The URL can be used to link to this page

03-608ORIGINAL RESOLUTION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA Council File # �� Green Sheet # �� /� Presented By Referred To Whereas, On October 24, 2002, the department of license, inspections and environmental protection (hereinafter, "LIEP") issued the requested pernut; and 2 Whereas, On October 18, 2002, Clear Channel Outdoor made application for a sign 3 pernut to replace sign face and trim on the east side of a"V" shaped billboard located at 1926 4 University Avenue; and 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Whereas, On November 24, 2002, pursuant to I.eg. Code § 66.408(a) the Merriam Park Community Council (hereinafter, "Merriam Park") filed an appeal from LIEP's decision; and Whereas, On December 12, 2002, under zoning file No. 02-241-717, the zoning cominittee of the planning commission conducted a public hearing on Merriam Park's appeal after having provided notice to affected property owners, and submitted its recomtnendation to the planning commission; and Whereas, the planning commission, in its Resolution No. 02-104, decided to deny Merriam Park's appeal based on the foilowiag findings and conclusions: Committee: Date On October 18, 2002, Cleaz Channel Outdoor applied for a sign permit to repiace the sign face and trim of the east side of a V-shaped, rooftop billboard at 1926 University Avenue. 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 condirion. 2. On October 24, 2002, Jeff Fischbach of the LIEP staff issued a pernut for the billboard subject to the condition that "All repair materials must be of the same type as the original materials, no addition or substitution of materials allowed." Work on the billboard was then done by a Cleaz Channel crew on October 25. 3. On November 20, the Merriam Park Community Council appealed the issuance of the sign pernrit by LIEP on the grounds that (a) the billboard is illegal; (b) the permit was contrary to provisions of the zoning code, including but not limited to section 66302; (c) the pernut was contrary to the city's policy to gradually removing billboazds through attrition; and (d) the billboazd was in violation of the Merriam Park Special District Sign Plan. The Planning Commission's responses to these claims are given in findings 4 through 7 below. ORIGI�IAL 4. The appeal claims that the billboazd is illegal. The City staff presumes that the billboazd is legal. 4 5 Since the adoprion of the new billboazd regulations in 2000, all biilboards in the city 6 have become nonconforming uses. But almost all of the biliboards in the city are t� 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 43 411 45 46 47 48 49 50 Zegal nonconforming uses that were either built with building pernuts or were grandfathered by virtue of having been buiit before 1956. Old building permits at T TEp aze stored in chronological order, not by address, or by applicant, or by type of constmction. Therefore, the City staff have not tried to retrieve a buiiding permit. An aerial photograph from 1979 showed that this sign was there at that rime. The Merriam Pazk 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 thzee-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. The billboard face had an Eller Media Co. logo sign. The logo was a"leaning squaze" with a red band across the top, a blue band across the bottom, and "eller media" between them. Someume after Eller Media was bought by Ciear 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 apparently without words for at least a year from, perhaps, July 2001 through September 2002. Thus the appeilant azgues that the billboard 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, not a paste-up paper sign that had faded or pealed. The sign was neither unsafe, nor unsighfly, nor abandoned; accordingly, under Section 66.301 the sign may continue as a legal nonconfornung use subject to certain conditions. 6. The appellani claims that the perxnit is contrary to section 66.302 of the zoning code, which states that advertising signs to be replaced, relocated or renovated must be on zoning lots where advertising signs are a permitted use. City staff believe that replacement of an old, but undamaged sign face is a maintenance acrivity as pernutted by state statute, not a replacement or renovation of the advertising sigi. Section 66.302 of the code refers primarily to the previous "Move to Conformance" program with sign credits for the relocation of billboards, a program which was eliminated in 2000 when the most recent billboard amendments were adopted. Although the "Move to Conformance" program is dead, there is a plausible argument that the replacement of a sign face is the same thing as replacement or renovation of an adverkising sign. The city staff regard sign face replacement as different from advertising sign replacement because: (a) billboazd companies have for decades done sign face replacements every ten years or so as a rouune maintenance acrivity; and (b) the cost of the sign face panels and the surrounding fiberglass trim kits (picture frames) are cheap (approximately $800) in comparison with the sign structure (bed pan secured to building rooftop, angle iron A-&ames 03- �o� Page 2 of 5 2 0 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ORIG�i��A�. �� - c�� with bracing, electrical service, catwalk, stringers). The city staff do treat sign face replacement as renovation, which is grohibited under this section, when a sign face has been damaged beyond fifty percent of its replacement cost. T'his treatment is in accordance with the Ramsey County district court decision about storm-damaged signs on Grand Avenue. Thus, the City staff position is that sign face replacement is permitted as a rourine maintenance acrivity, but it is not pernutted 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 nonconfornring uses refers to desttuction "by fire or other peril". In the case of fue or wind damage, the nonconforming use cannot be replaced. But the City does not want itself to be the cause of deterioration through prevenUng routine maintenance since the state statute explicitly pernuts the maintenance of nonconfornvng uses. The appellant claims the issuance of the pernut was contrary to the City's policy of gradually removing billboards through attrition. It is true that sign faces are the shortest-lived component of billboazds. Prohibiting their replacement would ceztainly accelerate the attrition process. But the city staff believe that this would unduly undernune the value of billboard companies' investments and, as a legal matter, would not be a reasonable regulation of a nonconfornung use to protect the public welfare. 8. The appellant claims that the billboud repair permit violates the Merriam Pazk Special Sigi District Plan. In the special 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 sriuctural elements. Regarding sign face replacement, the arguments in finding 6 apply here as well. Regazding replacement of structural elements, the City staff regard the wood stringers (three 2 X 6 boazds) as structural elements, but of such minor value in relation to the structure that the Merriam Park prohibition, if applied in this case, would conflict with the rights Cleaz Channel has under state statute to maintain their property. Thus the prohibirion is unenforceable, as applied. City staff do not regard billboard sign faces as shuctural elements. 9. On October 28, a citizen's complaint was received that workers were doing welding work for the rooftop billboard. Upon close inspection of the newly constructed billboard face, staff found the following: a) The interlocking sign face panels are horizontal instead of vertical as they have been in the past; b) The new face panels aze clipped to each other and are secured by two top-to- bottom vertical struts made of galvanized steel. Before, there were no vertical struts. The previous sign face panels were attached directly to the horizontal wood stringers by metal clips. c) The vertical metal struts aze secured by bolts to the vertical angle iron A-frame structure. Page 3 of 5 1 ORIG�f�AL 2 d) New horizontal angle iron stringers have been added. As an appazent gesture 3 toward the condition on the permit, replacement wood stringers have also been 4 installed, but they are redundant and cosmetic. The wood stringers appear to 5 have no function. 6 7 By changing the materials and adding vertical metai struts and horizontal angle 8 iron stringers, Cleaz Channel has violated conditions of the sign permit. The sign 9 permit issued by LIEP was for replacement of the stringers, sign face, trim 10 contained the condirion that, "This sign face has only wooden stringers. All repair 11 materials must be of the same type as the original materials, no addition or 12 substitution of materials allowed." 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 10. The Sign Chapter of the Zoning Code provides regularions for nonconfornung signs. Section 66301(a) on nonconfornung signs reads: "No sign shall be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity except for temporary extensions on billboards as permitted in paragraph 7 of this section. " The Merriam Pazk sign district regulations, Section 66.2166(e)(1)(a) provides that no nonconforming advertising sign "shall be altered in any way, other than changing the message on a painted or printed sign. " The changes in the method of construction described in finding 8 violate these provision. They aze alterations of the billboard that are designed to extend the life of the sign. Whereas, Pursuant to the provisions of I.eg. Code 64.300(k), Merriam Park duly filed an appeal from the deternunation made by the planning commission and requested a hearing before the City Council far the purpose of considering the actions taken by the said commission; and Whereas, Acting pursuant to L.eg. Code §§ 64.206-.208, and upon notice to affected parties, a public hearing was duly conducted by the City Council on February 5, 2003, where all interested parties 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 does hereby reverse the decision of the planning commission in this matter, based on the following findings of the Council: The planning commission erred in its findings that pernutted the replacement of the sign face. Sign face replacement or renovation is not permitted under § 66.302. In addition, the sign was not in use for over one year. The sign face replacement violated the provisions of the Merriam Park Special Sign District which prohibit nonconforming signs that have been discontinued for more than three months. 03 Page 4 of 5 ; Q R I C!�� , o3-c��r 2 Further Resolved, That the appeal of Merriam Park be and is hereby g�anted; and, be it 3 4 Finally Resolved, That the City Clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to the Merriam 5 Pazk Community Council, Cleaz Channel, the Zoning Administrator and the planning 6 cominission. Requested by Department of: �'' .��1� By: Form Appr ved by City Attorney s�,: ��`/�i.n�.