The URL can be used to link to this page

03-914Council File # � ' 7 � GreenSheet# 3ODSS9� RESOLLITION CITY OF SAINT PAUL, NIIl�TNESOTA Presented By Referred To �9 Committee: Date 2 WHEREAS, on or about October 4, 2002, Cleaz Channel Outdoor, Inc. (hereinafter 3 "Cleaz Channel") applied to the Department of Licenses, Inspections and Environmental 4 Protection (hereinafter "LIEP") for a permit to repair and maintain a billboazd located at 1521 5 Selby Avenue; and 6 7 8 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, in a letter dated October 31, 2002, from LIEP denied the pernut request on the basis that the sign had not been maintained, was unsightly, had been removed and abandoned; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 2002, Cleaz Channel pursuant to the provisions of Legislative Code § 66.408 appealed the decision of LIEP to the Piam�ing Commission (Zoning File 02-243-782); and WHEREAS, on January 16, 2003, the Planning Commission Zoning Committee conducted a public hearing where a11 persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard and at the close of the hearing, considering the report of staff and all the testimony, forwarded the matter of the appeal to the full Pi2miiug Commission without a recommendation; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2003, the full Planning Commission took up the matter of Clear Channel's appeal and, at the conclusion of their discussions, laid the matter over until Febriiary 14, 2003, for the purpose of obtaining an opinion from the City Attorney's Office on the matter of one vs. two shuctures; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2003, a memorandum contauung the opuuon of the City Attorney on the issues raised was presented to Planning Commission members; and WHEREAS, on April 11, 2003, the Plaiming Commission moved to deny the appeal of Clear Channel and to incorporate into the Commission's findings the memorandum from the City Attorney's Office with the Commission's findings set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 03-34 as follows: 1. On October 4, 2002, LIEP received a billboard repair pernut application from Clear Channel Communications ("Cleaz Channel") to allow repair of a southwestern face of the advertising sign on the building at 1521 Selby Avenue. On October 31, 2002, LIEP sent a letter to Clear Channel denying their request for a billboard repair pernut. LIEP stated their records indicate this advertising sign face was destroyed/removed from this location around November, 1999, and there is no record of an application for a sign repair permit prior to the October 4, 2002, request. 6 3 -91'� 2 4 2. Section 66.214 prohibits advertising signs in any zoning district in the City. 5 Secrion 66.2167(d)(2) of the code states that no advertising signs shall be pernutted within the 6 Snelling - Hamline Special Sign District. A billboazd at tlus location is non-conformiug under 7 both Sections 66.214 and 66.2167(d)(2) of the zoning code. 8 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 3. Section 66.2167(e) of the code states the requirements of non-conforniing signs in the Snelling - Hamline Special Sign District. Subsection (e)(2)(c) states that a non-confoiming sign shall be immediately removed from the Snelling - Hamline Special Sign District at the cost of the owner if use sign has been discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive months. Minnesota Statute 462357 Subd. le states that "any nonconfornuty, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises e�sting at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this cbapter, may be discontinued, including the repair or maintenance but if the nonconfornuty is discontinued for a period of more than one yeaz ... any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a confornung use or occupancy." LIEP has determined by its records that the sign has been discontinued since November, 1999, which is over 2-1/2 years prior to their OcYober 4, 200?, applicarion for a si� repair pernut; and WHEREAS, on or about Apri128, 2003, Cleaz Channel 0utdoor, Inc. pursuant to the provisions of Legislative Code § 64.206 duly filed an appeal from the deterxnination made by the Commission regazding the sign at 1521 Selby Avenue for the purpose of considering the actions taken by the Commission (Zoning File 03-297-153); and WH�REAS, acting pursuant to Legislative Code § 64.206 - 208 and upon norice to affected parties, the public hearing was duly conducted on May 28, 2003, where a11 interested parties where given an opportunity to be heard; and, WHEREAS, the Council, hauing 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 hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission there being no showing that the Commission erred in its facts, fmdings or procedures and, accordingly, the Council adopts the fmdings of the Commission as its own and incorporates them herein from Plamiing Commission Resolution No. 03-34 by reference; and 1 b 3-9�� 2 3 BE IT F'URTHER RESOLVED, that the appeal of Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. is 4 hereby denied;and 5 6 BE TT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the clerk shall mail a copy of this resolution to 7 Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Adoption Certified by Council Secretasy By: Re d y Dep tme t of O� � By: Form Approv by City Attorney By: . !�(rN�N� Appro e Mayor for m ss' C By: By: Adopted by Council: Date �� j �1 � _ U �ct �.� • • � � DEPARTMENf/OFFICE/COUNCII,: DATE IN1T7ATED GREEN SHEET No.• 3005594 PED 9-23-03 - CONTAGT PERSON & PHONE: - uviTTnupp'l'E �v�upA7� Lazry Soderholm 266-6575 � 1 n�r,u� D a cizY courrcn. Mi7ST BE ON COUNCII, AGENDA BY (DATE) �'Sir'�` 2 CP1Y ATTORNEY - S-� 5 C1TY CLERK ASAP " �MB� ��CIAI. SERV DIlL _ FINANCIAI, SERV/ACCI'G FOR 3 MAYOR(OR(� T�.�) CIVII.SERVICECOM��ffSSION ROUTL�*G �O►hhRQl��"`- ��j ORDER ✓ TOTAI, 7# OF SIGNATIJRE PAGES 1 (CLIP ALL LOCATIONS FOR SIGNATIJRE) ACITON REQUESTED: ' Approve resolurion memorializing the Council's decision on 5/28/03 to deny an appeal by Clear Chanuel Outdoor Inc. to put a billboazd sign face back on a rooftop sign structure at 1521 Selby Ave. The sign face had been destroyed and removed 35 montUs before the company's application to replace it. RECOMIvvIGNNDATIONS: Approve (A) or Rejear �) PERSONAI, SERVICE CONTRACPS M[TST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: A PLANNING COMivIISSION 1. Aas this person/fum ever worked under a contract for Uvs departmenY? CIB CAMMITfEE Yes No . , CIVII, SERVtCE COMbIISSION 2. Has this person/firm ever been a ciry employee? A PED and L1EP staff Yes No 3. Does this person/firm possess a skitl not normalty possessed by any cwrent city employee? Yes No Eaplain all yes answers on separate sheet and attach to green sheet IlVI77ATiNG PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORI'UNITY (R'6o, What, When, Where, Why): Clear Channel appealed LIEP's deniai of a building pernut to the Planning Commission. Then Clear Chaunel appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the City Council. After its public heazing the Council voted 5-2 (Reiter, Blakey) to deny the appeal and uphold LIEP and the Planning Commission. ADVANTAGES TF APPROVED: The resolufion puts in writing the decision the Council already made. DISADVANI'AGES IF APPROVED: � It is possible that Clear Chaiuiel will go to district court, but this is one of the cleazest cases the City has had for denying a billboazd repair permit. The sign was gone for nearly three yeazs; state law says that nonconfornung uses that are discontinued for one year must be removed. DISADVANTAGES IF NOT APPROVED: RECEIVED The Council's decision will not be reduced to writing. O�j 1 2003 MAY � TOTAL AMOUNT OF TRANSACTION: N.A COST/AEVENUE BUDGETED: � FONDING SOURCE: AC'TIVITY NUNIBER: FINANCIAL INFORhIATION: � a�. . .