERTY LOCATION Address / (�k+� � iSC,W Zoning File Name Address/Location 7�� TYPE OF AP EAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: � j•„ 7" Ca.r+�rti,s-r:r� � , �� ,Q-�.��" N�i le� under the provisions of Chapter.fr€, , aragrap + of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision made by the __Za��k�, C.IQ�'`'�'�^' r'�'u�✓ on l�v y��l" 2-7 2_ar�'L ,�p_ Fiie number �qq (date o decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Pfanning Commission. �1/i�l-Gto�t u�y pnb✓ rwh'ce �° e�,r ca�,�v4ny, ftie c�'�y s�� h4� �pw �-hkf �re re�o% ,Fke kA✓e✓{,r�k siy� •re. recekN /'"�ch4d•� e14�1,, ✓ial4�w� of fhe u`{y� a 6 y i-ye s��.,� p�•� awhev, �a- have yo � o-F aHySJCh ✓rblqfi'o+�, tior� Y✓4� uNy ne �� EK Glledy�/ v�ol4fi'a4, pas+e�.l� �Ye D✓ i'1 4kY 6�14y/ �r�/lk "�'e US n✓ �$ Grty /�dl��-rn4� 6Uy0✓. �✓N �14✓e b2Prr � [o�p(;ca w, �-f�c� cr�ly,1 a�/d ;n 4N re s��,cp ow p,�v�l,u$2 e�F �i e s,'y y. 2f ;1 �rre,�u, tl y�, ky wed r,,�p�Poi4-Fe�y,awd we 6alre✓e-Kae✓e 4r¢ ''►o Jve�..�3 -fa .e��e�t o�� VGUH�'1�"J!I �te�' u�. Dur siy i.s aaf ° �uaS�y+rNy , �rr� de.�ik�ej by -Nie wde Ker2a/¢.�/�4 antr fr`y� ,., 1a¢ repa;rad� ��zsuµ,4yty 4�F{e.-nv�J�,'ce� �Q dae3 no-F h4v� �U be �e�ao�/. �3ec..G6•w� �t�c cade�• w� b�t�tve -K�t4�l- -Nae I}� y ��t Z7, 2sx�Z- /ef�e�. frt� "'tr• �'shb� rey,�i�,ky �.r� rr�� -F�ie s�y�, %S %K G 4�.c( �✓��kwt �c�{w{� Attach additiona/ sheet if necessary) /��( bo5r`s . r., d atv apee�.l .lL� �- d��wd..,�,n,. ApplicanYs signature �G.vtw2� � ��[.9_c.�..,.. Dateg ,6 �3 2� `�� 3k�°° 10/18/02 FRI 10:38 FA% 952 885 5969 KRASS MONROE PA _ . . � �..� , �.,�.� .�� o ��u�v U/J U U 3 �Slz2t3�31a P.0�i02 Request for Continuance Date � o ( � P ;, ? �— T.itton Field, Chair Zoning Committee City of Saint Paul 1100 City Hall Annex Saint Pau1, Minaesoca 55102 r� I�J Dear Mr. Field: I am the applicant or the applicant's dulq appointed representative in tfie Zoning Pite above stated. I request a continuance of the pubiic hearing on the application in this Zoning File wbich is presently schednled before the Zoaang Committee on !O /'7 Da _ I understand [hat a continuance of the puhiic heazing before the Zoning Committee means t2tat the final decision of the Pianning Commission on this apglication, which is presently scheduled on _ L�/� 0� , wiil aiso be continued. I underscand thac the Zoning Committee wili conrinue che public hearing to 1 4 o and that the Planning Commissien will make a decisSon on my plication on )1 / a a, I o'7� I azn awaze of and undersrand tha statutory requireme�s found in Mian. Stat. § 15.99 (1995) requiring the City of Saint Paul to approvc or deny this application within sixty days of its submissioa. I desite to waive the statutory requirettle�pt for a decision on the application wirhin the sixty day period. Sincerely, Signatu of pplicant or Applicant's d 1y appoi�ed repzesent�tive. L 7��•• �.�S�zi Printed name of Applicant or Applicant's duly appointed zeprese�ative, � • T�JTRL P.02 KRASS MOI�IROE, P.A. A T T 0 R N E Y S A T L A W � • G JoLn Jossart Auarney atLaw Em ui! johrsj(¢�J�rassmottroe. com wwrv.kr¢ssmonroe. com A'vetY Dia1(952) 346-Z411 October 16, 2002 VIA FACSINIILE (651-225-3314} & U.S. MAIL Yang Zhang City Planner St. Paul Plannuig Commission 25 West Fourth Street 1100 Ciry Hall Annex St. Pa��l, MN 55102 Re: October 17,.�002 Zoning Hearing Our File No.: 11227-1 Dear Ms. Zhang: �� (°°'1 Tlus letters follows our conversarion from earlier today regarding the October 17, 2002 St. Paul Plauniug Coxnmission Zoning Committee agenda during which our client, Lincoln • Outdoor Advertising, is scheduled to be heard on its zoning appeal. I informed you that our law firm was recently retained by Lincoln Outdoor Advertising and the attorney representing this client, Rod Krass, is out of town and unable to attend the October 17, 2002 hearing. As a result, I requested that this matter be put on for hearing on an aiternative date. You indicated that since the hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, the Zoning Committee will likely keep this matter on the agenda and will take testunony from anybody attending this meeting. However, you informed me' that the Zoning Committee's practice in these circumstances is to keep the matter "open" and to again place the matter for hearing at a later date during which Lincoln Outdoor Advertising's attorney could appeaz and be heard on the matter. We discussed November 14, 2002 as an altemative date to reschedule this matter and you indicated you