� f 30- 6T by Mayor for Submission to Council s ApHrovad by or: Date � By: �.,� Adopted by Council: Date ��-� \\ � Adoption Certified by CounciY Secretary �� June 18, 2003 YiAGT PFRSON S PFiONE Peter Wamer 5T BE ON COUNCILAGFNDA BY 25 TOTAL # OF S►GNA7URE PAGES GREEN SHEET ocr,utt�r oweetat 03-(ds� No 205233 Ntl1aUDab a,rcouct ❑ UIY4iTORIEY ❑ CIIYCLFl11C � ❑.n.wcu�aQxetsoix ❑wwrJ.�,«n,ccro ❑ r4YORfORASnslAM) ❑ (CUP ALL LOCATfONS FOR SIGNATURE) Memorializing the action of the City Council on February 5, 2003, by granting the appeal o£ Merriam Park Community Council of a building permit issued by the Office of License, Inspect and Environmental Protection for a"V" shaped billboard at 1926 University Avenue. {Public Hearing held on Eebxuaxy 5, 2003). PLANNING COMMISSION CIB CAMMITTEE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION �� APPROVED AMOUNTOFTRANSACTION Has Nis perswJfrtn everworked untler a contract far this department? VES NO Hastttis pe�soNfirtn ever hee� a dry �9byee? YES NO Dces this perwNfirm possess a sldll not nwmallypossessed by any wrteM city employee? YES NO I8 Mis persaMrm a tarpe[etl vendo� VES NO COST/REVENUE BUDGEfED (CIRCIE ON� ACTIVITYNUMBER YES NO (EXPWN) CITY OF SAINT PAUL Raady C. Kel[y, Mayor June 3, 2003 Nancy Anderson Council Secretary 310 City Hall 15 West Kellogg Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Merriam Park Community Council Appeal Zoning File No. 02-241-717 Deaz Nancy: �� E,9 �� x�. w - Attached please fmd a signed Resolution memorializing the decision of the City Council on February 5, 2003, granting the appeal of the Merriam Park Community Council of a building permit issued by the Department of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection for a"V" shaped ballboard at 1926 University Avenue. Would you piease place this matter on the consent agenda at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. V ery huly yours, '2'�i� �✓/� t'�-� Peter W. Wamer Assistant City Attorney OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY O �_� p g� Manuel J Cervantes, Ciry Aitorney CiviZDivision 400CiryHa11 TeZephone:6512668710 TSWutKelloggBlvd. Facsimile:651298-5619 Sain[ Paul, Minnesota 55102 Hand Delivered ��'_ PWW/rmb Enclosure DEPARTMENT OF PLANMNG & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Martha Fu11er, Direcior b7 ,�of� °t3 CITY OF SAINT PAUL Rarsdy C. KeQy, �tlayor January 13, 2003 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 Dear Ms. Anderson: I would like Yu confirm that a public hearing before the City < February 5, 2003, far the following zoning case: Telephane. 6l2-?66-6�65 Facsimile: 6l2-2?8-3314 ,� � 1 , � , � � . , Appellant: MERRIAM PARK COMM[ INITY COUI� p�.4 5`O� File Number: 03-249-323 (Appeal of #02-241-717) � Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission denial o� appoa. ui a sign pernut issuea by the office of Licensing, Inspecfions and Environxnental Protection (LIEP) to replace an existing billboard sign face and trim with a new sign face and trim and also to replace the horizontal wood stringers for the east face Address: 1926 University Avenue W; between Prior and LymIliurst Legal Description of Property: iIDIION PARK LOT 162 (LIEP billboard re£ # 170) (PIN 33-29-23-24-0033) Previous Action: Zoning Committee: No recommendarion; vote: 5-1; December 12, 2002 Planning Commission Decision: Denial; 15-1; December 20, 2002 My understanding is that this public hearing request will appeaz on the agenda for the February 5, 2003 City Council meeting and that you will publish nofice of the hearing in the Saint Paul Legal Ledger. Please call me at 266-6659 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ['� V „—�� '�� Yang Zhang City Planner cc: File # 03-249-323 Carol Martineau Paul Aubruiel Wendy Lane Allan Torstenson AA-ADA-EEO Employex 25 Wut Fourth Street Saint Paul, MIJ 55102 NOTICE OF PUBLIC �'�*t*^TG � The Saint Paut Council witL con- duct a public hearing on Wednesday, Feb- ivary 5, 2003, at 5:30 p.m. in the City� Council'.Chambers, Third Floor City Hall-Courthouse, 15 R*est Kellogg Boiile- vard, $aint Paul, MN, to consider the ap- peal of Merriam Park Community Council, £o a decision of the Saint Paul Plannin Commiasion denying the appeal of a,sigu permit issued by the Office of Licensirig, Inspec�.ioas and Ehvix»nmental A•otectian � Q.IEP) to rep�ce an e�sting b�7lUoard sign face and Liim with a new sign face and trim �and also to replace the horizontal � wood stringers foz the east face at 1926 University Avensse`West (between Prlor and Lynnhurst). Dated: January 15; 2003 , . � NANCYANBERSON, " � � , - nssistai�t, city conneit seQetazy- - . . , - (Jannary ZO): � . --� — 81: PAIIL LEGAL *-..°"`-^=.° �— 22058881 � . . - . , DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Mankn G. Fullec Direclor CITY OF SAINT PAUL RandyC. Kelly, �ltayor r.r.�r January 29, 2002 Ms. Nancy Anderson Secretary to the City Council Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 1-000 Ciry Hall Annex 2� i3'es! Fovnh Stree! Samt Paul. .4fN ii102 O7 ' C08' Telephame. 6l2-266-6�6i Facs"vn�le� 611-228-3314 Re: Zoning File #03-249-323 Appellant: Merriam Park Community Council (Appeal of 02-241-717) City Council Hearing: February 5, 2003, 530 p.m., City Council Chambers Purpose: Appeal of a Planning Commission denial of appeal of a sign permit issued by the office of Licensing, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) to replace an existing billboard sign face and trim with a new sign face and trim and also to replace the horizontal wood stangers for the east face • Address: 1926 University Avenue W; between Prior and Lynnhurst Planning Commission Decision: Denial of Merriam Park's appeal; 15-1. Zoning Committee Recommendation: No recommendation. Staff Recommendahon: Approve in part and deny in part. Support: Three parties spoke on behalf of the appellent. Opposition: Two parties spoke on behalf of Clear Channel Outdoors. Disirict Council: Merriam Park Community Council is the appellent. Dear Ms. Anderson: This appeal is scheduled to be heard by the Ciry Council on February 5, 2003. Please notify 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 � APPLiCAT10N FOR APPEAL �[� j �� Department of Planning and Economic DeveZopment • fRTTti1 Zoning Section �w J �� 1100 Ciry Ha/1 Annex 15 West Founh Street Saint Paul, MA' SSI01 266-6589 , APPELLANT " � Address tS �_� � �� r� ,, � . # '� // City �_� �1�[- St�Zip 5/��Daytime phone/az,<S-�8�} PROPERTY Zoning Fite LOCATION . .. .. � ��i��n �c� Gur un�v�ns� • �A, TYPE OF APPEAL: Appiication is hereby made for an appeal to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals �City Council under the provisions of Chap;er o4, Section , Paragrapi� of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision made bythe S7= J �)av�vtiv�e, �.�y1n�sS��Oln � O �T on l�¢e �vwto.�✓' �o , � File number: �2 -2� ] — �-! �- (d o de GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feei there has been an error�in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative offlciai, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeais or the Planning Commission. �z-� �� • � Attach addifiona( sheet ApplicanYs sign t re_ P�"�� ,�,03 �S o � 60 �s i�� G� `� 7�� Date — — �Z City � �� Attachment to Application for Appeal 7anuary 8, 2003 Merriam Park Community Council Appeal re: NE sign face at 1926 University Ave. (LTniversity & Prior) Grounds for Appeal 1. The billboard was not in use for over a year, whiCh is in violation of state law and the i\�terriam Park Speciai District Sign Plan. ` The crirical point is what "in use" means. The Merriam Pazk Community Council respectFully argues that for an advertising sign to be "in nse" it must be advertising something. Cotors on a billboazd without text do not consritute advertising. Therefore the sign showing red and blue bands was not in use, regazdtess of the sign's condition. 2. The replacement of a sign face is the same as"replacement or renovation of an advertising sign," which is prohibited under 66302 of the zoning code. This view is not only "plausible" (as described by city staf�, but has beea affumed by a court decision following the stotms of 1987. The court ruled that uo advertising sign exists without the sign face. They are inexiricably bound. Therafore, replacing the sigtt face is the same tliing as "replacement or renovation of an advertising sign", and sfiouid be prohibited. 3. The city cannot consider sign face replacement to be both legal maintenance and illegal renovarion. The city staff aclmowledge that they treat sign face placement as renovarion when the sign has been dainaget3, but deem it maintenance otherwise. Despite staffs explanation of this contradiction, the Mertiam Pazk Community Councit maintains that replacement of the sign face cannot be considered renovation somerimes and simple maintenance at others. If the ciry considers replacing a storm-damaged sign face to be renovation (which is prohibited), then the same activity is still renovation when done at other times for other reasons. The activity is the same no matter wbat the cause. The city should not consider itself in the posirion of preventing legal routine maintenance because it has akeady defined sign face replacement to be renovation, wiuch is a prohibited activity. r � � 63 -�o� � � city of saint paul planning commission resolution fife number o2-l04 d ate December 20, 2Q02 WHEREAS, Merriam Park Community Council, File #02-241-717, nas appealed a sign permif issued by the office of Licensing, Inspections and Environmenfal Protection (LIEP) to replace an existing billboard sign face and trim with a new sign face and trim and also to replace the horizonfa4 wood stringers for the east face, under fhe provisions §66.408(a), 66.101, 66.2166, 06.301, and 66.302 of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, on property located at 1926 University Avenue, PIN 33-29-23-24-0033, legaily described as UNION PARK LOT 162 (LfEP billboard ref. # 170); and WtiEREAS, the Zoning Committee of the Planning Commission, on December 12, 2002, held a public hearing at which all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard pursuant to said application in accordance with the requirements of §64.30� of the Saint Paul Legislative Code; and WNEREAS, the Saint Paul Pfanning Commission, based on the evidence presented to its Zoning Committee at the public hearing as substantially reflecfed in the minutes, made the foi(owing findings of fact: On October 18, 2002, Clear Channel Outdoor appiied for a sign permit to replace the sign face and trim of the east side of a V-shaped, rooftop billboard at 1926 University Avenue. 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 biflboards, so the west side is in good condition. 2. On October 24, 2002, Jeff Fischbach of the LIEP staff issued a permit for the biliboard subjecf to the condition that "All repair materials must be of the same fype as the original materials, no addition or substitution of materials aflowed " Work on the billboard was then done by a Clear Channe( crew on October 25. 