�"1 � A 9 d �' - G�Shsred�YID�BMOV�FLOOA�Sodefiolm�gcwshxt CC ra 03-29'/-153 wpd �� y� � Y� p� '�m Q� °..,%i3Y;., �. � a-. � . SEP � 6 2003 ��T � I � �k�'� ��` DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENI � Marth¢ G. FuZler, Director D3-gl k CITY OF SAINT PAUL zs w�i�s¢�: Telwhone: 6i1-26�6626 RandyCKelly,Mayor SaintPmil„41NSi102 F¢cs"vrsiZe:651-228-334I �� May 21, 2003 Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Research Offrce 12oom 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File # 03-297-153 at 1521 Selby Ave. Appellant: Clear Channel Ontdoor City Council Hearing: May 28, 2003, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Purpose: To consider appeal by Cleaz Channel Outdoor Advertising of a Planning Commission decision that denied the company a repair permi6 to restore the west-facing billboard si� an the raoftop at 1521 Selby Avenue. T IEp denied the billboard repair permit because the west-facing si� had been gone for more than one year. The Planning Commission upheld LIEP's denial. Clear Channel claims the sign was never abandoned because fhe east-facing sign has been used continuously and it is attached to the same V-shaped skucture. Zoning CYe. Recommendation: Voted 6-0 to make no recommendation on Cleaz Channel's appeal after a motion to deny the appeal failed on a 3 to 3 vote. January 16, 2003 Planning Cmsn. Recommendation: Deny Clear ChannePs appeal; vote 8-3; April 11, 2002 Staff Recommendation: Deny Cleaz Channel's appeal Support for Appeal: Two representatives of Clear Channel spoke. Opposition to Appeal: Two people (a neiahbor and a representative of Scenic VIN) District Council Recommendation: Deny appeal Deaz Ms. Anderson: 'T'he appeal is scheduled to be heazd by the City Council on May 28, 2003. After the Zoning Committee deadlocked on Uus case, the Planning Commission asked the City Attomey for advice on how to inteipret the code with regazd to whether the two sides of the V-shaped billboard structure should be treated as two si�s or as a sin;le billboard unit The City Attorney wrote a memo analyzing the definitions in the Zoning Code and advised the Commission that the terms in the code would be most accurately re#lected if they ireated the rooftop si� as having three D3�1/`� Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Secretary �Vlay 21, 2003 Page 2 components–one supporting structure and two si� faces_ If one si� face had been discontinued for more than a yeaz, it would lose its nonconfonning status. Therefore the Planning Commission denied Clear Channel's appeal. (In a similar case at the southwest comer of University and Lexington, the Plauniug Commission, before receiving this advice fi-om the City Attorney, had granted Clear Channel's appeal to repair a damaged sign face. The City Council reversed that Planning Commission decision on May 7, 2003.) I will be prepared to present a summary of the 1521 Selby case at the Council's public hearing. Please contact me (266-6647) if you have any questions. Sincerely, ��—� � Lazry o rholm Planning Administrator cc: File # 03-297-153 Carol Martineau Paul Dubnuel Wendy Lane Allan Torstenson Chris McCarver Marvin Liszt Anneliese Detwiler � DEPARTNiENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Martha G. Fuller, Directar 1 = I � � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Ke11y, Mayor Wr May 21, 2003 Ms. Nancy Anderson • � City Council Research Office Room 310 City Hall Saint Paul, Minnesota 55102 RE: Zoning File # 03-297-153 at 1521 Seiby Ave. 15 WestFourth Street Saint Paul,lrtN 55102 Telephone: 651-2 66 662 6 FacrimiZe: 65I-228-3341 Appellant: Clear Channel Outdoor City Council Hearing: May 28, 2003, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chambers Purpose: To consider appeal by Cleaz Channel Outdoor Advertising of a Planning Commission decision that denied the company a repair permit to restore the west-facing billboard sign on the rooftop at 1521 Selby Avenue. LIEP denied the billboard repair pemut because the west-facing sign had been gone for more than one yeaz. The Planning Commission upheld LIEP's denial. Cieaz Channel claims the sign was never abandoned because the east-facing sign has been used continuously and it is attached to the same V-shaped structure. Zoning Cte. Recommendation: Voted 6-0 to make no recommendarion on Clear ChannePs appeal after a motion to deny the appeal failed on a 3 to 3 vote. January 16, 2003 Planning Cmsn. Recommendation: Deny Clear Channel's appeal; vote 8-3; April 11, 2002 Staff Recommendation: Deny Cieaz Channel's appeal Support for Appeal: Two representatives of Clear Channel spoke. Opposition to Appeal: Two people (a neighbor and a representative of Scenic MN) District Council Recommendation: Deny appeal Dear Ms. Anderson: The appeal is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on May 28, 2003. After the Zoning Committee deadlocked on this case, the Planning Commission asked the City Attomey for advice on how to interpret the code with regard to whether the two sides of the V-shaped billboard � structure should be treated as two signs or as a single billboazd unit. The City Attomey wrote a memo analyzing the definitions in the Zoning Code and advised the Commission that the terms in the code would be most accurately reflected if they treated the rooftop sign as hauing three d3 - q�� Ms. Nancy Anderson City Council Secretary May 21, 2003 Page 2 components�ne supporting structure and two sign faces. If one sign face had been discontinued for more than a yeaz, it would lose its nonconforming status. Therefore the Planning Commission denied Clear Channel's appeal. (In a similar case at the southwest comer of University and Lexington, the Planning Commission, before receiving this advice fi�om the City Attorney, had granted Clear ChannePs appeal to repair a damaged sign face. The City Council reversed that Planning Commission decision on May 7, 2003.) I will be prepazed to present a summary of the 1521 Selby case at the Council's public hearing. Please contact me (266-6647) if you ha�e any questions. Sincerely, �Y..�� Larry o rholm Planning Administrator cc: File # 03-297-153 Cazol Martineau Paul Dubruiel Wendy Lane Allan Torstenson Chris McCarver Mazvin Liszt Anneliese Detwiler . � � o3-9�y � ATTACHIvIENTS: ZOI�TING FILE #03-297-153 � � C. Appeal by Cleaz Channel Outdoor Planviug Commission resolution #03-34 Planning Commission minutes for 4/11l03 D. City Attomey's memo to Planning Commission dated 2/13/03 E. Planning Commission minutes for and � F. G. � H. Minutes of Zoning Committee public hearing on 1/16/03 PED staff report written 1/9/03 with photos and maps Letter from Snelling-Hamline Communiry Council of 5/7/03 Pj ��2 3 �� S� � �I�"1 1�-�b �?