would get t�ack to me ta con inn that 3at�. I appreciate your willingness to accommodate us on such short notice. Thank you for your professional courtesy. Please let me l�ow at your eazliest convenience if this November 14`�' date works or if we should choose a different date during which Lincoln Outdoor Advertising may present its case regarding its zoning appeal. V ery truly yours, KI2AS�s 1V�ONROE, P.A. kM�^ �i1P+lf • C. John 7ossart CJ7/ae Attorney at Law Suite 1700 Southpoint OfPice Center 1650 West 82nd Street, Mi�neapolis. Minnesota 55431-1447 Telephone 952.885.5999 Facsimile 952.885.5969 Website www.krassmonroe.com OFFICE OF LICENSE, IDiSPECTIONS AND ENV iRONMENTAL PROTECTION Roger G Curtis, Direc[or CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C Kel[y, Mayor August 27, 2002 Dan Eischens General Manager Lincoln/Supreme Outdoor Advertising 12271 Nicollet Avenue South Burnsville, MN 55337 Re: Abandoned Billboard at 710 Dale Street North Dear Mr. Eischens: LOWRYPROFESSiONALBUILDING Te[ephane: 651=�p 350St PeterSrreet,Saite300 Facsimile: 6i1-?66-91?4 SainlPa�d,Minnesa�a5J10Z-I510 Web: wwi¢d.stpa�dnrnus/ As I explained during our conversation, the City Council recently adopted an ordinance to inventory all billboards in the City of Saint Paul. During my inspection throughout the City, I___ observed the abandoned structure of a forme� advertising sign, with no si�n faces, at the above referenced location. This location is in the Thomas/Dale District 7 Special Sia District. My original letter dated 7/24/02, ordered ihe property owner, Arthur A. Tysk, to remove this abandoned advertising si�n structure from the property by August 24, 2002. Subsequently, both you and Mr. Tysk informed me that Lincoln Outdoor Advertising is the actual owner of this abandoned advertising structure. However, when called, you answer your telephone as Supreme Outdoor Advertising and your phone mimber is listed as belonging to Supreme Outdoor Advertising in the phone book. You stated Lincotn/Supreme Outdoor Advertisin� purcfiased this faceless advertising structure from a Scott Washbum in May or June of this year with the knowledge that this structure has had no si�n faces on it for many years. Further, you ac(rnowled�ed puttin� new si�n faces on the abandoned structure within the last 2 weeks, after Mr. Tysk had received my letter ordering its removal. Section 66.214 of Yhe City of Saint Paul Legislative Code prohibits adveRising signs in any zoning district in the City of Saint Paul therefore, all advertising signs in the City are - nonconforming. Section 66.2169.6 (2)(c) of the Legislative Code states that a nonconforming sio shall be immediately removed from the property shonld the use of such sign be dtscontinued for a period of 3 consecutive months. Atso, State of Minnesota Statute 462357 Subd. 1(e) relating to any nonconformity states that if a nonconformity is discontinued for a period of more than one year, any subsequenT use of the land or premises may only be for a conforming use or occupancy. Unsightly signs must be removed from the property tivithin 15 days of notification as per Section 66.201 (3) of the City of Saint Paul Legislative Code. Unsightly signs are defined as si�ns where at least 1/4 of the surface is no longer visibfe. � • AA-ADA-EEO Eh@LOYER 07-�- Dan Eischens � August 27, 2002 Page 2 Additionally, any person engaging in the business of erecting or installing, repairing, maintaining or constructing any sign or sign structure within the limits of the City of Saint Paul must be licensed by the City as per Section 66.403 (a) of the Legislative Code. Further, Section 66.201 of the Legis]ative Code states that no person shal] erect or maintain a sio without ftrst obtaining the requisite permit for such sign. You are neither a licensed sign company in the City nor did you obtain the required billboard permit before adding the illegal sio faces to this abandoned and discontinued advertising sign structure. Aowever, had you applied for a billboard permit to install the sib faces, we would have been unable to issue such pertnit because this nonconforming use had been discontinued for more than one year. Zherefore, this illegal advertising sign and its strzrctzrre must be removed from this location irithin 30 days of the date of this Zetter. I have enclosed a copy of all referenced sections of both the City of Saint Paul Legislative Code, the State of Minnesota Statute and my previous letter to Mr. Tysk. If you believe our