3. On November 20, the Merriam Park Community Council appealed the issuance of the sign permit by LIEP on the grounds that (a) the biliboard is illegal; (b) the permit was cantrary to provisions of the zoning code, including but not limited to section 66.302; (c) the permit moved by Fxeld seconded by _ in favor 15 against � (Gordon) � Zoning �ile # 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 billboard was in violation of the Merriam Park Special District Sign Plan. The Rtanning Commission's responses to these claims are given in findings 4 through 7 below. 4. The appeal claims that the biilboard is itiega(. The Ciiy staff presumes that the billboard is legal: Since the adoption of the new biilboard regulations in 2000, all billboards in the city have become nonconforming uses. But almost all of the biilboards in the cify are lega! nonconforming uses tf�at were either built with building permits or were grandfathered by VIfCU2 Of h�vina haan h� iilt hof�.o 10RR n�.a �..:u:__ __ •. ...__ chronological order, �ot by address, or by applicant, or by type of consfruction. Therefore, the City staff have not tried to retrieve a building permit. An aeriai photograph from 1979 showeii that this sign was there at that time. The Merriam Park Communify Council has didn't submit any evidence that the sign is not fegal. 5. !n a phone conversation with PED sfaff the appe(tant 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. 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 affer Eiler Media was bought by Clear Channel Outdoor and ceased to exist as a company, the words "eller media" were painted out, leaving a whiFe backgro�nd with only tfte blue and red stripes. The sign was apparently without words for at least a year from, perhaps, July 2001 through September 2002. Thus the appellant argues that the billboard during this period was not advertising a business because the business no longer eicisted. On the other hand, the sign was a stretch-over, re-useable material in excellent condition, not a paste-up paper sign that had faded or pealed. The sign was neither unsafe, nor unsightly, nor abandoned; accordirtgly, 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 states that advertising signs to be repiaced, relocated or renovated must be on zoning lots where advertising signs are a permitted use. City staff believe that replacement of an old, buf undamaged sign face is a maintenance activity as permitted by sYate statute, not a replacement or renovation of the advertising sign. Section 66.302 of the crode refers primarity fo the previous "Move to Conformance" program with sign credits for the relocation of biliboards, a program which was eliminated in 2000 when the most recent biliboard amendmenYs were adopted. Atthaugh the "Move to Conformance" program is dead, there is a plausible argument that the replacement of a sign face is the same thing as replacemenf or renovation of an advertising sign. The city � � � o� ,�o� • Zoning File # 02-241-717 Planning Commission Resolution Page 3 of 4 sfaff regard sign face replacement as different from adverfising sign replacement because: (a) biilboard companies have for decades done sign face replacements every fen years or so as a routine maintenance activity; and (b) the cost of fhe sign face panels and fhe surrounding fiberglass trim kits (picture frames} are cheap (approximately $800) in comparison wifh the sign structure (bed pan secured to buiiding rooftoq angle iron A- frames with bracing, electrical service, catwaik, stringers). The city s#aff do treat sign face replacement as renovation, which is prohibited under this section, when a sign face has been damaged beyond fifty percent of its replacement cost. This treatment is in accordance with the Ramsey County district court decision about storm-damaged signs on Grand Avenue. Thus, the City staff position is that sign face replacement is permitted as a routine maintenance activity, but it is not permitted in the case of a badly damaged sign face. While this may appear 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 explicifly permits the maintenance of nonconforming uses. � � 7. The appellant ciaims the issuance of the permit was contrary to the City's policy of gradually removing bilfboards through attrition. It is tsue that sign faces are the shortest- lived component of billboards. Prohibiting.their replacement would certainly accelerate the aEtrition process. But the city staff believe that this would unduly undermine the value of biliboard companies' investments and, as a legai matter, would not be a reasonable regulation of a nonconforming use to protect the public welfare. 8. The_ appellant claims that the billboard repair permit violates the Mer�am Park Speciai Sign District Plan. In the special sign district, Section 66.2166(e) on nonconforming advertising signs prohibits alteration, sign replacement, reconstructio� after damage to the display surface greater the fifty percent, or repiacement of structural elements. Regarding sign face replacement, the arguments in finding 6 apply here as well. Regarding replacement of strucfural elements, the City staff regard the wood stringers (three 2 X 6 boards) as structur�l elements, buf of such minor value in refation to the structure that the Merriam Park prohibition, if applied in this case, would conflict with fhe rights Clear Channel has under state statute to maintain their property. Thus the prohibition is unenforceable, as applied. City staff do not regard bilfboard sign faces as sfructural elements. On October 28, a citizen's complaint was received that workers were doing weVding work for the rooftop billboard. Upon close inspection of the newly constructed billboard face, staff found the foilowing: a) The interlocking sign face paneis are horizontai instead of vertical as they have been in the past; b) The new face panels are clipped to each other and are secured by two top-to-bottom Zoning Fi(e �# 02-241-717 Planning Commission Resolution Page 4 of 4 cj d) �'�/ vertical sfruts made of galvanized steei. Before, there were no vertical struts. The previous sign face panels were attached directly to the horizontal wood stringers by metal clips. The vertical metal struts are secured by boits to the vertical angle iron A-frame structure. New horizontal angle iron stringers have been added. As an apparent gesture toward the condition on the permit, repiacement wood stringers have also been installed, but fhey are redundant and cosmetic. The wood stringers appear to have no function. the materiais and adding vertical metal struts and horizontal angle iron --^�--- „ . . . . .... _ - --�.. �_ ....... ........�� r ...,-.-.,,��..�Q by LIEP was for replacement of fhe sfringers, sign face, trim contai�ed the condition that, "This sign face has only wooden stringers. Ail repair materials must be of the same type as the origina( maferials, 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: `No sign shall be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity except for temporary extensions on billboards as permitted in paragraph 7 of this section." The Merriam Park sign district regulations, Section 66.2166(e)(1)(a) provides that no nonconforming advertising sign "shali be a(tered in any way, otherthan changing fhe message on a painted orprinted sign." The changes in the method of construction described in finding 8 violate fhese provision. .They are alterations of the biiiboard that are designed to extend the life of the sign. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Saint Paul 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 replace an existing billboard sign face and frim with a new sign face and frim and also to replace the horizontal wood stringers for the east face, on property at 1926 University Avenue, PIN 33-29-23-24-0033 legaliy described as UNION PARK LOT 162 (LIEP biliboard ref, # 170) is hereby denied; BE IT FURTHER RE50LVED, based on the findings 9 and 10, that the condition on 4he biliboard repair permit issued by LfEP stating thaf, "This sign face has only wooder� stringers. All repair materiafs must be of the same type as the original materials, no addition or substitution of materials is allowed" should be strictiy enforced. • �� \ � O > - �os� • Saint Paul Planning Commission City Hall Confereace Center 15 Kellogg Boulevard West Minutes ofDecember 20, 2002 A meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, December 20, 2002, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of CiTy Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, McCall, Morton, Shortridge, and Trevino; Present: and Messrs. Alexander, Alton, Anfang, Dandrea, Field, Fotsch, Gordon, Johnson, Kong, Kramer, and Mejia. Commissioners Mmes. *Faricy, and *Znnmer L,onetti; and Messrs. *Gervais, *Mazdell, and Absent: *Rosales. *Excused Also Present: Lazry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Allan Torstenson, Lucy Thompson, Penny Simison, Rich Malloy, Allen Lovejoy, Yang Zhang, Bob Schreier, and Mary Bruton, Depaz�nent of Planning and Economic Development staff. � �#02-241-717 Merriam Park Communitv Council - Appeal of a billboazd repair permit issued by LIEP for a V-sfiaped roof-top billboazd. The billboard company wants to replace one of the sign faces and the horizontal wood slringers behind the face. The appellant claims that the zoning code doesn't allow replacement of sign faces or stringer boards. 1926 University Ave., betv✓een Prior & Lynnhurst. (Yang Zhang, 651/266-6659) � Commissioner Field stated District 13 Merriam Park is the appellant, Three representafives of • Memam Pazk spoke in support of the appeal. Two representatives from Cleaz Channel spoke in opposition to the appeal. The public hearing was closed. The case was forwazded to the Planning Commission without a committee recommendation on a vote of 5-1(Kramer). Commissioner Gordon stated that at the Zoning Committee meeting before {he 5-1 vote there were two 3-3 ries, one to deny the appeal and one to uphold the appeal. Commissioner Gordon stated he brought tfie motion to upfiold tfie appeal on three grounds, any one of which wouId be sufficient: 1) The non-conforming use was discontinued for more than one yeaz within the meauing of section 462357 subd.(1)(e) of state law. This was a siga that had a white background with the words "Eller Media" between two color bazs, one blue and one red. The name Eller Media was painted out and the sign sat there for more than one year during which it was not used as a billboazd within any reasonable interpretation of that term. He stated the billboazd company stated they were using the logo, but by painting out the name it was rio longer even the logo of FIIA � and FllPr MPAia (`n haA CPAC d tn xict cince it c c b0 �ht bv the applicant It W2S Y�le logo of a discontinued company and it was not used as a billboazd within the definitions in the code. 2) The petmit was issued in error by permitting the replacement of the stringers, which everyone agrees aze structural elements of billboards. The Memam Pazk Special Sign Disirict pian prohibits changes in structurai elemenfs. T'he district counciI atso cIaims that the sign face panels should be considered as a structural element. The City Council just upheld an appeal by the St. Anthony Pazk Associarion, reversing a Plamvng Commissiott decision, aad prohibited a shuctural repair to a billboazd based on the same language in theu Special Sign District regulations. The City Council determined that the state law provision that permits routine maintenance leaves room for the City to enact a prohibition against changes in structuzal elements. � Changes in structural elements go beyond routine maintenance. 