�R� 1�1-�'J � � ATTORNEYS AT LAW '��-'(/I� r) BERNICK p LIFSON O A P g O F E 5 S I O N A L A 5 S O C I A'I I O N April 28, 2003 Deparnnent ofPlannina and Economic DeveYopment Zoning Section 1400 Ciry Hall Annex 2� W. FOLll'[tl .St. St. Paul, MN 55102 Suice f 200, The Colonnade 5500 Wayzata Bouleoard Minneapolis, NIlV 55416�12�0 nnum.beraick-&fsarz.com phone�6354G1200 f¢z 763546.1003 Re: Appellant: CZear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Property Location: 1521 SeZby Avenue Zoning FiZe Name: 12dministrative Appeal ofBillboard Permit File Number: 02-243-782 (03-34) Deaz Madam or Sir: s Saul A Bemick� Marvin A. Liszt*++ Scott A LSfron David A. Nighringale *+ Paui J. Quast * Jessica L. Roe David M. Ness George E. Warner, Jr. Of Counsel Neal J. Shapiro LegaZ Assistarztr Rathryn G. Mazterman Nancy L. Whaylen Tresa $ Sauer Gina M. Viktore Enclosed for filing please find an original and one copy of the Application for Appeal along with the $330 filing fee. Very truly yours, BERl�TICK AND LIFS , P.A. �� r Marvin A. Liszt MAL:crb Enclosures cc: Cleaz Channel Outdoor, Inc. � � • n� c�ris<a r,�nu� a�w��c � **AkoAdmix2diawssco^�:^ ' +TMRealPropextylaw5pedalist � azsotrs Sfine SAt�T PwUt � 1IA APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Departnzent of Planning and Economzc Development Zoning Section I400 City Ha11 Annex 25 West Fou�th Street Saint Paul, MN SSIO2-1634 (65I) 266-6589 APPLICANT PROPERTY LOCATION Name Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Address 3225 Spring St. NE City Minneapolis St. MN Zip 55413 Daytime Phone 612-869-1900 Zoning File Name Administrative Appeal of Billboard Permit Address/Location 1521 Selby Avenue TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the: � Board of Zoning Appeals � City Council Under the provision of Chapter 64, Section 206 Paragraph a of the Zoni�g Code, to appeal a madebythe Planning Commission �ril 11 . 20 03 . File Number 02-243-782 (03-34) of decision) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Expiain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative official, or an error in fact, procedure or finding made by the Board of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. The Planning Co�ission action contravenes Minn. Stat. §462.357, Subd. (1)(e) and city ordinances. Clear Channel owns and maintains a legal nonconforming sign structure at 1521 Selby Avenue consisting of two poster panels. The damage to this noncon£orming use was less than 50� of its market value. Clear Channel has not discontinued the use of the legal nonconformity for more than one year. Accordingly, Clear Cfiznnel has the right to continue this use, including its repair and naintenance. RECEiVEQ � "' � ,,.�� additional sheet 'rf necessary) �� -. � �d �/�/3 ApplicanYs Signature Date � �D 3 City Agent DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENr Marth¢ G. Fuller, Dirutor CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Ke11y, M¢yor April 15, 2003 Mr. Marvin A. Liszt Bemick & Lifson, P.A. Suite 1200 The Colonnade 5500 Wayzata Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55416 25 WestF,maJiStreet SaintPaul, MN55102 �3- y�� I = � TeZephone.� 651-266-6626 FacsimiZe: 657-228-3341 RE: Appeal of Clear Channel Communications of a decision by the Office of LIEP to deny a building permit for the installation of a new sign face on tfie west side of the V-shaped, roof top biliboard structure at 1521 Sefby Avenue (Zoning Fle # 02-243-782). Dear Mr. Liszt: I am writing to inform you that on April ii, 20Q3, the Planning Commissian voted to deny your appeal of an administrative decision by the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental • Proteciion (LIEP) to deny building permit for the installation of a new sign face on the west side of the V-shaped, roof-top billboard structure at 1521 Seiby Avenue. The Planning Commission's findings of fact are contained in the attached resolution. You may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the Saint Paul �ty Council by filing an application and the fee for an appeal at the PED zoning cot�nter, 1400 �ty Hall Annex, within fifteen days of the date of this letter, that is, by Apri( 30, 2003. Clear Channel Outdoor may also decide to file an appeal by the same date. An appeal should be based on what you believe to be an error in any facE, finding, or procedure of the Planning Commission. Enclosed is an appeai application. P(ease call me at 266-6647 if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance to you. .t %iy �� i� . Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution Application for Appeal to City Council cc: Sneliing Hamline Community Council Chris McCarver, Clear Channel Outdoor Peter Wamer, Gty Attomey's O�ce Brian Bates, Scenic Minnesota Wendy Lane, LIEP ]eff Fischbach, LIEP Zoning Fle # OZ-243-782 • � � �5�� D3-5�y city of saint pauf � pfanning commission resolu�ion fi(e number o 3-34 - ciate �Pr�� ; zoo3 . WHEREAS, Clear Channel Outdoor, File # 02-243-782, has filed.an appeal under provisions §66.408(a), §66.214, §66.2167(e), §66.2167(d) of the Saint Paul Legislative Code, and Minnesofa Statufe 462.357; of an administrative decision by ths Offce of L.I.E.P. to deny a building permif foF instailation of a sign face on fhe west side of V-shaped, roof-top biliboard structure for on propetty Iocafed af 1521 Selby Avenue, PIN 22-2 g-22-140039, legaliy described as R..F. MP.RVIN'S ADDITION TO ST. PAUL. VAC E AND W ALLEY ADJ SUBJ TO ALLEY OVER W 20 FT LOT 26 AND ALL OF LOTS 27 THRU 30 ALSO SUBJ TO ALLEY OVER W 20 FT OF LOT 5 AND EX N 55 FT LOTS 1 THRU LOT 5 BLK 1; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Commitfee of fhe Pianning Commission, on January 16, 2003, held a public hearing at which all persons pr.esent were given an opportunity to be hea�d pursuant to said appficatlon in accordance with the requirements of §64.300 of the Saint Paui Legislative Code; and WHEREAS, the Saint Paul Pianning Commission, based on the evidence presentecf to its � Zoning Committee at fhe public hearing as substantialiy reflected in the minutes, made the fo(lowing findings of fact: On October 4, 2002, LIEP received a biliboard repair permit application from Clear Channel Communications :(Clear Channel) to ailow repair of the southwestem face of the advertising sign on the 6uilding at 1521 Selby Avenue. On October 31, 2002, LIEP sent a letter to Clear Channel denying their request for a biilboard repair permit. LIEP stated their records indicafe this adverfising sign face.was destroyedlremoved from this location around November of 1999 and.there is no record of an application for a sign rspaU permit prior to the Octdber 4, 2002, request. 2. Section 66.214 prohibits advertising signs in any zoning district in the City. Section 66.2167(d)(2) of the code states tfiat no advertising signs shall, be permitted within the Sneiling Hamline Special Sigq District. A biilboard at this.location is nonconforming under both sections 66.214 and 66.2167(d)(2) of the zoning code. moved by �Rr�er �: seconded by LaIIetti . in favor �$ • agG�ICISL _ 3(Dandrea Alexaader Shorrridge) � (�3 - 9��{ Zoning File # 02-243-782 Planning Commission Resolufion Page 2 3. Secfion 66.2167(e) of fhe code states the requirements for nonconforming signs in the Snelfing Hamline Special Sign District. Subsection (e)(2)(c) sfafes thaf a nonconforming sign shall be immediafely removed from the 8ne(Iing Hamlins Speciai Sign District at the cost of the owner if use of the sign has been disconfinued for a. period of three (3) consecutive months. Minnesota Statuts 462.357 Subd. 1e sfates tfiat ° Any nonconformity, including the lawfui use or occupation of land or premises exisfing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this ehapter, may ba continued, including through repair or maintenance, but if the nonconformity is discontinued for a period of more ihan one year, ... any subsequent use or occupancy of fhe land or premises shali be a conforming use or occupancy.