decision that the addition of the si� face is illegal and that the structure must be removed, you may appeal the matter in writing to the Planning Commission within 30 days of the date of this letter by submitting the enclosed form with the appropriate fee: If you have any questions regarding — this matter, I may be contacted at 266-9085. • Sincerely, �� b�� Jeffrey Fischbach Billboard Inspections enc. c . Arthur H. Tysk • AA-ADA-EEO Et+IP1AYFA Sec. 66.214. Advertising signs. Advertising signs prohibited. No advertising signs are permitted in any zoning district in the city. The purposes of this prohibition are to enhance views of the natural and bui(t environments of the city, to improve aesthetically the fusion of residential and commercial areas, to promote community pride on the part of property owners, to encourage beautiFication and investme�t in the city, to protect property values, and to reduce cluttered and chaotic signage, which draws attention aw�ay from the identification signs of businesses and instimtions located in the city. (Code 1956, § 66214; Ord. No. 17536, § 28, 2-2-88; C.F. No. 93-1718, § 108, 12-14-93; C.F. No. 97- 1089, § 10, 10-I-97; C.F. No. 00-686, § 2, 8-23-00; C.F. No. 00-973, § I, I 1-15-00) Sec. 66.2169.6. Thomas/Dale District 7 Special District Sign Pian. (2) A nonconforming sign shall be immediately removed from the District 1 Special Sign District at the cost of the owner if: c. Use of the sign has been discounted for a period of three (3) consecutive months. 462.357 Procedure for plan effectuation; zoning. Subd. le. Nonconformities. Any nonconformiTy, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the 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 nonconfonning use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. A municipality may b}' ordinance impose upon nonconformities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfare, or safety. This subdivision does not prohibit a municipality from enforcin� an ordinance that applies to adults-only bookstores, adults-only theaters, or similar adul[s-only businesses, as defined by ordinance. Sec. 66.403. Licensing. (a) General. No person enga�ing in or seeking to en�age in the business of erectin� or instaiting, repairin�, maintaining or constructing any sign oc sign structure within the limits of the city of Saint Paul shall so operate �vithout a license issued in accordance with the provisions of this section. Sec. 66.201. All signs--Permit, zoning district. � • No person shall place, erect or maintain a si�n, nor shalf a lessee or owner permit property under his contcol to be used for such a sign, which does not conform to the folfowing requirements and without first obtaining the requisite permit for such sign. The followin� provisions shall apply in all zoning districts, and to all signs visible to the ganeral public from a public right-of-way, except those • constrncted in or visible from ihe interior of the downtown skylvay system. � . � ; ; �� _ �� o�oo.� - d' W �- - j�c 7.� � <;�!,,e,��- �`c, S�. �.�.�-� �� . ss�o s� 63 -�°? , �. �=�, s.� P.�.,�,Q � I'1 � �tJ' G .Qi� a ,��-f�s.� -�� or, ��, a 4. (�.✓v, a � 7/� � 17�- ; � & .� o� �.,,=. �%z�LP.�-� k� .v, d-�-u.P � � � �� ,� , ��- �-� . , � � �-,�'�°...�� `'�° - � ��, /.,�-�► �� .� � sa� � 9D - G aa � ; ✓� � ��- � i OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMENTALPROZECTION" Roger C Cu�1rs, Direaor CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kef[}'. bfnyor July 24, 2002 Arthur H. Tysk 722 Sherbume Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55104 Re: Abandoned billboard at 710 Dale Sheet North IIear Mr. Tysk: tAWRYPROFESS10NALBUILDINO� � Telephoue: 6 350 St. Peter Streel, Sid(e 300 Facsimife: 651-?GG-9!? Snint Pavl, Minnetoln 5510?-I510 Web: wwx•.cistpnul nw Recently the City Council adopted an ordinance to inventory all billboards in the City of Saint Paul. Durin� my inspection of the City I observed the abandoned structure of a former advertising sign, with no sign faces, at the above referenced location still hzre. This location is in the Thomas/Date Ilistrict 7 Special District Sign Plan. This structure has had no sign faces on it for many years. Section 66.201 (3) of the Zoning Code states unsightly signs musY be removed within 15 days of notification. Unsiehtly signs are dzfined as signs where at least 1/4 of the surface area is no longer visible. Additionally, Section 66.406 of the Zoning Code states abandoned signs must be removed by the