3) There were significant violations of the terms of the permit and the zoning code. Pazagraph 3 of the staff report notes that the permit that was issued provided that, "All repair materials must be of the same type as the originaI materials, no �ddition or substitution of materials allowed." Commissioner Gordon stated the billboazd company violated this condition as detailed in paragraph 9 of the stafFreport in two or three different ways. By violating the prohibition against upgrading materiais, fhe company loses the benefit of having a legal non-conforming use. For any of tUese three reasons the appeal should be upheld. MOTION: Commissioner Gordox moved to uphold the appeaL Commissioner %ramer seconded the motion. Yang Zhang, PED Planner, stated that although the billboazd hadn't been used to advertise a business for more than a year, it was in good condition and it was maintained properly. The issue is how to interpret the state Iaw in relation to the IocaI ordinance. Mr. Soderholm added that this was a difficult case foz the Zoning Committee in part because the staff changed its recommendation moments before the meeting. The staff report fhat was sent to the Zoning Committee recommended denial of the appeal but strictly enforcing flze conditions that were placed on the sign permit of using only the same materials in doing the repair. On the Wednesday night be£ore the Thursday Zoning Committee hearing, the City Council ruled on the Raymond Avenue billboazd where the Planning Commission on the advice of the staff approved the repair of the billboazd because the work though shuctural, was very minor. Wanting to be 4 � 03 -�o£f consistent with the City Council action the night before, the staff decided to interpret the Merriam Pazk Special Sign District prohibition against any structural repau the same way that the • City Council interpreted tiie St. Anthony Pazk regulation. Therefore, the staff changed its recommendarion to say that LIEP erred in granting a permit for the replacement of the stringers. In the Commission's packet today, you have the revised staff repoat. You also have two altemative draft resolurions--the first one is based on the motion that Commissioner Alton made at the Zoning Committee meeting and the second one is based on the motion that Commissioner Gordon made at the Zoning Committee. Coinmissioner Alton advocated that the first resolution, the one to deny the appeal, be adopted today, because the LTBP staff reported that they issued the permit after consultation with the City Attomey's office. The City Attomey advised them that they should issue the permit to be consistent with state law. LIEP staff issued the sign permit, with conditions, for the type of repair that was described in the permit. Certainly enforcing the condifions is appropriate, but issuing the permit itself was a proper thing to do; it was consistent with the law. Commissioner Field agreed with Commissioner Alton, stating that if the City Council wishes to take other action they will do it despite the Planning Commission decision. Commissioner Gordon stated the Planning Commission needs to make a decision. In response to Commissioner Alton's observations, it is h that a permit was issued, but the permit required that there be no change in materials, and the condition was not complied with. Commissioner Gordon didn't think that Clear Channel can rely legally on the fact that a permit was issued when they did not comply with flie terms of that very permit. Furthermore, the City staff may have had certain interpretation of the law in issuing the permit. That does not mean that their interpretation � was necessarily correct. The Ciry Council has now taken a position that is contrary to that staff interpretation. The City Council's interpretation is that the Special Sign Districts aze consistent with state law. State law permits maintenance and repair, and the City Council properly is interpreting that to mean routine maintenauce and repair. But when you start replacing structural elements you go way beyond routine maintenance and repair, and you get into the situation where a billboard never would come down. He urged the Planning Commissioners to uphold the appeal. Commissioner Field caTled the question. A unanimous voice vote was taken to end the debate. ROLL CALL VOTE: A raZl call vote was taken on the moSon to uphold the appeal and the motion fuiled on a tie vote of 8-8. MOTION: Commissioner Sramer moved to deny the appeal but to ca11 for strict enforcement of the condition of the permiL Commissioner Field seconded the tnotion. The motion to deny the appeal passed on a voice vote wiih I xo vote (Gordon). MOTION: Commissioner Field moved to discharge from the Zoning ComFSUttee the Upper Landing Urban ViZlage (Centex Multi-Family Com.) and bring it before the Plannzng Commzssion. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Commissioner Anfang recused himself from this case. Commissioner Field stated he voted to lay this item over to the Zoning Committee's ne�t meeting. u 03 - Co� MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMITTEE Thursday, December 12, 2Q42 - 3:30 p.m. � City Councii Chambers, 3rd Floor City Hali and Court House 15 Vllest Keltogg Boulevard PRESENT: EXCUSED: Alton, Faricy, Gordon, Kramer, Mejia, and Morton Anfang, Field STAFF: �J � Carol Martineau, Allan Torstenson, Peter Warner, and Yang Zhang The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Kramer. Merriam Park Community Council- 02-241-717 - Appeal of a billboard repair permif issued by LIEP for a V-shaped roof-top billboard. The billboard company wants to replace one of the sign faces and the horizontal wood stringers behind the face. The appelfaRt claims that the zoning code doesn't allow replacement of sign faces or stringer boards. 1926 University Ave., between Prior & Lynnhurst. Yang Zhang presented the staff report with a recommendation to grant the appeal. Ms. Zhang handed out photos of the 6illboard and exptained its method of construction. She also stated the Zoning Staff would like to make an amendment to Finding 8 of the staff report which originiafly stated "afthough structural eiements have been repiaced, the vatue of the replacement in relation to the entire structure is so minimai that it wasn't considered significant." In light of the City Council decision on December 11, which determined that any change in structural elements would be in violation of the regufations of the Special Sign Districts, the finding should be changed to read, "This is in violafion of the Merriam Park Special District Sign Plan:' The zoning staff recommends the Merriam Park Community Council appeal be upheld based on Finding 8. Staff now recommends that the replacement of the #ace panel of the biliboard is legal but the wood stringers cannot be replaced. Larry Soderholm, PED, explained that the commission decided six weeks ago concerning the Raymond Avenue biflboard that afthough structural additions were made they were so minor ' that the special sign district prohibition against changes or replacement of structural elements was not enforceabie in light of the state law that ailows maintenance. The City Council reversed that decision and stated that the Special Sign District plans shou{d be strictty followed. St. Anthony Park and Merriam Park Special Sign Districts say thaf sfructural elements of nonconforming billboards cannot be repiaced. The Pianning Commission finds the horizontal wood stringers that hold the sign face to be structural elements. The application was to replace fhe sign face and the wood horizontal stringers. In light of the December 11, 2002, City Council decision, the staif now amends the staff report to say "replacing the stringers (even wood for wood repiacements) is not permitted by the Merriam Park Special Sign District." Therefore, the permit was issued in error with regard to the stringers. it was not issued in error with regard to replacement of the sign face as a routine maintenance activify. He also stated the company did not simply replace wood stringers with wood stringers, but added angle iron stringers and used angle iron connections to the new galvanized stee{ vertical struts that have heavy weight J-bolts that connect the horizontal panels. So the structural system for replacing the sign face has been significantly upgraded. That is why the staff made fwo recommendations: (1). The permit was issued in error with regard to the stringers but not with regard to the sign face; and (2). The company did not comply with the condition of the sign permit with respect to the use of similar materials and construction. On the second recommendation, the Pfanning Commission would be advisory to LIEP that the change in the structural system for sign faces has upgraded Zoning File # 02-241-717 December 12, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes Page: 2 the structural system for the sign faces and ffiat LIEP should sfrictfy enforce the provisions of the code that stipulate that repair cannot extend the life of the billboard by using more permanent structural systems. Brian Bates, representing the appellant, stated that Finding 5 deals with the state law, which stafes, "[f the nonconformify or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy." Zoning Staff admits that the board has been discontinued for over a year but then the staff coRCludes the billboard is not unsafe, unsightly, or abandoned, therefore it is O.K. The staff has rewritten the state statute. Rather than saying the nonconforming sign was discontinued for a period of a year they have rewritten the state statute to say that the nonconformity has to be discontinued and be unsafe, unsightly or abandoned for a period of more than a ear. The zonin staff ignored the law in Finding 6, second sentence: "City staff believe that repiacement of an old, buf undamage sign ace is a main enance ac ivi a permitted by state statute, nof a repiacement or renovation of the advertising sign." This issue has been taken to court, when sign face repiacement was deteRnined to be a renovation. Now the zoning staff is ignoring or overriding Yhat ruling. Statfi issued two more permits for sign face replacements which faces have now been replaced; these cases will also be appealed to the Planning Commission. Judge Monafian in 1999 sfated, °The distinction made by the provision is between changing the advertising content to be placed on the panels of a billboard and changing or replacing the panels themselves: The first is permitted without a permit, the second constitutes a renovation ot the biliboard and requires a permit." tt is renovation, not maintenance; therefore it is not allowed. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. BaYes stated that if a use is discontinued for a year, that use may not continue unless it is a conforming use. After a year there is no way to make a biilboard a conforming use, therefore, ifs nonconforming sfatus shou(d expire because there was no message on the sign for more than a year. Jeanne Weigum, 1647 Laure! St., stated that she is in support of the neighborhood's appeal of the billboard repair. Eiler Media put a canvas cover over the biiiboard which just said "Elle�" in between ffie red and b(ue stripes. Since July 1, 2001, E�ler ceased to exist as a corporation and Clear Channel became the owner of all the boards. Ciear Channel painted over the word "Eiler," leaving just the blank canvas with the red and the blue. It no fonger advertised anything and remained a blank canvas until after it was repaired. On October 21, 2002, a cafl was made to complain about work being conducted on the biilboard, and she learned that a permit was issued 4or the work. At the site, what was supposed to be wooden stringers were being instalied by welders, which was not permitted. Clear Channel does not pay attention to what the community says and is disrespectful of the rules and laws. They get permission to do one thing and then they do another. The permif should not fiave been issued in tF�e first p(ace, but Clear Channel went beyond the conditions of the permit. Rolf Nordstrom, Merriam Park Community Council, stated that he does support the amended staff report. At its November 2002 meeting, the Merriam Park Community Council voted unanimously fo supporf this appeal to revoke the sign permit that the City issued at 1926 University. He believes the Merriam Park Community Special Sign District Plan can be more restrictive than the state law. The Merriam Park Special Sign District states that no nonconforming advertisirtg sign shali be altered in any way other than changing the message on a painted or printed sign. Here the sign face was replaced, which was changing the sign itself. The plan also says a nonconforming advertising sign shall not be maintained through replacement of structural elements, which have been replaced in this case. If the sign was in � r� I �J r� �J D3 -�o� Zoning File # 02-241-717 December 12, 2002, Zoning Committee Minutes • Page: 3 good shape, it wouldn'f have been in need of repair. The pian also states that any nonconforming advertising sign shall be immediately removed at the cost of the owner if the use of the sign has been discontinued for a period of three consecutive months, which is more restrictive than the state law. The sign has been out of use weil over the time allowed. � C� Marvin Liszt, attorney for Clear Channel, stated there was a disagreement concerning some of the verbiage and reasoning in the stafF report. The recommendation in the originai staff report regarding fhe denial of the appea! is generally agreeable. Clear Channel has a right to make repairs and to maintain a legal nonconforming use. The change in the staff report supoosed that because the City Council did someEhing on December 11, 2002, the staff report should be changed. There has been no written resolution from the City Council with an explanation of the legal reasoning, rationale, and the conclusion of the City Council's on which to base a change in the recommendations of the staff. State law has not changed. Clear Gha�nef has a right to repair and maintain its billboards. There is no evidence as to the company not using the sign. One of the sign faces was used to promote the company fogo and thaYs not abandonment. Chris McCarver, Clear Channel, explained that Mr. Fischbach (LIEP staff) had numerous conversations with Clear Chan�et revolving around what type of sign face v,�as going to be constructed on the property. The new sign face has horizontal panels as opposed to vertical panefs, and Mr. Fischbach was aware of that when the permit was issued. The reason is that nowadays the manufacturers make them horizontal to be safer with the weight distributed on the seams of the panel. The change from vertical panels to horizontal panels does not change the length or life of the signs. The perso� working on the sign did not understand the conditions of the permit when he installed the steel stringers, and the steel stringers can be easily replaced with wooden stringers. it is a gross mischaracterization for Scenic Minnesota and the neighborhood groups to say that the billboard is iilegal. The sign is not illegal and it was constructed in conformance with the code at that time. There is a buiiding permit for it. At the question of Commissioner Mejia, Mr. McCarver stated the building permit was issued on October 24, 2002. LIEP didn't send any notice stating the work was done correctVy or incorrectly, presumably because of the pending hearing. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. McCarver stated he did receive the sign permit with all the conditions. He reiterated that the panel was of the same type of material, the stringers were wood, and the steel stringers can be removed. Marvin Liszt reiterated that the repairs and the maintenance of the sign was done in the same fashion as the face that was there. The onty mistake was that steel stringers were put up, but they can be removed. At the question of Mr. Soderholm, Mr. Liszt stated the vertical steel struts are part of the sign face to hold the panels together. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Liszt stated the sign has iwo faces and one of the fa�es was used continuously to advertise. The face in question here was used to advertise the Iogo of the company. Mr. Liszt stated that the general public does recognize the company's logo. In rebuftal, Rolf Nordstrom stated the case is not about wood or steel struts or how the sign was put together. Anything beyond changing the sign content is structural, and the Merriam Park Special District Sign Plan forbids signs to be altered in any way except changing the message. Zoning File # 02-241-717 December 12, 2002, Zoning Committee Mi�utes Page: 4 The Special Sign District Plans of the neighborhoods are allowed to be more restrictive than state law. This case is about whether or not the billboard repair permit was is in compliance with the Merriam Park Special District Sign Plan and whether or not St. Paul wants to enforce the sign plans. The sign does not compty with the ptan because fhey changed something other than just the content of the message. At the question of Commissioner Gordon, Mr. Nordstrom stafed that he �nderstooc! that special sign district regulations are allowed to be more restrictive than the state law. Jeff Fischbach, staff of LIEP, offered to answer questions. � At the question of Commissioner Mejia, Mr. Fischbach stated LlEP would require the company fF on a ermit until tfiey were sure zoning was compfied with. LIEP was waiting for the outcome of this case before orders to correct the method of construction were issued. At the question of Commissioner Alton, Mr. Fischbach stated that LIEP went by the State Statute to determine whether or not to issue the permit. in LIEP's opinion, the repiacement of the stringers and the sign face were permitted, provided there were no alternations or additions of materials from what was originally there. Wendy Zane, staff of LIEP, stated that the City Attomey's Office is consulted on e�rery biHboard case. She also explained that LIEP issues permits where issuance of a permit will most likely be held up in court. At the question of Commissioner Alton, Ms. Lane stated there is a fine line on whether or not a case will be upheld in court. LtEP bases its decision on the decisions of the Ptanning Commission, City Council, and the courts, all of whom provide guidance to LIEP. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner A(ton moved deniai of the appeal. Commissioner Mejia seconded the motion. Commissioner Gordon stated he would vote against the motion and stated if the motion was defeated he would make a motion to uphold the appeal because the nonconforming use was discontinued for more than one year within the meaning of state law. The replacement of structural elements violated fhe Merriam Park Special Disfrict Sign Plan, and there were the significant violations of the terms of the permit and the zoning code. Mr. Peter Wamer of the City Attomey's Office reiterated that state law altows for repairs to nonconforming uses. There are threshold questions that have to be answered. In the Merriam Park Community Council appeal the commissioners are going to have to decide whether the repairs covered by LIEP's permit have gone beyond the type and extent of repairs allowed by state law. The motion failed o� a vote of 3 to 3 with Commissioners Faricy, Gordon, and Kramer voting against. . z_ � Commissioner Gordon moved to uphold the appeal on the three grounds he gave before, any one of which would be sufficient to grant this appeal. Commissioner Faricy seconded fhe motion. o� -�08' • C� • Zoning File # 02-241-717 December 12, 2062, Zoning Committee Minutes Page: 5 The motfon fai(ed on a vote of 3-3 with Commissioners Alton, Morton, and Mejia voting against. Commissioner Afton moved to forward the case to the PVanning Commission without a recommendation. Commissioner Morton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Kramer voting against. Adopted Yeas - 5 Nays -1 (Kramer) Drafted by: Submitted by: Approved by: n_n� �1�� .Lt. � Carol Martineau Recording Secretary / v Yang Zhang Zoning Section Chair SAINT PAUL 1� AAAA � llCYAKl MbN 1 Uh YLANNINC* & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Mm-iha G. Ful[er, Dmector CITY OF SA1NT PAUL Rmrdy C. KeZZy, M¢yor December 26, 2002 Theresa Heiland Memam Pazk Community Council 1573 Selby Avenue, #311 St. Paul, MN 55102 1100 Cuy Hal[Almex 25 PlzstFowih Sveet SaintPaul, MNi5102 d7 -`O� Telephone. 612-266-6565 Facsunile: 612-228-3314 RE: Appeal of a sign pern�it issued by the ofFice of Licensing, Inspections and Environmental Protecrion (LIEP) to replace an existing biflboard sign face and trim with a new sign face and trim and also to replace the horizontal wood stringers for the east face at 1926 University Avenue West Zoning File #02-241-717 Deaz Ms. Heiland: The Saint Paul Planning Commission voted on December 20, 2002, to deny your appeal of a sign permit issued by the office of Licensing, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) to replace an existing billboard sign face and h with a new sign face and trim and also to replace the horizontal wood stringecs for the east face at 1426 University Avenue West. It was a difficult decision; a motion to grant your appeal failed on a vote of 8 to 8 at the Planning Commission. Subsequently, the motion to deny your appeal passed on a voice vote with one commissioner dissenting. Prior to that, as you lrnow, the Zoning Committee deadlocked 3 to 3 on your case and could not reach a recommendarion. Enclosed is the Planning Commission's resolution stating its fmdings. You �nll see in the second "RESOLVED" clause that the Commission is requesting LIEP to enforce sh the condition in the repair permit that the repair materials must be the same as the original materials. Clear ChannePs repairs violated this conditi4n. You may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the Ciry Council by filing an appiication and fee for appeal within fifteen days of the date o£this letter, that is, by January 10, 2003. An appeal should be based on what you believe to be an error in any fact, finding, or procedure of the Planning Commission. Enciosed is an appeal application. . AA-EEO Employer Zoaing File #02-241-717 Page 2 Please caIl me at 266-6659 if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance to you. Sincerely, Yang Zhang City Planner cc: File #02-24I-7I7 Zoning Administrator License Inspector District Community Council Cazo1 Martineau Chris McCarver Marvin Liszt Brian Bates Jeanne Weigum Jeff Fischbach Maii Date: December 26, 2002 AA-EEO Employer r � u � . nr�� on�� Q\a �e to Lr� o � Q .