° LIEP has_ determined by its records fhat the sign has oaen discontinued since November of 1999, which is over two one-half years prior to their October 4, 2002, application for a sign repair permit. NOW, THEREFORE, BE fT RESOLVED, by tfie Saint Paul Pianning Commission, under the authority of the City's Legislative Code, that the appea! of Cfear Channei Communications of fhe decision of LIEP to deny a building permit for instailation of a new sign face on the west . side of V-shaped, roof-top billboard strucfure at 1521 Selby Avenue is hereby denied.. � �- • � � � �- ��M o q,y Saint Paul Planning Commission • Cify Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Bonlevard West Minutes of April il, 2003 A meering of the Planning Commission of the City of Saint Paul was held Friday, April 11, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. in the Conference Center of City Hall. Commissioners Mmes. Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Zimmer I,onetti, McCall, Morton, and Shortridge; Present: and Messrs. Alexander, Altqn; Dandrea, 7ohnson, Kong, Kramer. Commissioners Mmes. *Trevino; and Messrs. *Anfang, *Field, *Fotsch, *Gervais, *Gordon, "IvIazdell, *Mejia, and *Rosales. Absent: *Excused Also Present: Lazry Soderholm, Planning Administrator; Rich Malloy, Marcus Martin (PED Intern), and Mary Bruton, Department of Planning and Economic Development staff. • I. Approval of Minutes of March 28, 2003 MOTION: Commissioner Johnson moved approval of the minutes of March 28, 2003. Commissioner %ramer seconded the motion. The motion camed on a unanimous.voice vote. II. Chair's Announcements III• Planniug Administrator's Announcements City Council Business: This week: - Amendments made to the steep slopes ordinance that applies citywide. It was laid over for the fourth reading next week. - Menards rezoning is moving ahead. - The Ballpazk Signs Zoning Study has started the reading process. Nezt week: - Notice about motions for temporary restraining orders with regazd to the Efrendi cazriage house. - White Beaz Avenue right-of-way reconstruction based on the small azea plan. - Another exception to the S�nray moratorium - An ordinance to permit alcohol to be served at sidewalk cafes. � � ��. _ yi� MOTION: Commissioner $ramer moved approval of the Clear ChanneL Outdoor Ine. appeaL . There was considerable discussion by the Commission members which reached the conclusion that the resoIution as drafted by staff accurately reflected the decision the Commission made on January 24, 2003. MOTTON: Commirsioner Alton called the question. The motion carried unanimousLy on a voice vote to end the debate. ROI,L CAI.L VOTE: Motion to grant the appeal of Clear Channel at I084 University Avenue parsed on a voice vote of 6-5 (McCall, DonneZly-Coherz, Alexander, Tohnson, %ramer). #02-243-782 Clear Channel Outdoor Inc. - Appeal of an administrative decision by the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection (LIEP) to deny a building permit for the installarion of a new sign face on the west side of the V-shaped roof-top billboazd structure where the oid west face has been gone for three yeazs (this appeal does not affect the east-facing side of the billboazd, which has been in continuous use). 1521 Selby Ave., NW comer at Sazatoga. (Rich Malloy, 651/266-6647) MOTTQN: Co�xmissioner gramer �noved denial of fhe appeaZ and to add to the resolution the fzndings of the City Attorney regarding the singte sign structure with two signs that are not currently incorporated in the resolution. Commissioner Lonetti seconded the motiosr. ROLL CAI.L VOTE: The motion to deny the appeal of Clear Chaxnel at IS27 Selby Avenue, passed on a vote of 8-3 (Dandrea, Alexander, Shortridge). #03-261-79Q Snellin -Hamiine Communi Council - Appeal of a sign permit issued by e City's office ofLicense, Inspecrion, and Environmental Protection (L�P) to a12ow replacement of sign face panels on an illuminated freeway biltboazd. The appellant claims that the billboazd was altered and some of its smictural elements were replaced; neither of these types of repairs aze permitted in the Snelling-Hamline Sign District. 1459 Roblyn Ave., NE comer at Pascat. (Larry Soderholm, 651/266-6575) Mr. Soderholm stated that this billboazd is on the interstate and a permit is required from MN DOT which they have. If the sign is to be remoyed iYs clear under federallaw and state law that whoever orders its removal has to pay the fulI economic value of the sign. Local governments may establish more restrictive regulations and those aze enforceable, but the just compensation provision s6ll applies. ' MOTION: Commissioner Sramer moved tke Zoning Committee's recom»zendation to derry the aPPeaL ROLL CALL VOTE: The motion to deny the appeal and to rrdd Zanguage to the resolutioa reflecting the opinion of the City Attorney regarding the State ¢nd Fedend Law passed unanimously. � � j? _03 -9 �y Interdepartmental Memorandum �� CITY OF SAL�'T PAUL DATE: February 13, 2003 TO: Planning Commission Members FROM: Peter Warner RE: ltesponse to quesiions raised concernflng the repair permit for aa advertising sign at 1521 Selby Avenue: Background In a letter dated Tanuary 24, 2Q03, F,arcy Soderliolm, on behalf of the planning commission, asked for written advice concerning two issues relative to the billboazd repair peimit issued for an � advertising sign located at 1521 S elby Avenue. The letter first asks whether the rooftop sign in question is oae sign designed far two sign faces or two signs? The letter also states that the planning commission is asldng for guidanoe regarding fhe abandonment of non-confornung uses althougJ� the context for the request is not spe6ified. This memo responds to each issue raised. I. Rooftop signs It is the opinion ofthe city aitomey's office tliat the advertising devices ldcated at 1521 Seiby Avenue consists of two signs and one sign structure. This opinion is based upon the following language from L,eg. Code § 66.103.5. which sets forth definitions for a"sign" as well as a"sign structure." Sign. The use of words, numerals, figures, devices, designs or trademarks the purpose ofwhich is to show or advertise aperson, fiim, profession, tiusiness, product or message. 