o�c of the property �cithin 30 days the activity ceases ezistence. Because advertising sio s are prohibited in the City, you cannot replace the sie faces on this abandoned advertising sign. Therefore, you must remove the remainin� s[ructure of this abandoned_ advertisin; sid within 30 days of the date of this letter. All sign work performed in the City must be conducted by a licensed sign contractor. A billboazd demolition permit must be obtained before demolition work begins (see enclosed application). If you believe this decision to have been made in error, you may appeal the matter in �vriting to the Plannin� Commission within 30 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions regarding this issue, I may be contacted at 266-9085. Sincerely, �. �J - � - ��1� Jeffrey Fischbach Biltboard Inspections enc. • � AA-ADA-EEO Eb1PLOYER UVI lU 1G'JJ �t�� V� �� •••�� • Uth{(;t Uk LILENSt, INSPECTIONS AND ENVIRONMLNTAL PRO'fEC7)ON Robe�t Kessfe�, Direotor 07 _ �o"j CITY OF SATNT PAUL LOWRY PROFESSION.tL BUILDJNG Telephone: 657-166-9090 Narm Coleman, Moyo� 350 St PclerSo-eet, Svitc 300 � Fauimile: Q51.266•9099 SatntPaul, Minnesola S5J02•I510 657-2G6-912e �� MEMORANDUM Date: Mazch 9, 2000 To: Si� Companies Licensed by Saint Paul for Advertising Sign Construction From: Wendq Lane l:� Saint Paul Zonin� Manager Re: Requirement for a Sign Pernut Based on a recent court decision, a pezmit will now be required for changing or zeplacing any ativertising sign panel within the City of Saint Paul. It was determined that we were incorrect when we did not require a building pezmit for the replacement of • sign paneis damaged during a wind storm. The only type of work allowed without a pernait is for changing the advertising content placed on the panels of a billboazd. c: LIEP Staff i � i c� O� )�. S�- � • � �a; �__ � � �— �� — � � �, � " '��.. . �: � - � : � �� h .,, �,. . , �< - :.";'^� `� - - .3' A51 � ��.. � `' f=_ � rY° � ..� �,� �� 3 <:�: j.� � -�� J�l� s �- � ! � � �� ba _ - _=_°y=a - _= =� o� -6�� f� � _� � . �X�'.v�..•. _ - -- . - _ - . Q j��i j 3 'g .� , . � I�i_�. �?�f��3 � a�� : e � , � °E � £'3 ^" ' : , a:: � a p $,E�::: �. :., .,x' _; '`..--....r k _ , � - .. " '� � -' � � �� e . ., ... � � .. �: �E . �I. s' `� "�. �x.� �, i . .. .,, Figure 2. Billboard at 710 Dale St N(southerly face) • Figure 3. Vacant land north of 710 Dale N '_ J � . � Figure 4. Single-family home east of 710 Dale N • Oa -�o� e� : ./ "eY' �, & ��°'°�,. �. �.�*� _.%^-'�'Y . t ' �"�''� � " :1 ". ' — ` � = . ` . _ — � ( �—� � .�__• __. � °°�T""� 'C. ��°€. §�` l imr:.. � �� o ��- _ '� `K.:'. � � ,y,`�� _� �- k�� s ; 3 � n,,! t"' .u ,� ; � -°S �. _ s ,� k. .: * � . . 6� '+�'�"' � ��q :4 . �` "�_��. ;�-�-�„ r� Figure 6. Oriental grocery store at the nort}twest corner of Dale and Minnehaha • 03 _ �o� 11 14 �� CITIZEN PARTICIPATIQ DIS RICTS 0 3 • � • al ,.,�� , �. ,� � CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PCANNING DISTRICTS 1.SUNF2AY-BATTLECREEK-HI6HWOOD 2.6REATER EAST SIQE 3.WEST SIDE 4.DAYTON'S BLUFF 5.PAYNE-PHALEN RTH END 7. MAS-DALE .SUMMIT-UNIVERSITY 9.WEST SEVENTH lO.COMO 11.HAMLINE-MIDWAY 12. ST. ANTtIONY 13.MERRIAM PK.-LEXIMGTON HAMLINE 14.6ROVELAND-MACALESTER TS.NIGHLAMD 16.SUMMIT HILL 17.�OWNt6WN �OL-�t�`-YS • . 0 �� '��`� ,' J � , � `-: -t, -� T -0 ll�f`R z . �I . �' j�' �t� � __ _��r� � � ^:''+'��i -;� � 1� ,••. T ��4.�� _J=�, ��-'°'�__�. � � - I �,�J = . 1� �., e i. �_ rv ,� I �� : ��, �. , �.. �� . ..= ��f�I�I�C�i��►�"cr� � � � �� i s � Z2�-4�3 � \;. F.� w � ,� � � �: _�� ` ��. �� , <. .` ��:.,=� � w .�, �: ?� 4 ,.,: =�� s .��:� �, . L�j �(t. � � n ,". E `' 4 � f E r � d. r � � .,��. � � F < < , �. _�_> � p 1 -;- �;. F;l -{ , . _... �, _ � { p- � .---, �. 1 1 _ i . `..� ' �.�� - T f , � t F � �Y �1 F � � E J ! � } J � �. � � J f F � � � � � � �� 1 �� .� �� '�`�� , f �� . � �s�[a� a�•� � •�� ' � e �� _� ��.. . _ r iii� �� s s � � �ii - � �� ,:�w.i_.......'—� - :c�»+� — — ---- . -- ----. . �� AP?UCANt �IACQ�1/1Dy��Q�' �C�jf�E _ND — �a�v`r' �r v�vlvf�T �� I Y�� '• � � , : f � ! � � �, i i Pv�°OSE =—� zoning dls(ricl Lvundary FIIE � �' �/�"i� Zi �fl� suSje�t prop=_,�y n-C o;,r�.-.. °LtJG. D(ST__�[__� p,lA° r�� o on� farnily • x � comm � �?� ¢ h.�rOfam�ly 4 �.s induSl� �� A¢Q multipiz familY V vaca�t q�� i}y� :.tc"ti��, �.6. i � . �..isNr�y _ ,g`biv*}��-.cY,� . ... :�- ,_....:s � . i��iil�r.� �.� � .�a��.w��e "�.