�. a,.,..,� ..�. ..r�.� � . .....� �� —�� • Board of Directors e�i�+raa�i �� Merriam Park X Go��nunity Council, Inc. 1573 Se@y Avenuc • Suite 311 • St. Paul � M'innesom • 55104 www.merriam-peik.org • ccmcrriamCa�agiliti.nct re1:651.645.65$1 • fax: 651.917.9991 Rolf Nordswm To: Yang Zhatzg, PBD staf£ Presiderst F.rous: Merriam Park Community Council Wayne Koeckcriv Re_ MPCC Billboard appeai, 1926 University Ave. !sx vue �.eai�nr Date: 18 December 2002 Nancy 0'$ricn Wa�er Znd Vke Presidenf David Eeimers Treavurcr Glrn McGuskey Seeretury .�.*+�, Dr. Angclinc Barsetta-Hermxn � Sr. Thomas Represeuareve Bob Hushard 6c[h Camillcri 7ohn Cuay DP/A Representarive Michacla Kronlage usr o�i.camy,u co��r Mac[ Lehmsn Usr A(6Campus Council Glcn McGuskey Nancy OBricn Wamer Doug Peine OP/A Represenranne Pcg Rich P+fary Tillman Our lady of Good Coaxcd Hnme Reyresentative Chip Wclling Unirer.riry UnireQ Rtpresen�Wive • Sta([ Tficrr,m Heiland Pragram Adminisnator Bzmadet[c Hcbert Bookkeeper Dear Ms. 7_hang: I am writing on behalf of the Merriam Qax•k Coznmuniry Council (Ml'CC) regarding the billboard appeal that will be on the Planning Commission's aoenda this Pziday. At the Deceznber 12` Zonni� Commissio�l Public Hearing, Cominissioner Gocdon niccly summari�ed three poants that reiterate MPCC's reasons for appealing the billboard pertttit issued for 192b University. 'Z'hose points paraphrased were: 1. The sigu was out o£use for morc dian one year, which violaYes non conformSng use regulations; 2. There was a cliai�ge icx the sipi's structural elements, Which violates the Merriam Parl< Di�itict Si�t Plan; and 3. CJear Chanuel violated the tenns of the permit i5sued by LIBP staff As recently affirmed by the St. Aaul Ciry Councii, St. Paul needs to dedicate itsei£to shictly enforcing its zoning codes. MPCC voted unanitnously to appeat this pennit based on a speeiat sign distriet plan and community �lan — b�th crafced from a great deal of community i�lput. Finally, since the city's overall policy is to ,,rradually reducc thc nuinber of billboards, granting tUis appeal would support the goals of tbat policy. Thanlc you for your rimc azid coasiderat7on on thls tnatter. Sincerely, Rolf Nordstrom, Presidenc Merriam Aazk Community Councxl �3 - 6 o�r ZONING COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT � F4LE # 02-241-717 1, APPLICANTS: Merriam Park Communiry Council HEARING DATE: 12/12/02 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Administrative Appeal 3. LOCATIONS: 1926 University Avenue, between Prior and Lynnhurst 4. PIN 8� LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS: (PIN 33-29-23-24-0033) UNION PARK LOT 162 (LIEP biliboard ref. # 170) 5. PLANNING DISTRICT 13 Merriam Park • • PRESENT ZONING B-3 6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §66.408(a); 66.101; 66.2166; 66.301; and 66.302 7. STAFF REPORT DATE: 12/OS(02 (revised '12f12(02) BY: Yang Zhang & Larry Soderholm 8. DATE RECEIVED: 11/20/02 DEADLINE FORACTION: 1/19/03 A. PURPOSE: Appeal of a sign permit issued by the office of Licensing, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) to replace an existing billboard sign face and trim with a new sign face and trim and also to replace the horizontai wood stringers for the east face. S. PARCEL SIZE: 5,600 square feet (40 feet on University by 140 feet deep) C. EXISTING LAND USE: Two-story mixed commercial and residential building with rooftop billboard D. SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Oif+ce building across University Avenue (B-3) South; Apartment building across the alley (B-3) East: Mixed commercial and residential building (B-3) West: Mixed commercial and residential building {B-3) E. ZONING CODE CITATIONS: §66.4Q8(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 appeai this decision to the planning 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. §66.101 states the general purposes of the sign chapter of the zoning code. §66.301 lists the purpose of the sign code with respect to nonconforming signs. §66.301(2) prohibits reconstruction of a nonconforming sign if the sign or sign structure is destroyed to an extent greater than 51 percent of its replacement cost. §66.302 refers to the previous "Move to Conformance" program with sign credits. §66.2166 contains provisions of the Merriam Park Special District Sign Plan, with restrictions on nonconforming signs Iisted under 66.2166(e). Zoning File # 02-241-717 Sfaff Report December 5, 2002 (revised December 5, 2002) Page 2 of 5 F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: LIEP issued a sign permit for replacement of the existing sign face and trim with a new sign face and trim, and also the wood stringers, on October 24, 2002 subject to a condition. A complaint was received shortly after that there were people working on the billboard atop the building who appeared to be doing structural work and welding. G. DISTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATIONS: Merriam Park Community Council is the appellant. H. FINDINGS: • . n c o er sign face and trim of the east side of a V-shaped, rooftop biliboard at 1926 University Avenue. The west side of the V-shaped bifiboard 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 October 24, 2002, Jeff Fischbach of the LIEP staff issued a permit for the billboard subject to the condition that "All repair materiais must be of the same fijpe as the original materials, no addition or substitution of materials allowed." Work on the biliboard was then done by a Clear Channel crew on October 25. On November 20, the Merriam Park Community Council appealed the issuance of the sign permit by LIEP on the grounds that (a) the biliboard is illegal; (b) the permit was contrary to provisions of the zoning code, including but not limited to section 66.302; (c) the permit 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 City staff responses to these 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 legal. Since the adoption of the new billboard regulations in 2000, all biliboards in the city have become nonconforming uses. But almost all of the billboards in the city are legai nonconforming uses that were either built with building permits or were grandfathered by virtue of having been built before 9956. Old buiiding 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 retrieve a building permit. An aerial photograph from 9979 showed that this sign was there at that time. Statf have asked Clear Channel if the company has historical documentation on this sign. The Merciam Park Communiry 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. o� _�a� � Zoning File # 02-241-717 Staff Report December 5, 2002 (revised December 5, 2002) Page 3 of 5 The biliboard face had an Eller Media Co. logo sign. The logo was a"Ieaning square" with a red band across the top, a blue band across the boftom, and "eller media" befween them. Sometime after Elfer Media was boughf by Clear Channel Oufdoor and ceased to exist as a company, the words "eller media" were painted out, leaving a white background wifh only the blue and red stripes. The sign was apparentiy withouf words for at least a year from, perhaps, July 2001 through September 2002. Thus the appellant argues that the billboard during this period was not advertising a business because the bus+ness no longer existed. On the other hand, the sign was a stretch- over, re-useable material in excellent condition, not a paste-up paper sign that had faded or pealed. The sign was neither unsafe, nor unsightly, nor abandoned; accordingly, under Section 66.3�1 the sign may continue as a legal nonconforming use subject to certain conditions. The appellant claims that the permit is contrary to section 66.302 of the zoning code, which states that advertising signs to be replaced, relocated or renovated must be on zoning Iots where advertising signs are a permitted use. City staff believe that replacement of an old, but undamaged sign face is a maintenance activity as permitted by state statute, not a replacement or renovation of the advertising sign. � Section 66.302 of the code refers primarily to the previous "Move to Conformance" program with sign credits for the relocation of billboards, a program which was eliminated in 2000 when the most recent billboard amendments were adopted. Although the "Move to Conformance" program is dead, there is a plausible argument that the replacement of a sign face is the same thing as replacement or renovation of an advertising sign. The city staff regard sign face replacement as different from advertising sign replacement because: (a) billboard companies have for decades done sign face replacements every ten years or so as a routine maintenance activity; and (b) the cost of the sign face panels and the surrounding fiberglass trim kits (picture frames) are cheap (approximately $800) in comparison with the sign structure (bed pan secured to building rooftop, angle iron A-frames with bracing, electrical service, catwalk, stringers). The city staff do treat sign face replacement as renovation, which is prohibited under this section, when a sign face has been damaged beyond fifty percent of its replacement cost. This treatment is in accordance with the Ramsey County district court decision about storm-damaged signs on Grand Avenue. Thus, the city stafE positior� is that sign face repfacement 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 iiself to be the cause of deterioration through preventing routine maintenance since the state statute explicitly permits the maintenance of nonconforming uses. 7. The appellant ciaims the issuance of the permit was contrary to the City's policy of � gradually removing billboards through attrition. It is true thaf sign faces are the shortest-lived component of bittboards. Prohibiting their repiacement would certainly accelerate the attrition process. But the city staff believe that this would unduly Zoning File # 02-241-717 Staff Report December 5, 2002 (revised December 5, 2002) Page 4 of 5 undermine the value of billboard companies' investments and, as a legal matter, would not be a reasonable regulation of a nonconforming use to protect the public welfare. � 8. The appellant claims that the billboard repair permit violates the Merriam Park Special Sign District Plan. in the special sign district, Section 66.2166(e) on nonconforming advertising signs prohibits alteration, sign repiacemenf, 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, the city staff regard the wood stringers (three 2 X 6 boards) as structural elements, , �� •°`- —'--- � •- - -- -_:-_ ._ «._ . od strinqers constitutes a violation of the Merriam Park Sqecial Sign District Plan. City staff do not regard bitiboard sign faces as structural elements. 