8ign Structure. Any siructare which supports or is capable of supporting and sign as defined in this chapter. A sign shucture may be a single pole; it may not be an in#egral part of a building: i AA-ADA-EEO Employer \J �3- 9iy� Planning Commission Memo February 13, 2003 Page two The two definitions clearly establish a distincfion between a"sign" and a"sign struc#ure." These disiinctions aze reiterated fhroughout Chapter 66. For instance, I,eg. Code §§ 66301(Z) and (3) each use the term sign and sign structure distinctly. Leg. Code § 33301(2) provides in relevant part: "Should such sign or sign struciure be destroyed ..." Leg. Code § 66301(3) provides in relevant part: "Should such sign or sign struchxre be moved :.." Mr. Soderholm asked whether to treat fihe rooftop sign in question as one sign designed for iwo sign faces or as two signs. I would suggest that this maynot be the relevant inquiry giyen the zoning code's clearly established disiinciion between a"sign" .and a"sign stnzcture." Your inquiry can reasonably differentiate between a sign and a sign structure in the following mannerbased upon the different definitions noted above: on this rooftop, there is a"sign" - what I might call the actual message display consisting of words, numerals, figures, devices, designs or trademarks the puipose of which is to show or advertise aperson, firm, profession, business, product or message, and a"sign shucture" - all the structure and support n8eded to allow the sign to actual2y be seen. II. Abandonment . By way of background; the sign oz signs here appear to fit the defini�ion of an "advertising sign" ivhich, in relevant part, is defined inLeg_ Code § 66.103.A. as "A sign which directs attentian � to a business, profession, commodity, service or entertainment which is conducted, sold or manufactured elsewhere than on the premises upon which the sign is placed. ... Billboards are a form of advertising." Pursuaut to Leg. Code § 66.214, aIl adverEising signs are now legai non- conforming uses. Under_I,eg. Code § 66.214, it is the advertising sign, not the adverlising sign's structure, which constitutes the non-confoiming use. This distinction is imgortaut because there are-many otlier types of sigus which aze conforming uses and which require same fomi of strueture to allovv the words, numerals, figures, devices, designs or tcademarks Yhe pu�pose of which is to show or advertise a person, firm, profession, business, producY ormessage ofthe confomvng sign to be seen. This backgroundis importantbecause Leg. Code § 56301, enfitted "Intent," expressly states and aiso incorporates byreference, two terms of legat significance: Leg. Code § 66303 uses the term "abandoned" and reads in relevaut part: . "...It is further the intent of this chapter to perfliit Iegal nonconfomung signs existing on the effective date of this chapter ... to confinue as legal nonconforming signs provided such signs are safe, aze maintained so as not to be unsightly, and have not been abandaned or removed subj ect to the foIlowiag provisions: �*�x aa-aDn-�o�i � LeJ 03 -9� �f Planning Commission Memo February 13, 2003 � Page three • (5) When a si�cture loses its nonconforming status, as set forth in the zoning code, section 62.102( fl(7) all signs devoted to the slructure shall be removed and a31 si�s painted directly on fhe sizucture shall be repainted in a neuisal color or a color wluch will harmonize with the strucfure." (emphasis added) f,eg. Code § 62.102(fl(7) as incorporated by reference in Leg. Code § 66301 uses the term "discontinued" and reads in relevant part. (7) When a nonconfomiing use is discontinued or ceases to exist for a cbntinuous period of three hundred sixty-five (365) days, the building, or building and Iand in combination, sha?1 thereafter be used in conformance with the regulations of the district in which it is located ..:' (emphasis added) Thelaw inMinnesotarecognizesthattheconcepts of abandonment and discontinuance, when applied in a zoning context to nonconforming uses, have specific and distinct meanings. Tn Coun • of Isanti v. Peterson 469 N.W.2d 467 (Minn. Ct. App.1991) overruZed on othergrounds, Tyroll v. Private Label Chems.. Inc.. 505 N. W.2d 54 (Minn.1993) the Miunesota Court of Appeals held that in order to prove the abandonment of a nonconforming use, a municipality must prove two factors: "(1) 3ntent to abandon, and (2} an overt act or failure to act indicating the owner no longer claims a right to the aonconforming use." Id. at 470 (citation omitted). In contrast, with respect to the concept of proving the diseontinuance of a nonconforming use, the Countv of Isanti cotut noted that municipal ordinances aze.drafted using tJie term discontinuance zather than the term abandonment "to avoid the necessity of proving intent to abandon a nonconforming use." Id. at 469 (citation omitted). Underthe discontinuance standard, the only question is thetime period ofdiscontinuance. I,egislative Code Chap. 62 generally regulates nonconforming uses. Leg. Code § 62.102( fl('� as noted ante, specifically states a discontinuance standazd. It is the opinion of the cif.y attomey's office that these iwo term s, disparate in definition and proof, can be read in harmonybecause using the coneepf of "discontinuance" to supplythe �lement of an intent to "abandon" a non-conforming use, rather thau having to prove abandonment has been approved in by the Minnesota Court of Appeals in Coun of Isanti: "Where a nanconforming use has been dormant for longer than one year, a presumption of intent to abandon is proper. It ameliorates the municipality's severe burden of hading to prove affirmatively its opponent's intent. The landowner is free to present evidence that he intended to continue the use or that cessation was beyond his conirol. Id at 470. I hope this memo answers tke guestions put to the city attomey's office. PW W � . . . AA-ADA-EEO Employer � ✓ �'�M�- � i 5L! S c i 6 y a3- g�� P• c. Saint Pani plaaning Commission City Hall Conference Center 15 Kellogg Bovlevard West Minutes of January 24, 2003 M� �►w��Fe.,s A meetinb of the Planning Comraission of the City of Saint Paul was field Friday, January 24, 2003, at 830 a.m. in the Conference Center of City HaII, Commissioners Mmes. DonneIly-Cohen, Farioy, ang Morton; and Prese¢t: Messrs. Alexander, Aiton, Anfang, Dandrey� Field, Fotsch, Gordon, Johnson, and Kramer. Commissioners Ivimes. *Zimmerl,onetl�, *McCall, s Shortridge, and'Trevino; andMessrs. *Gervais *Kong, *Mardell, *Mejia, and Rosales. Absent: *Excused Also Present: Larry Soderfiolm, Planning Administrator, .1]lan Torstens�, �ch Malloy, Pahicia James, Yang Zhang, Marcus Martin (pED �tern), a�d Carol Martineau, Department of Planning and Economic Development stafF, and Rrendy Lane and JeffFishbach ofLIEP. I. � �1 Approvai of 1�Tin�es nf Januarp 10, 2003 MOTION: Commissioner Fotsch moved approval of the nrircutes of January I0, 2003. Cnmmissioner ponnelly-Cohen seconded the motion, The motwn �arrzed unanimously on a voice vote. Cbair's Annoimcements Chair Morton reminded the commissioners of the Fifth Friday Retreat on Friday, 7anuary 31, 2003. The guest speaker will be Mary Lethert Wingerd, author of CZuiming 1he City. The book is a fiistory of Saint Paul from its earfiest days through the 1930s. Chair Morton thanked Commissioner A1ton for his witiy letter in response to Mr. Daziing's opinion piece in the Star Tnbune_ planning Administrator's Annoimcements 1�'1r. Lazry Soderholm passed azound a sign-up sheet for the Fifth Friday Retreat He reported that it is appoin�ents time and the Mayor's office is looking for candidates for the Planning Commission untii February 14"'. The application is available on the City's web site. . � � �� o3 ROLL CALL VOTE: Denial of appeal failed on a vote of S-7 (Johnson, Fie1� Dandrea, • einfang, AZexm:der, Fotsch, filtox oppose�. Mr. Soderholm stated this is an appeal where ffie Planning Commission's decision is a final decision. The Planning Commission needs to make a decision it tfiis case. It doesn't automafically go to the Cify Council. It will go to the City Council only if someone appeals tfie Commission's decision. MOTION: Commissioner Fietd moved to refer this c¢se back to the Zoning Co�nmitlez Motion died for lack of a seeond _ Commissioner Kramer suggested an alternative; to uphold the appeal and have staff cralt a resolution for consideration of the Pianning Commission or the Zoning Committee at a later date. MOTION: Co»ureissioner Fie[d moved approval of the appeal subject to crafting of the fzndings ixto a resolution for formal adoption at the next meeting. Co�nmissioner Anjang seconded the motiorr. The motion passed on a vote of 8-4 (DonneZZy-Cohen, Gordon, Faricy, and Sramer). Chair Morton stated the resolution will be drafted by staff and then rgturned to the Planning Commission. #02-243-782 Clear Channel Outdoor Inc - Appeal of an administrarive decision by the Office of License, Inspections, and Environmental Protection (LIEP) to deny a building permit for the � installation of a new sign face on the west side of the V-shaped roof-top billboazd sh where the old west face has been gone for three yeazs (this appeal does not affect the east-facing side of the billboazd, which has been in continuons use). 