��Z1.e Tr _. . . �1 DEC-17-2002 16�46 ST PRUL PLANNING & ECON 0 6512283314 P.02/02 O'� -t'' LiNC4LN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING 1 22'7 1 N IC�LLET A V�. S. • 8 U RN S V ILIE, M N (91SZ? 880-6221 • (PE2) 890•�23B FA% December 16, 2002 Ma. Yan Zha�g City of S� Paul PED �ax� (651) 228�314 ��TGYY� ,�-1 �� 86337 Dear Yeng, This letter ls our request to reschedule our hesring by the City Council, now scheduled fo� December 18, 2002. We woutd prete� to be on the January 22 meetiru,�, or H that is not poss�ble, sort+etime in Feb�uary. Thank you for your assislsnos in this matter. Respectfu� Dan Eischena TOTRL P.02 DEC-17-2002 16�46 ST PRUL PLANNING & ECON 6512283314 P.01i02 C�' .C. °'l To : �c�.u,� �rncG.�N1 ' , C�r� c�u,t a � C - gs�-`� �` ' � �v�.� �,d�,� , PC=t� ��6��65`� �p�,��e� aa� �33 � � �� N-N (.� J u � �-u.e� tu �eac� ��u.c. ��-�-e�, �lal,� °s �-t c.�. i,�1n.d- l�o fii�.t� t1� .�� a, �ia-� '' � i�'�(1/l/� � G �°' '�-�.[t[ � JII.�J�`2�Ld r � �.P C'Lt.�.{_ (i.rtl?,I 0 -" � ,� � � �c�� - t�a- 7aa ,� �, �hQ� c�d-�t �%�. �,�.- � - `� (r��.r� l�s � �' / -�`�" < � city of saint paul planning commission resolution file number 02 date November 22 2002 b� - c�o7 WHEREAS, Lincoln Oufdoor Advertising, File# 02-225-453, has appealed a Zoning Administrator order for remoVal of an adver•tising sign that had been abandoned for more than one year at 710 Dale Street North, legally described as MICHEL'S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 4, STINSON'S DIVfSION W 30 FT OF S 60 FT OF LOT 13 & S 60 FT OF LOT 14 BLK 1 (PIN 3 6-29-2322-0095), under §66.408 of the Saint Paul Legisiative Code; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on November 14, 2002, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said appiication in accordance with the requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paul Legis�ative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflected in the minutes, made the foilowing findings of fact: The advertising sign in question is a free-standing biliboard on a parcel of residentially- zoned land. There is currently a commercial building on the parcei. The land is adjoined by a vacant parcei to the north. 2� A letfer dated July 24, 2002, and addressed to Arthur Tysk, owner of 710 Dale St N, from the City's Licensing, Inspections, and EnvironmenTa! Protection Deparfinent (LIEP) sfafed fF�at the sign in question had had no sign faces for many years, and needed to be removed within 30 days. The letter further stated that due to fhe City prohibition on new advertising signs, the owner cannot repiace the sign faces on this sign structure. 3• The City's billboard inspecfor was subsequently iRformed by Mr. Tysk that the sign structure was owned by Lincoin Oufdoor Advertising. A letter dated August 27, 2002, and addressed to Lincoln OutdoorAdvertising from LIEP noted that Dan Eischens with moved by S{',CQtIG�E',d in favor Kramer � Unanimous against 4 g File #02-225-453 ing Commission Resolution 2 Lincoln Outdoor Advertising stated that Lincoln Oufdoor Advertising purchased the billboard sfructure at 710 Dale St N in June 2002 with the knowledge that the structure had had no sign faces on it for many years. According to this Ietter, the applicant also acknowledged putting new sign fac�s on the strucfure in mid August, after Mr. Tysk received the inspector's letter ordering the sign's removal. The letter further sfafed that use of the sign had discontinued for over one year, and thus must be removed. it also noted that new sign faces for the advertising sign were erected without a sign permit. On September 23, 2002, the appeifant appealed the LIEP decision that the sign must be removed, stating that the sign "is presently being used appropriately, and we believe there are no grounds Yo request our discontinuing that use." In City records, a photograph dated December 19, 1999, of the biilboard in question shows fhaf fhe structure had no sign faces on it. In February 2002, during LIEP's billboard inspectio�, it was again noted that the biliboard had no face. These records indicate that the sign had not been in use for more than two years. Minnesota Statute 462.357 Subd 1e provides that when a nonconforming use is discontinued for more fhan one year, any subsequent use or occupancy of fhe land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. The City's general zoning regulation for nonconforming structures is consistent with the state law provision. §66.214 prohibits the estabiishment of any new advertising signs in the City. §66.201(3) requires unsightly signs to be repaired or removed within 15 days of notification. 