9. On October 28, a citizen's complaint was received that workers were doing welding work for the rooftop biliboard, tJpon close inspection of the newly constructed billboard face, staff found the following: a) The interlocking sign face panels are horizontal instead of vertical as they have been in the past; b) The new face panels are ciipped to each other and are secured by two top-to- bottom vertical struts made of galvanized steel. Before, there were no vertical struts. The previous sign face panels were attached directly to the horizontal wood stringers by metai clips. c) The vertical metal struts are secured by bolts to the vertical angle iron A-frame structure. d) New horizontal angie iron stringers have been added. As an apparent gesture toward the condition on the permit, replacement wood stringers have also been installed, but they are redundant and cosmetic. The vwood stringers appear to have no function. By changing the materials and adding vertical metal struts and horizontal angle iron stringers, Clear Channel has violated conditions of the sign permit. The sign permit issued by L1EP was for replacement of the stringers, sign face, trim contained the condition that, "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 Chapfer of the Zoning Code provides regulations for nonconforming signs. Section 66.301(a) on nonconforming signs reads: `No sign shall be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconformity except for temporary extensions on billboards as permitted in paragraph 7 of this section." 7he Merriam Park sign district regulations, Section 66.2166(e)(1)(a) provides that no nonconforming advertising sign "shall be altered in any way, other than changing fhe message on a painted or printed sign." Tfie changes in fhe method of construction described in finding 8 violate these provision. They are alterations of the biliboard that are designed to e�end the life of the sign. � r u b� -�os� Zoning Fi1e # 02-241-717 StafE Report December 5, 2002 • Page 5 of 5 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: PED staff recommend the following: (1) �enia} A�provai of Merriam Park Community CounciPs appeai of the sign permit issued by LIEP for the replacement of the wood stringers and the sign face and trim on the easf side of the V-shaped rooftop biliboard at 1926 University with reaard to the replacement of the wood stringers which are structural eiements. Based on the findings 9-t{irectgh 1. 2. 3 and 8, PED stafF think the permit was issued improperly for allowina the reolacement of structural elements. However, staff do reqard the replacement of billboard face panels as permitted reqular maintenance (2) Strict enforcement of Merriam Park Special Siqn District Plan, which prohibits the by LIEP statin that, "�his�as . All repair materials must be of the same type as the original materials, no addition or substitution of materials is aliowed-." should be enforced. Based on the findings 9 and 10, PED staff think the work done on this billboard are significant violations of the terms of the permit and of the Zoning Code. � � � APP�ICATGOAI FC3R APPEAL � Departmertt aj P/axning and Economic �eveFOpmext Zoning Secriou I7 pp Ciry Hal! Annex • 25 Wes1 Founh Srreef Saiar Paa(, MN SS1D1 16d-65&9 APPPLLANT PROPERTI` LOCATiON Name Merriam Park Community Council I Address 1573 Selby Avenue, #311 j I City St. Paul, MN z 55102 Qaytime phone 651.645. � � , � Zoning File Name �� AddresslLocation I NE sign face at 1926 University Avenue (University and Prior) 7YPE OF APPEAL: App�ication is hereby made for an appeal to the: � Board of Zoning Appeais ❑ City Council Under the provisions of Chapter 64, Section 66.2166 Paragraph(s): (d) Pro`visions: 2, (e) Non-conforming advertising signs: 1a, 1e, 2b of the Zoning Code, to appeai a decision made by the City of St. Paul office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection (LIEP) on October 24, . 2002. Fife number: , � �? (g_ggc � p_��_� Gi20UNDS FOR kPPEAt� Explain why you feel there has been an errar in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made 6y an administrative officiai, or an etrar ir+faet, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeafs or the Pianning Commission. 1) The biltboard is illegai. 2) LIEP's issuance of the permit is contrary to provisions of zoning code including but not limited to SEC 66.302. 3) {t is contrary to the city's policy to graduaiiy removing billboards through attrition. 4) The billboard violates the Merriam Park District Special Sign Plan instituted on October 13, 1999. At:ach adddiona/ shaet iI Applicant's signature ��/ � �� /�--^�" Date r� u' Oz City egent � � � � 'vf^�mun.�, � � v� Cv— b7 -��8" CITY OF ST. PAUL OFFICE OF LICENSE, INSPEC710NS AND ENVtRONMENTAL PROTECTION ' 350 ST. PETER STREET, SUITE 300 ST. PAUL, MINNES07A 55 7 02-1 5 7 0 PROJECT ADDRESS _" �" BILLBOARD PERMIT APPLICAT►ON �a ; ,,�?33 91 � �sit our eb Site at www.ci.stpaul.mn.uslliep . Qc�r �_ �t�' � �7� c�ouiractor /�� U.u��`�Q,I �w-l.L��,1.�C. Caare�t � L2S <p�,,,,;�,rittbei l. ry SP•,,,� ,5,; Include Contact Person C�i.. •S ,/K��-d r'^-c/ State, Zip<4 �� /• J a ,s �,�1 !" Business / Owner C� ,yI n Address , Y-�" Uc. G�S G�07i Ciey �Y✓�.[. as F.. J. Include Contact Person S�aee, Zip+4 ` NewBiliboard AI[erExisting Biliboard Es�imaredStartDate EsamatedFinishDat Biliboazd Demolition ❑ ❑ ❑ /l� ev �l z vv Cpa=� �/�lo:..de..a-�C.0 Billboard (Advertfsing Sign) Information -"— !D /d'' oZ :d W the ConnacroPs Addras) phone �-� 2 Nx�. SS y(3 6DS—S/!JU , Phone EST[MATED VALUE OF PROIEC"C � 3,� Z �f Z�' � �.necx a ncanie �ox. m�tboara lota! S uare r'oolage Billboard Dimensions Free Standing Wall ❑ Roof� � � J t � Wi t ¢ng� e�_ ove ra e "�� r�.- / Z X � !1 id.Y �� J Fill out [his section for Electrical BiLlboard. Description of ProjecY Distance to Nearest Billboa�d ��` �� on the same side of the shee[ Note: A separate Etectrical Permit is REQUIRED when the BiIlboard is eteccical! t�� (Ia et): � Electrical Corttractor: phone #: 6+ �/pd a� �Q.f-l' ��'-� s�.�c-�s. �✓ Review Z0� Required Approved Plan Review Remarks SUMMARY OF �"Jt- `�sc;�r-�r b� c.x-�6, � �7�r. ys*'i , •Q!I' �.,,,f�,.)�_ f Billboard Permit uY E.c-b� ��-- Scstr- Fee ��.� � s r`� z "' $� ka T✓ �1`i c+.7 at^ �d,�jtia j$TA� �� G�. �r�`�Paa.- P1anCheckFee $ N « Date Applicant certifies that all information is ordinances wit! be corr�plted withln�p pertinent state regulations and city for which [his percnit is issued. Date Please complere payment. BE ro.n .z y Permit Fee � $ �'� � � FAX IT� Wocld you like your permit ��.€a�ed to you? If yes, enter £as � Date: • - � 07 -�� 'BILLBOARD / SIGN CITY OF SAINT PAUL Office of License, InspeMion & Ertvironmentat ProMction PERNIIT #:20 02 233912 35 Sa nt Pau1SMN s s�oze � Issued Date: October 24, 20Q2 PHONE: (651) 266 �� FAX: (651) 266-9 CONTRACTdR: p�yNEg CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR 3225 SPRING ST NE MPLS MN 55413-2908 ARTHUR P MEISEL TRUSTEE 1547IDAH0 AVE W STPAiJL MN 55108-2118 PERMIT ADDRESS: 1926 UNIVERSITY AVE W ST PAUL MN 55104-3426 SUB TYPE: Billboazds WORK TYPE: Commercial Repair/Alter Replace e�cisting sign face and trim with a new sign face and trim. Permit is valid only for the NE-face with C.C. Control #0 Estimated Value of Work 3624.28 Estimated Start Date Nov 1, 2002 Estimated Completion Date Nov 2, 2002 Billboazd Type Roof � Billboard Sq Ft 300 Billboazd Width 12 Billboard Length 25 Biliboazd Height 46 Sign Credits 0 Sign Credits Used 0 FEES Fee 136.24 �TOTAL 136.24 � This sign face has only wooden stnngers All repair materials must be of the�same type as the original materials, no addifion or substitution of materials allowed. The inspector assigned to this Pernut is Steve T, who can be reached at 651-266-9023 between 730 AM and 9.00 AM Monday through Friday 1 1 U o� �co s� - -- - - - -- - - -- - _ -- ---- - -- � - - -- - - - -. .. -.. - - �, - - -, --- �--- --- - -- ) �' � �.,w-uz�.��"� r � 'Y�>'Zr�� ; �� ` -�- ----- - - -- - — - - - - - -- - --- ----- - --- - --- I"�r�c�.t-�- �� - ------_ _ _ - - - - — __-- - - - - 1�, a !�.��.-�`...� - - -- --- -- - - - - -- ---- - -- - - ---- l �� S d-�-�Ce SL 7'/'� � �y, _ 7 3G , � o • � �'�'r`- -��- _ - - - ----- - -- - - ----_ _.._. _ 1 � , 7 S _- - - - ----- �ct, k✓ ° �f$� - � = � �o' Z J� 1 ., : Szs " S�-r�,r�:r vz.la �j 2, t 2_ - ----- ---- � ? �-� '� � -- - --� �_� -� - - -- - -- -- - - - \ �T'cr^C 0 �� L Z � (�i� o- .�'�i. � 5 �' a 5 4'. �'� �-----`------'-° - - - ----- -------------- -----' �- - - ---� ------ -- - I , � . �A . __.-__ __._'_ - I.-CJ_� . __ .__ _ _.'.____ . ____ .___. __... __'. __ .__ _ .. a J � '�:7 =% G� - - -- -- ----- -- .� tib- -�` �� — — - -- -' - - ---- � - � . -• - - � (�U ,t!'�y1s�VL�C. - --- -�-�� - - - - / _ _ _ . __._..._. _.__ . ___ _ . .. ._ I � �- cr`� �Y✓v'.� '_ ��YJ , G`'J . - - _ _.. - I L� `��,� U .;y e Ys.f'.�, - '°-t � v ` � � �1,��-��.. �`� v �..£� -� - � G ✓ � � _. __ - - - - - - ---- - -�_--. � gc � v - � -- — � � �O 7 - ��-'-�� -- I S'�tl 6 !7 �,� ..L�-=.-� �t�' i~ J !t — -- —` ll�.y. 7=i �3��'.�� l9 zG (�iu��,�c� ��a /�!`...us „ IN-�'ZA F" nFPi A F�i�'�i'i' OST L� 7)��RFC'jAT10N 11 SIT'F PROC lRFMrNT: - 2 faces @ .�i�r� fact. 7desH .r� � Total sita procuzement - - - � 2) BASI STR "RTRF ATFRiAT 4 - Purchase of besic stntcture, including uprights and fa�cia: -EsIImatedcost------------------------ SS2�'� , r � -DeIiverycharge- ---------------------- 3�6%u0 -Sa�est3YCQ _ $ 3�f3wt7 SUBTOTAL SS�`SL-•� - Labar to mmove basic maLerials fzom trucic; in-skop fabricarion and assembly; ia-shop P��S - 3 man crew @ zo hours @ � ��- ---�------�-------------- 3/32�-,�� , S T RTOTAi. -------- - - - - ------ - ------ ------ - ---- S 7e�G<eo 41 NA TT /FARRICATF F0��77Vrfi �7V� STRUCTITRF �'p/Q�,V SITF �tv� Dj rC HQLF: - Proc�3uze includes (a) crew & equipmeat necessary to baul sErucrure & maf$riFCI to site and -(b) employ an auge: to dig bole and haul dizt: (a) _ m.an crew @ hours @ �_lhr. tfl dig hoFe snd haul dizi ----------------- - - ---------5 (b) use of auger for � houts (�a ��r• 5 - Lsbor to fabricate footings at site and pour conerete £ootings at site. - _ _. man czew @ hours @ � ..1�•-------------------------- s - � yazds cnncrece @ ,'�_Jyd. - - - - - - - - - - S� - Equipment reqaired: . (a) one �uck @ _ kours @�_/hr. ------------------ (b) one uvck @ _ hours @�_/hr•-- �_ 5 ��f,i „ �; � ,�°G/..G�=� ��r�� • Pa�f � APPP.AISAL # • L�CATIi)N #. / S zG � dr�,�.�i��iz,-�-i �� t='%�'">---��-' O�-� �ti��/L�l�l:T7i• �tt E ` < . - � • � �I i F�7:T.