1521 Selby Ave., NW corner at Sazatoga. (Rich Malloy, 651/266-6647) Commissioner Field stated District 13 recommends denial of the appeal. Cleaz Channel representatives and one additional person spoke in support. Two parties spoke in opposition. The public hearing was closed. The Zoning Committee is forwazding this case onto the Planning Commission without a recommendation on a vQte of 6-0. MOTION: Commissioner Field moved to approve the appeaL Commissioner Johruon seconded the motion. Commissioner Gordon spoke against that motion stating he is troubled with what is going on with billboazds. He said we have a City policy that discourages biiiboazds since the City has adopted a policy of no new billboazds in the city. City policy does not favor, but disfavors billboazds. We have the policy mentioned by Commissioner Kramer with respect to non-conforming uses. City policy is not to encourage and to continue non-conforming uses; City policy is for them to lapse over time. We have a lrack record where the Eity Council time and again has reversed the Planning Commission's decisions on bllboazds. Yet we continue to do it and now we are about to do it again. Presumably the last motion that we passed wiil get reversed, and if this motion passes we will get reversed again. So what are we doing to our credibiIity with the City Council by ignoring the policy on tfiis issue? In these cases today the abandonment is so clear and � obvious, but we ignore that and continue to let the billboazds e�st. The Commission seems to be �L�/ Ds-9.� stretching to preserve billboazds; the Cotnmission skoutd, if anything, be stretching to remove them. Commissioner Field stated that he is neither pro-billboazd nor auti-biI2boazd_ The Commission is sitting in a quasi judicial capacity on this appeai and accordingly—while the City CouncIl might take some eXCeption to the Commission's decisions—he is trying to be objective and look at the facts case by case. In today's cases, the question is yet to be resolved whether this is one use versus iwo uses. �ile he a�rees with Commissioner Gordon that the billboazd ordinance that was adopted auns at bringing billboazds down, there aze conflicting statutes and case law. Ultimately the courts aze going to make these decisions on a case by case basis. Commissioner Alton also responded to Commissioner Gordon's comments. He is not and he doesn't believe that any member of this PIanning Commission is pro-billboazd. fIe thinks the Commission is making a good faith effort to make tite best decisions they can consistent with tlie law and City ordinances. In this partioulaz case we aze in quasi judicial role. We haue a duty to make a decision Whether the City Council acts differentiy fhan the Commission is not. relevant to the Commission's deliberation. Commissiouer Goidon seems to tfiink that poficy should overcome law, but that's not appiopr'tate. There is a policy in the City of Saint Paut that we want to get rid of billboazds and that policy is importaat and should be upheld. There is aLso a policy that says that legai nonconforming uses can continue. Our job is to determine whether ti�is legal nonconforming use should confinue: Commissioner Gordori stated that what troubles him is that when we have a City policy an@ a direcfion from tlie City Council and we ignore the policy and ignore the direction. He thinks the , Commission is not doing the right thing when we bend over backwazds to approve billboazds. To ignore City policy does not make a great deai of sense; the Commission is losing credibility and influence with the City CounciI. Commissioner Field stated fhat he thinks that the Planning Commission's proposed billboazd ordinance, whicfi the City Counci2 did not adopt, that provided for billboazd tradc�downs probabl� would have resulted in more billboards coIDina down than we yre seeing in this process. The ordinance thal was adopted is, azguably, uncleaz about repairs of nonconforming uses. The special sign dishicts take undne amotlnts of staff time and work. So we have a mess. At the same time state statutes seem to azgue against some of these findinas_ Ultimateiy the cou� aze going to do our work for us. Chair Morton closed the debate at this point ROLL CALL VOTE: T&e motion to grant the appeal f¢iied on a 6-6 vote (.Tohnsox, Sramer, Donnelly-Cohen, Faricy, Gordon, Morton oppose�. M01TON: Com»rissioner Gordon moved iv deny the appeaL Coyn�y.�� Faricy seconded the moYion Commissioner Gordon spoke against the motion. There has been a lot of discussion on the previous motion about applyiug law and poficy. He agrees with all of that, but the law is that if a non-conforming use is abandoned for more than 365 days it loses its. status and that's what � happened here: T1us sign face was abandoned for three yeazs. So if you taik about the law, the 7 �� 03-q�y • • � law is clear. You can choose to interpret the law to apply to a sign face fl�zYs connected to another sign face and say— well, as we interpret the law, this is all one sign so abandonina one side doesn't matter, you would have to abandon both sides; that's an interpretation you have to reach for. On the other hand, you could interpret the law to say these aze two sign faces. If one gets abandoned it loses its non-conforming status and it goes; the ofher one can stay. Tha commission has to make an interpretation. We have a ciiy policy that says we do not favor billboards. We have a non-conforming use policy that says we don't favor continuing non- conformmg uses and we have a City Council that has given direction on biIlboazds. In light of all that, why do we reach for the interpretation that pemtits the billboard to remain in existence? Commissioner Dandrea responded that the City's interpretation and the court's intezpretation may come out different, and he is frying to factor this uncertainiy into his own decision. The Iengthy decision process seems to contdbute to visual blight cvith unused billboazd structures sitting there. Outside of this body, there perhaps aze people who think billboazds look nice, but he doubts that there aze any people in the city who think tLat deslroyed or semi-destroyed billboazd faces aze attractive. Commissioner Alton recalled Commissioner Kramer's remark that the facts in these two cases aze virivaliy identical. The issue is whether this sign is one sign or two signs. Again testimony before the cotnmittee was that it was one sign, one permit, one structure. The fact that this sign face has been