7he definitiort o{ "unsightly signs" includes signs that have "deteriorated fo the point where at least one-fourth of the surtace area of the rtame, identification, description, display, illustration or other symbol is no longer clearly recognizable at a distance of 20 feet." (§66.201(3)} Due to the prohibition of new advertising signs under §66.214 and the state law that requires a nonconforming use that has been �iscontinued for more than one year to becorrie conforming, the sign faces cannot be �eplaced, Therefore, the sign must be removed within 15 days of notification. rhe sign is located in the Thomas-Dale Speciai Sign District. The Sign District. 366.2169(�2c of the code states that a nonconforming sign shall be immediately - emoved from the Specia� Sign Disfrict if use of the sign has been discontinued for a �eriod of 3 consecufive months. §66.2169(�1b prohibits fhe replacement of a ionconforming sign by another nonconforming sign. The sign af 710 N. Dale St. is �onconforming and its use had been discontinued for several years. - he appellant violafed §66.201 of the code by erecting sign face paneis wifhout first �btaining a sign permit from the City. In addition, §66.403 states that no person shall :rect, install, repair, maintain, or construct any sign or sign sfructure within the City vithout a license. The appellant is not a licensed sign contractor with the Cify, therefore > not allowed to consfruct or maintain any sign or sign structure within the City. 67 -�07 I � � � �� °�`7 Zoning File #02-225-453 Planning Commission Resolution Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by fhe Sainf Paul Planning Commission, under the aufhority of #he City's Legislative Code, that the appeai of Lincoln Outdoor Advertising of a Zoning Administrator order for removal of an advertising sign thaf had been abandoned for more than one year at 710 Dale Street Norfh, legaily described as MICHEL'S SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 4, STINSON'S DIVISION W 30 FT OF S 60 FT OF LOT 13 & S 60 FT OF LOT 14 BLK 1(PIN 36-29-23-22-0095), is hereby denied. O� - �0'7 `city of saint paul planning commissiori resolution fife number o2-io4 d ate December 20, 2002 WHEREAS, Merriam Park Community Council, File #02-241-717, has appealed a sign permit issued by fhe office of Licensing, inspections and Environmentai Protection (LIEP) to replace an existing billboard sign face and trim with a new sign face and trim and also to repiace the horizontal wood stringers for the east face, under the provisions §66.408(a), 66.101, 66.2166, 66.301, and 66.302 of fhe Sainf Paul Legislative Code, on property located at 1926 University Avenue, PIN 33-29-23-24-0033, legaliy described as UNfON PARK LOT 162 (LIEP billboard ref. # 170); and WHEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on December 12, 2002, held a public hearing at whieh ail persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Planning Commission, based on the evidence presented fo its Zoning Committee at the pubiic hearing as substantially reflected in the riminutes, made the following findings of fact: On October 18, 2002, Clear Channel Outdoor appfied for a sign permit to replace the sign face and trim of the east side of a V-shaped, rooftop billboard at 1926 University Averiue. The west side of the V-shaped billboard was remodeled under permit in early 1998 shortly before the City imposed a 30-month moratorium on billboards, so the west side is in good condition. 2. On O�tober 24, 2002, Jeff Fischbach of the LIEP staff issued a permit for the billboard subject t� the condition that "All repair materials must be of the same type as the originai materials, no addition or substitution of materials allowed." Work on the billboard was then done by a Clear Channel crew on October 25. 3. On November 20, the (vlerriam Park Community Council appealed the issuance of the sign permit by LIEP on tfie grounds that (a) the biliboard is illegal; (b) the permit was contrary to provisions of the zoning code, including buf not limited to section 66.302; (c) the-pertnit moved by F�eld seconded by in favor 15 against 1 (Gordon) � � Zoning File # 02-241-717 Planning Commission Resolution Page 2 of 4 was contrary to the city's policy to gradually removing billboards through attrition; and (d) the biilboard was in violation of the Merriam Park Special District Sign Plan. The Planning Commission's responses to fhese claims are given in findings 4 through 7 below. 