`F�� 1' ' . : �. �il l: • . i� - IncIudes aSSembly of fasci� stringen, platforms, laddezs, brackeis, eic. On-site. - l man cmw @�f U hotus @ �? �•-------------------------- S 3f`ae,vc7 , �>.,�-,l P? '- C.G ! c�- I ,v !:. s � / 7'u >ot) %- N--,�'_ &�.�.... �=� �1 c .' � s � j�.,. • - �quipmenL Sequired: (a) oae �3p� ra truck @�a hours @��•----------------� S �ao,v-a (b} one �L w tt� � @ s{ G hours @`� `�� lbr_-----=----------- 3 /e��rrJ G, o-z T�'��' a-�t. l G�,i.-� 3 2a .crc� a� � susr�ra�. ------------------------------------ s'�� Page 2 oz ��PRAISAL � �+ � . LL`CATI�N'� f SZ�a /�.m..�,-a?r'fa �t �'°,"° ' �...� i; ' _� td . k,_.._�_ - - � ►E�_! G�1�i !. : A lu0 : � • - Purcuase of basic electrical s.a2erial incIuding light fixtures, balIasts, lamps, boxes, hangers, brealces, clocks, miscallaaeotu items such as canduii and cannectors, clamgs and ciips, etc. @ S �13J � 3 D _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ � 3S•vca f� � f>•••�t 1 S l/rie3 - Load and unlosd equipment at site = a 2 man czew @ �.- hou:s each (a� S "�I � /hr. - - - ; 3G6.cD - InstaIl ele�trical panels, run conduic, pull wire, instal fixrvres and ball�ts: - Z man crew I �v � S 5 /hr. --��------ ------__g�e��J,�-"� • - Equipment required: {aJ one 1.�=r�t truck � � v hovrs @S �`� lbr. 3 ��'rr-� (b) one J%�: �`�f truck @ y� hours @s �'� / S �`�a (c) one truck @ hours li �3 �Qxz. ----------------- � SLR�7'O'j'�i """""'-'-""-'-"-'-'-"""-- SJ�76./�`O � aP�ix�TS�., � _ - . LOCATI�Pd � ty � �. Jlt`r.��-�� ,`'�� J�.u� p� _�o� r � "---- �. :'.. : ►tt. s-- — . � ' � - _:----�.��_ ! .�- � : l l: • : G��;�� - Crew co paint uprigfitg inciuding s�uctuzai st�l, taddess, sttiagers, �im, cic., all items �S fascia - � man crew @ a' `7 houis @ � I_Z- /hr.-------------------------5 S 7L�vo - Equipment reqvire$: (a) one mick cequired far a"� hours@�_/hr- --------5 �+��J�rrJ SUT S J�S �Da � MISCFLLA�'.OtTS: Feratitcosts---------�----------------- S /�j Soilstests ---------------------------- $ r�'J� SUB'�OTAI. -------------- S'.�•,''cs� 33IRr �T/HARD REYROI)T1CTI�PZ COST ¢TE:�fS 2-'� - - - - - S �� Crj+�Tr�i[�7:4 The above costs are for jabor nd raw mate 'als oniv sud do not include "indirect costs" including such items as ( standazd overhead aIlowance and (2) entrepreneuriaUprofii --- as explained in the narrxtive of the reporc- � Page 4 e • Lf3�A1'I�N # i� + } J J �{ -' _ !�Ll�1 F.��///G�iG �! // ?rj,y f��' 4-�' ! � fM � 'I�tT _ __� _� s4y, t�� :' • ; '' � � r •. � ( i } Site procuzement - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ r, 70� , � � age 1) (2) Ia'g1a�a mnia�ement (dire�t cosi} = S Z33 .v � (p� es I, 2, 3& 4) Sabtotal -------------^ ---- ----------Say, S �.�3�,c-� Overhe.ad/contlactoz's allowaace @ � -- S( 3�o � ��5 %""" Entrcpreneuriat profit @ � f °/-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S G � ) J , v� LESSBEPRECIATIOIYALLOWANCES ---- (53-:'°,��} COSTIVEW ---------------SAY, ��2 ' : � � � !tu • ! Ai3er cansidering: (1) acLztal age of the ia-place outdoor advertising s�uciure and - (2) re�D�xizing the st�ict maintenaace sche:3ule sppTied to autdoor advasising structures and - (3) the conditicn and quaiity of construcdon and - (4) the Iocation and e�onomic life eXpectancy of the outdoor adveztising structure ---- We have arrived at the canclusion that the ovezall depreciation estimate of 1> %a * should be applied or as follows: TOTAL DEPRECIATIQN ESTIMATE - - - 3af�' + * NOTE: D'E�'R�CIATION IS I S % OF DII�ECT COST (DEPRECIABLE ASSETS) ('�N T7 IO �'O'�'AL REPLACEMEh"T COST NEW ------ g,� y� 3, z'e �r-�o��,. • u I'�PLACEMENT CflST LE55 I?EPRECIATIQN VALUE - Say, S�G �'i e- i�,*�� Page� LDCATIf�1V # O� -�� - � � � ki� • '� 1 � i � � � � � �� ! : ��ss �• • t �2) SiteprocvremeuY ------------�r 3�;� In-pi'ac� renlacameni (direct cost) = S �S�G -a-o (page 1) (pages 1, 2, 3 & 4) Subtotal -------------------^--------•Say, � 11DGG•o-v OverheadJcan�actots allowance @ `�� % - - - - - - - - 5 �f 5� � � Entrnpreneurial grofit � l b °i-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - s aYa 7, vU RFp LACEMENTCOS'FNEW---------------3AY, S1�� '+ : �*♦ tfu• t After considering: � (1) actuat age of the in-ptace outdoor advertising stzucture and - (2} recogni2ing the sirict ma;ntenanc� schedule applied to outdoor advertising struchu�es and - (3) the condition and qvality of consuuction and - (4) the location and economic life eXpectancy of the autdoor adveriising structure ---- We have atri,ved at the canclusion tbai the overall depreciation estimate of a D %* should be agplied or as foilows: TOTAL DEPRECIATI�N ESTJ114ATE --- /S� 3� �v + * 1\'�TE: DEPRECIATIOlY IS .�_°1, OF DIRECT COST (DEPR�CLABLE ASSETS) C(lrI i�TOIyS: — �pp-io.rtv.pa • 2'OTAL REPLACEME1vT COST NEW - - - - - - 5 /85�5.3•�0 LESSDEPRELTATiONALLOWANCES ---- (S �`��j' REPLACEn2ENT CflST LESS DEYRECIATION VALUE - Say, a/G ��' - Q Page � of5 — � -- � -- . - - -- ---'= _ -- — — --> �'�r-�,,-'.,� • r_'�- �'_�_-6'�'.�=, G�� Z� «_-__._ 1 r rr � --° __ �'��: / �' ._1_" _�....-�< ' _ ,�.t s� �s�t...i-' � _.__— ^—#._' _ -_ �_`_'—_____'_.._' '_._.�._...___..-._._ ._ ,�� ` ' °' -_ � �o �C�� .?� r�,��.��_ �`l� � =�=' __.___�,�__ _.______._--- -- - �S ! ( � �( � � i C.�'`�c.�°.=.-�-G�r. zG ? , G � . ------- Jt� ��d?�, r'�+�--a�. r — � � �2 : °,,� �. > ° ��f X_lu .elu �' �- --- r��- 5 � _ a '4� �a ; a� �I xse �_ ��s � �,'�=s - ----._ ___`` `�' " �'— -----� - - _��,�� --_---- � ---� � � �o-' t� y� _�_�________. � — G� Lr= � � � __.—��__ '�--- i � " --------_._.. ._. __. l � f ^y�"'a EL� �.5 o:l'c.� �K.�O � - z 4� ir.-: r%�.�+,.�- 3 s � ��-U ------.�.-- - ---_.--_.�_.. _-- --------- - ------- r . _,� , . V , __ , - � a ? .,, ;., 1 �n_ �_> -=;:L.:,,.+� 1.._ �'� � c � �----- -._--------- ' . , L , .� � ! ,��- ------------=------' i ' �---------- ----- --- �l o �+w%'�r -� =. �. j � c. � , �_----- —.__ _ 1 �.. ` � _ � < _ � 3 -�' � `�5 ��,+ � il �� ° ti-' / � + J � °- �.-° £ �r r � —__ _—_ __"__ ! [.� � r_: : W�_ - e ,r i � vc',`, _ j �^ - .'1� .'S ! j :�if . s � � • ' �'�.. ' � "_'"___'"__"_"_"'_""_'"_'"'_"_"_""'"""_' _. __�_.__`___'___ _ "_" 7 � , l _ (� t l % � L�.l ,, '✓`�-'s, ti.P. =-� f' j'.�a�.+•-_sR _" � y s G� '_"'__"`_�..—"—'�.—"___ ' -r --_'____'__!"'_'_"_"__ "' __"-_ "__ __ _�_"'_'—__' _ _______" " ' _ ' _ __�_� _1_ _��.�.CC� _'„' -` 1 .Er".� '��: � +1.-.. � :' p a --.- _ __.___.._ . ?�,�tF v r'^ _-'.�� =' 1,�z-`: �� — 3:4 u t:r.} --• - - -_ -- - - --- -- -- — --- ----- , -- -- � -- 3; � ;^-�, 5� - u ; -- ----------- `'''-- �_'�------ — - - — - ' -- ----- - -- �� .-�.%;d� �y, - - -- -�-�-----=- --- . _ _ _ - - - -- Y"`�"^r4'r G�h..�- s�..-9 ^ C�%,s �� - - L-� j � �`" - - -- — -- � _,�.>_` r_.__ � � "��? :i ;,,f A �� -- -- - / ��.5='_� -- -- . ,- - -� r - �"; ;., �`°�a � � �_� . Y `�s+�� '< �' _ �' � � z � ) f � � • b� - �os� • Ref#170 1926 University Ave f� � • � Ref#170- 1926 University Ave ; � 10-22-02 ' �� s � b� ,�o� • -- - - - - --- - - --- - -- - Previous Method of Construction � • -.._ —� .--�. -� n y �� Ref#363- 658 Rice Street 10-22-02 Ref#170- 1926 University Ave 12-5-02 � � D'J - • - Ref#170- 1926 University Ave 12-5-02 Glip Connection � � � > Q � � .� L Q� � � N � � � � N d� � � � u �� -�ob� r � �� - � x �' �:'<__ .� . .. t ' � .. . Ref#170- 12-5-02 926 University Ave G4ip Connection � C�3 -Co� • CITIZEN PARTICIPATION DIS RICTS C� 1.SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK-HIGHWOOD 2.GREATER EAST SIDE 3.WEST SIDE 4.DAYTON'S BLUFF 5.PAYNE-PHALEN 6.NORTH END 7.THOMAS-DALE 8.SUMMIT-UNIVERSITY 9.WEST SEVENTH lO.COMO 11.HAMLINE-MIDWRY ST. ANTHONY 13 RRIAM PK.-LEXINGTON HpMLINE .GROVELAND-MACALESTER 15.HIGHLAND 16.SUMMIT HILL 17.DOWNTOWN � CTTIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS � :�.::.:-.,:...�.:._:.� � s° s � C� � �.�. : j" �.� . � :e � : �� , - � - '��i��,^ r �� J�?OS� '_E 1:�� DF,Tc _?dG. D'ST P,tA? � �� _ o � �� ' �' �E�=�� O'� ��oFT zo;,iny d:slric( b�und?ry Gii'7l1IT72 s��jed p;c��„y 0 on; fz,-;;� e r•�:o lz„ �� filUiii�:?(?-1i{� ��,�^ 1 �� . � n co,^ 4 .� F. i'l�U>i'id' `� V2�2"1: Snelling Hamline Community 1573 Selby Avenue, Suite 311 Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 Board of Directors rravt: snia.. Vl.wltlenC 5nicley R.i�•� Fir_p Yice rro:ident co.�, r,�,��m, 5econci Vl�.� rrrident Srik ��•>>�ana S-e�-��ary nrn, .wlenmvi Tzcaeuzez Ya�e, ?..hang PED Gity of Saint Pxul 1400 City Rall Annex 25 WestFourth Street Saint Paui, MN 55102 Fcbruary 5, 2003 b� —�op' Council � �' ueorae ,n�rganacn �:=«r�.� �_ ��?� RF.: Zon+ng File #43-249-323 �••••• Merriam Park Community Councii hillboazd appeal ax L4VC�'� A�uqnn 1926 University Avenue. - �in GOIDO Rrnec OLr:ane�Caao Ms. Zhang: Uevyd f�rnCli �. �;o��r, � 'fhe Sncliing Hamtine Community Councii J3oard of Directors reaffirms its a��. n.��«= support [br the Merriam Park Community Councils appeal claiming that e=��r �a�� r,oning codc dcaes not ailow rcplacement c>f si�n faces or strin�er boards. Dan J'tier� ,;,�> Tobievh The Sneiling Hamline Cvmmunity Councii Board �f Directors respeetfulty T°° "°'"""' requests that the Gity Council grant thc Merriam Park Community Councils appeat and uphvid the rules and regulaCions of the Saint Vaul5pecial Sign District. Very truly you , ' " % � . / "" 'I'ravis Smder -� Board Ptesident www , sncl l. Yiam _ oz•g 651-64 n-1.085 shcc@snellham-org ZO"d d0£=i0 £0-50-4ad � . 1 . �'�^� �':3 � � ,', ,; �; '. ,�� : �,: � ��; � ;�. , x � �� f � � �V'a l< S _ '+, f .,. 1,_ ..f ._ Y €��.�.�{...� � (� _ � ^}.:' .. � � � � , � �,.r:.'_ r� . . _ .. �' _ � �� l � y �� _ �-. i . r i. S � . .1 ,. " I � � ..�f '� '.; �� D� Ref#170- 1926 University Ave 10-22-02 � .., _ � ��. ,� �%'' ; - ,� � 'A �� ` � � ' �. � �� ,, i- t �: ' � � � � f � ' � � � i b Y "� °.t�. U ` �~`-��' w ' t � ��' E �2 �� _ • � ' � � � �� Z ! : ( � ',:_ , , ' �� ' � � ' _ . � � ```':``a ys`yaa 4 � y : ?� � ��a � a ,r" ��' � >>a °� �^ �' "` e e • � e g4 � 6�� \�O ` '� � T '� � � rl � ' rY � � .. � � ,'. �,. � � ::; ,. ... � '; � ;�,; " � . l. A , � �� _ ` , � ,, ,�� ,... � � . ✓ " E , � .�-_ ' "�-�' � : � � �` ' ,, � � - �: � r«"_ .�/ � ��. .J � �: ,1 �; �..�� , i��.. �° j ��;, � �- �� _ _ �:�� - � "� �. .► _ - � � ; _ � � . , i � E � � �� 1 � � �� ,\ 1\ �. _- - r/ � � ,.�.. ,.. . - �- p r,> t r. �.. . g'; Y �= ", � ; z F, �� G : = � 'i �. w � �. j�' i r � 1 »^2 � ` `z.: � n ' + 3^" �� tt.. ✓a S A �� }�� f ^�i5 rv W � x'Y . . . .�nP%!tl ...... � � N �� — ' � ` � • 9+ .. �� . . . � � . ..:a�e . . . _. � . c.?i} � i � �i�'i�`I'��'�j�,�j��I'��j�,1�`�'�'►►� �tt'i' ._ ,_ �1 � Tj��h, � �!�►�,�.�/, ��, d��+,+��,�h,l �►� _ , � �; .,�, M. ' ��; ►� � �o sr ' b -� _�o� Interdepartmental Memorandum CITY OF SAINT PAUL DATE: June 3, 2003 TO: Nancy Anderson Council Research FROM: Peter Warner City Attorney's Office RE: MerriamPazkCommunityCouncilAppealmemorializingResolutionhanddelivered to you June 3, 2003. Nancy: Would you please subsritute the attached page for page 4 of the Resolution sent down to you today. The page four that I sent to you contains a typo (although it is an amusing typo) that should be conected with the insertion of the attached sheet. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. .� � AA-ADA-EEO Employer � �