abandoned for a period of time is not questioned. Pazt of that time the applicant couldn't apply for a permit because of a moratorium, after which they did apply for a repair permit. Commissioner Dandrea's comment on the other case is quite teiliag because staff said that if you deny a repair permit, then the LIEP staff may go out and tell them to take down the structure. In one case we aze treating the struciure as two signs and in the other case, if LIEP tells them to tear it down, they are going to tell them to teaz down the entire structure and we aze treating it as one sign. That would be inconsistent. We need to treat the structure on top of the building at 1521 Selby Avenue as one sign structure because they again have one permit issued by the City of Saint Paul for the entire sign structure, and one permit issued by the State of Minnesota for the entire sign structure. It is. a legal non-conforming use. The sign structure was not abandoned for 365 days; the sign face may not have been in use, but again the sign structure was not abandoned for one yeaz. This was the basis for his decision at the Zoning Committee meeting, Commissioner Gordon stated he didn't heaz LIEP staff say that if the sign face was denied that the entire sfructure including both sign faces would have to come down. He heazd that the neart step would be to order just the structure supporting the one sign face to come down, leaving the strueture for the other sign face intact. Commissioner Gordon asked Ms. Lane, if this appeal were to be deaied, would the next step be to order the structure to come down for the one sign face or the structure for both sign faces? Ms. Lane stated that the structure for one sign face would be ordered to come down. Commissioner Gordon stated that answers one comment raised by Commissioner Alton and also Commissioner Dandrea's feaz that the shuchue wIli be an eyesore. Commissioner Anfang stated that this is a v-shaped siga and he wondered, if they aze told they have to take down the structure for half of it, how does the other half stay up? We couldn't �3 D�- 9�5� approve something that could biow down and be hazardous. Chair Morton stated everyone has heazd the azguments and she would like to move on to the vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion to deay faiLs on a vote of 6-6 (Fiel� Dandre¢, Asfang, Alexasder, Fotrch, Alton). Mr. Larry Soderholm suggested that since staff will be writing a different resoIution for the previous case and since the tvvo aze so similar perhaps we should write resolutions both to approve and to deny for the next meeting and try to get.more testimony about physically how interconnected both of these billboazds aze. MO'I'ION: Commissioner Field moved to do Mr. Soderholm's suggestion that staff write two resolutions for this case only—one approving and one derrying—to be brought before the Planning Commissiarz at the nexi meeting on February Z4, 2003, and alsu to request the City Attomey's office in connection this case 10 opine oa the one vs. two s(ructure issue and to assist the Planning Cor�vnisszon in preparing those findings. Commissianer Gordon seconded the motion. Mr. Soderholm sfated after looking at the black and white photos in the packet that it was hard to tell just how interconnected the structures are. He suggested that we should have a closer look at the structure and advice from LIEP about what members of the slructures ue tied together and what members azen't. That may requires an inspection on the roof top fo look at the bed pans as well as what we can see in the angle iron struchues. Commissioner Gordon stated that the City Attomey has the authority to ask LIEP to go out and do an on-site inspection to incorporate in his written opinion on the one-vs: two structure question. Commissioner Dandrea offered to make a friendiy amendment to reflect Mr. Soderholm's comments with an additional request that LIEP would go on record saying what would happen if this appeal is denied. Commissioner Field did not accept it as a friendly amendment. Commissioner Fotsch stated that in the request #o the City Attorney's Office, he would particulazly like to have reseazch on whether there aze precedents for defining abandonment and also whether there may allowance for an extenuating circumstance if this particular applicant did deIay repairs because of ttie confvsion that took place in the Iast two or ttuee years with regazd to billboazds. Commissioner Field accepted Comt» Fotsch's first request as a friendly amendment, but thought we would have to reopen the public hearing to inquire about why the repairs were delayed, so and thaYs not a friendly amendment. Commissioner Fotsch staYed in view of the fact that we don't want to'reopen the hearing he simply asked for the research on the legal point on the definition of abandonment Chair Morton stated that doesn't require an amendment, iYs just about what the Commission would like to have beiter information about for the resolution. � �� 4.3- 9.s� � � Commissioner Field agreed that the motion was just to get an opinion from the city attorney as respect certain things and Commissioner Fotscfi makes a reasonable requesk Commissioner Alton stated that with re�azd to the facts the Planning Commission should haue the minutes of the Zoning Committee meetina and copies of the e�ibits which were entered 'mfo evidence at that committee meeting. That is flte extent of the additional information they should have. Any other testimony or statement made by staff would be additional facts. We have to use the photo�aaphs and evidence that was used at tlie committee meeting and nothing further. Motion carried on a unanimous vote. Scenic Sf. Paul - Appeal of the issuance of bilIboazd permits issued by the City's Office of 4 License, Inspections, and Bnvironmental Protection (LIEp) to Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. for the repair of roo$op billboazds in two different neighborhoods-one at 1670 White Beaz Ave. and the other at 1278 Grand Ave. The appeal was filed joindy by the District 2 Community Council and the Macalester-Groveland Community Couucil. Theu appeal claims that replacing billboazd faces is contrary to their neighborhood sign ordinances and, moreover, that Cleaz Channel made structural upgrades that were not allowed under the permits that LIEP issued. (Larry ,Soderholm, 651/266-6575) Commissioner Field stated Districts 2 and 14 aze co-appellants in this case. Four persons spoke for the co-appellants. Two persons spoke for C1eaz Channel. Hearing was closed. The motion is • to deny the appeal and refer the enforcement question to LIEP on a vote of 3-2 (Kramer, Faricy). Commissioner Kramer stated this billboazd case is similar to a case of a few weeks ago on University Ave. in Merriam Pazk where a sign face was replaced and appazently upgraded. Cleaz Channel got permits for face replacements and shinger replacements for all four billboazds at White Bear and Lazpenteur and for one on Grand Ave. The company came in and under the permits for face replacements they totally rebuilt not only the faces but also the pieces that hold the face onto the angte iron structures. They claimed at the Zoning Committee that standardized face replacement kits include not only what we call the face panels, but also the metal "sprits" that connect the new horizontal style of face p�nels together and the horizontal angle irons, which