4. The appeal claims that the billboard is illegal. The City staff presumes that the billboard is legai. Since the adoption of the new billboard regulations in 2000, all biliboards in the city have become nonconforming uses. But almost all of the biilboards in the city are legal nonconforming uses that were either builf with building permits or were grandfathered by virtue of having been built before 1956. Old building permits at LIEP are stored in chronological order, not by address, or by applicant, or by type of construction. Therefore, the City staff have not tried to refrieve a building permit. Art aerial photograph from 1979 showed that this sign was there at that time. The Merriam Park Community Council has didn't submit any evidence that the sign is not legal. 5. In a phone conversation with PED staff the appellant claimed that use of the sign was discontinued for more than a year, the period set in state law, and far longer than the three-month.period for discontinuance found in the Saint Paul ordinance for the Merriam Park Special Sign District. Staff finds this claim to be a partial truth, but not sufficient to treat the sign as an illegal nonconforming use. 0'J _ �� The billboard face had an Eller Media Co. logo sign. The logo was a"leaning square" with a red band across the top, a blue band across the bottom, and "eller media" between them. Sometime after Eiler Media was bought by Clear Channel Outdoor and ceased to exist as a company, the words "eller media" were painted out, leaving a white background with only the blue and red stripes. The sign was apparenf�y without words for at least a year from, perhaps, July 2001 through September 2002. Thus fhe appeAant argues that the biilboard during this period was not advertising a business because the business no longer existed. On the other hand, the sign was a stretch-over, re-useable material in excellent condition, nof a paste-up paper sign that had faded or pealed. The sign was neither unsafe, nor unsightly, nor abandoned; accordingly, under Section 66.301 the sign may continue as a legal nonconforming use subject to certain conditions. 6. The appellant claims that the permit is contrary to section 66.302 of the zoning code, which stafes that advertising signs to be reptaced, reiocafed or renovated must be on zoning lots where advertising signs are a permitted use. City staff believe that replacement of an old, but undamaged sign face is a maintenance activity as permitted by. state statute, not a repiacement or renovation of the advertising sign. Section 66.302 of the code refers primarily to the previous "Move to Conformance" program with sign credits for the relocation of biiiboards, a program which was eliminated in 2000 when the most recent billboard amendments were adopfed. Although the "Move to Conformance" program is dead, there is a piausible argument that the replacement of a sign face is the same thing as replacement or renovation of an advertising sign. The city � � Zoning File # 02-241-717 Pianning Commission Resolution Page 3 of 4 staff regard sign face rep/acement as different from advertising sign replacement because: (a) billboard companies have for decades done sign face repiacements every ten years or so as a routine maintenance activity; and (b) the cost of the sign face panels and the surrounding fiberglass trim kits (picture frames} are cheap (approximately $800) in comparison wifh the sign sfructure (bed pan secured to building rooftop, angle iron A- frames with bracing, electrical service, catwalk, sfringers). The city s#aff do freaf sign face replacement_as renovation, which is prohibited under this section, when a sign face has been damaged beyond fifty percent of its replacement cost. This treatment is in accordance with the Rarnsey County district court decision.about storm-damaged signs on Grand Avenue. Thus, the City staff position is that sign face replacement is permitted as a routine maintenance activity, but it is not permitted in the case of a badly damaged sign face. While this may appear inconsistent, it has a logic based on the agent causing the damage. The state statute on nonconforming uses refers to destruction "by fire or other peril". In the case of fire or wind damage, the nonconforming use cannot be replaced. But the City does not want itself to be the cause of deterioration through preventing routine maintenance since the state statute explicitly permits the maintenance of nonconforming uses. 7. The appeilant ciaims the issuance of the permit was contrary to the City's policy of gradually removing biliboards through attrition. It is true that sign faces are the shortest- lived component of billboards. Prohibiting,their repiacement would certainly accelerate the attrition process. But fhe city staff believe that this would unduly undermine the value of biliboard companies' investments and, as a legal matter, would not be a reasonable regulation of a nonconforming use to protect the public welfare. The appeilant claims that the billboard repair permit violates the Merriam Park Special Sign District Plan. in the speciai sign district, Section 66.2166(e) on nonconforming advertising signs prohibits alteration, sign replacement, reconstruction after damage to the display surface greater the fifty percent, or replacement of structural elements. Regarding sign face replacement, the arguments in finding 6 apply here as well. Regarding replacement of structural elements, fhe City staff regard the wood stringers (three 2 X 6 boards) as structur�l elements, but of such minor value in relafion to the structure that the Merriam Park prohibition, if applied in this case, would confliet with the rights Clear Channel has under state statute to maintain their property. Thus the prohibition is unenforceable, as applied. City staff do not regard biilboard sign faces as structural elements. On October 28, a citizen's complaint was received that workers were doing welding work for the rooftop billboard. Upon close inspection of the new{y constructed biliboard face, staff found the following: a) The interiocking sign face panels are horizontal instead of verticai as they have been in the past; b) The new face panels are clipped to each other and are secured by two top-to-bottom �� _co? � � 6 � _c.o? � Zoning File # 02-241-717 Planning Commission Resolution Page 4 of 4 vertical sfruts made of galvanized steei. Before, there were no vertical struts. The previous sign face paneis were attached directiy to the horizontal wood sfringers by metal clips. c). The vertical metal struts are secured by bolts to the vertical angle iron A-frame structure. d) New horizontal angle iron stringers have been added. As an apparent gesture toward the condifion on the permit, replacement wood stringers have also been installed, but fhey are redundant and cosmetic. The wood stringers appear to have no function. By changing the materials and adding vertical metal struts and horizontal angle iron stringers, Clear Channei has violated conditions of the sign permit. The sign permit issued by LIEP was for replacement of the sfringers, sign face, trim contained the condition thaf, "This sign face has only wooden stringers. All repair materials must be of the same type as the original materials, no addition or substitution of materials allowed." 10. The Sign Chapter of the Zoning Code provides regulations for nonconforming signs. Section 66.301(a) on nonconforming signs reads: "N.o sign shall be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its Ronconformity except for temporary extensions on billboards as permitted in paragraph 7 of this section." The Merriam Park sign district regulations, Section 66.2166(e)(1)(a) provides that no nonconforming advertising sign "sha/l be altered in any way, other than changing the message on a painfed or printed sign." The changes in the method of construction described in finding 8 violate these provision. .They are alterations of the billboard that are designed to extend the life of the sign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paui Planning Commission, based on findings 1 through 8, under the authority of the City's Legisiative Code, that the appeal by Merriam Park Community Council of a sign permit issued by the office of Licensing, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) to repiace an existing biliboard sign face and trim with a new sign face and trim and also to replace the horizontal wood stringers for the east face, on property at 1926 University Avenue, PIN 33-29-23-24-0033 legally described as UNION PARK LOT 162 (LIEP billboard ref. # 170) is hereby denied; BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED, based on the findings 9 and 10, that the condition on fhe biliboard repair permit issued by LIEP stating that, "This sign face has only wooden stringers. AII repair materials must be of the same type as the original materia(s, no addition or substitution of maferials is aifowed" should be strictly enforced.