appeaz to be horizontal stringers. This is another case where the life of the non-conforming use is being greatly extended by a total rebuild of most of the billboard. If you accept the argument that the pieces that hold the face together aze part of the face and the pieces that hold the face to the upright structure aze also part of the face, then, carried to the logical exireme, you could make the azgument that the building is part of the face, too. Commissionez Field stated that the motion from the Zoning Committee provides that LIEP will deterniine whether or not the work done by Clear Channel exceeded what the permits allowed and that the Planning Commission eltpects LTEP to enforce the conditions of the pernuts. At the Zoning Committee meeting, the LIEP staff was not able to answer the committee's questions about whether the work exceeded the petmit. Commissioner Faricy supported Commissioner Kramer. She noted the only structural work authorized under the permits was replacement stringers, wluch were wood on the White Beaz • billboazds and angle iron on the Grand Ave. one. All repair materials, according to the permits, 10 �� 3- 9i� � Recorded and prepazed by Mary Bruton, Planning Commission Sectetary Planning and Economic Development Department, City of Saint Paul Respectfully submitted, , � ��.�� i � .�''- � . �. .,� �• -•�� .. . Approved Secretary of the Planning � PED�Brnton�MiautesUanuazy 24, 20Q3 13 �� • �r��►�+r � o3-g�K �5Z1 Se}b� MINUTES OF THE ZONING COMMIiTEE � �`,W{ 1�S • Thursday, January 16, 2003 - 3:30 p.m. City Council Charnbers, 3rd Floor � � C�� City Hafl and Court House 75 West Kellogg Bouleva�d PRESENT: EXCUSED: STAFF: Anfang, Aiton, Faricy, Field, Kramer, and Mor#on Gordon, and Mejia Rich Malloy, Carol Martineau, Larry Soderholm, and Peter Wamer Ciear Channet Outdoor - 02-243-782 - Appeal of administrative decision by the Office of License, InspecEions, and Environmentai Protecfion (L(EP) to deny a building permit for the insta(lafion oE a new sign face on the west side of the V-shaped roof-top biliboard structure, where the oId west face has been gone for three years, (this appeai does not affect the east-facing side of the biiiboard, which has been in continuous use.) 1521 Seiby Ave., NW corner at Saratoga. The meeting was chaired by Commissioner Field. Rich Malloy presenfed the statfi report and recommended denial of the aQpeat of Clear Channef Outdoor based on fhe findings ihat the biliboard has been abandoned for over two and one-half years. � Marvin Liszt, affomey for Clear Channel Outdoor, stated he was at a loss to. understand the Zoning Committee's legal rationale for Case # 02-244-612. He stated there is oniy one nonconformity to be dealt with and you cannof dissect.nonconformities"into different parts. Chris McCarver, Clear Channel Outdoor, expiained that the control numbers on the biiiboards are an identification number for the clients who want to rent a billboard, and for the biliposters who are hang the signs. These numbers do not mean they are separate structures. At the question of Commissioner Fieid, Mr. McCarver expiained that LIEP requested that the numbers be put on the application for ciear ident�cation of the sign location. He also stated "if requesfed they would supp4y information to the City regarding the permits if the City is having trouble finding their information. Clear Channel has one permif for fhe, billboard structure": ' No one spoke in support. David Monson, 1527 Selby Ave., sfafed he would prefer to see sky and trees rather than one- half of a bil(tioard. He also expiained it devalues ali the homes in the neighbo�hood. hie wouid like to see the biliboard come down and the appeal denied. • Brian Bates, representative of Districf 13, submitted artd presented pictures for fhe pubiic record. He explained that in O.ctober 19gg, the sign was slipping and they took the sign down. Section 66.302 states a sign face cannot be replaced in the City and Secfion 66:301 states fhat a sign damaged over 50 percent cannot be rep]aced. A state statute does not override a cify ordinance, it ailows for reasonabie municipat regulatians. Manrin Liszt had no rebuttal, the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Faricy moved deniai of the appeai. Commissioner Kramer seconded fhe motion. Commissioner Field stated he would vote in opposition to the motion because �f the testimony • (1/i i d� 9.� Zoning File # 02-243-782 January 16, 2003, Zoning Committee Minutes Page 2 regarding fhe handwriting of the number on the permif application seems somewhat difrerent on this appiicafion as opposed to fhe previous case (previous case similar to this one with same aPplicant and similar findings). Further, City staff requesfed tF�at the sign faces be idenfified by a number as opposed to the location. Commission Kramer asked Mr. Ma!!oy how many square feef is the billboard. Malloy stated it is 300 square feef, Kramer then poinfed out that fhe size of tfie biliboard seems to be a pertinent indicator of which billboard we are talking about. It would help if we had the original permit to see if the billboard number discussed previous(y was on a!! carbon copies of fhe permit. At the question of Commissioner Kramer, Mr. Fischbach stated fhere was no sign located on this particular biliboard when the permit was issued so there is no size. The Commissioners debated the issue of a sign being desfroyed and removed in 1998 and nothing was done fo repair it unfii the permit for repair on Ocfober 4, 2002. They questioned that many of the billboards ail over the City are attached and numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and if one of the signs are damaged and empty if can sef for any iength of time until the biilboard company decides to repair them. There was an argument sef forth regarding the fime 4rame with the bi(tboard moratoriums fhat wou�d prohibit the companies from appiying for permits. Upon a quesfion from fhe Commissioners, Mr. Soderholm explained that the bitlboard . moratorium expired in January of 2001, and it has been 22 months between the time that the moratorium expired and the apptication was filed. Commissioner Kramer argued that the square footage and the dimension of the sign tofals 300 square feet and the intent of tfie perrnit was issued for fhe one sign not the total billboard structure. The letters exchanged between the Cify and the applicant used the same number refafed to the sign face of the billboard. . The mation failed by a vote of three to fhree with Commissioner Anfang, q(fon, and Field voting against. Commissioner Kramer moved to forward the case to the Planning Commission wiffiout a recommendafion. Commissioner qnfang seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Adopted Yeas - 6 Drafted by: �� Caroi Martineau Recording Secretary Nays - 0 • -.. �;�.�! // .� . . - . � .. . -. . , ��'� � . . l�f'JJ • � • u �-�M�rG� 1521 Sct by a3 �tw�F �Z �Paa.T' ZONING COMMtTTEE STAFF REPORT FILE # 02-243-782 1. APPLiCAt3T: Cfear Channel Outdoor HEARING DATE: 1-16-03 2. TYPE OF APPLICATION: Appeal 3. LOCATtON: 1521 Selby Avenue, NW corner of Seiby at Saratoga 4. PiN & LEGAL DESCRiPTiON: 03-28-23-22-0109, BLOCKS E. & D. BOULEVARD ADDITION TO SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA. 5. PLANNiNG DISTRICT: 13 PRESENT ZONING: OS-1 6. ZONING CODE REFERENCE: §66.408(a); §66.214; §66.2167(e) and §66.2167(d); Minnesota Statute 462.357 7. STAFF REPORT DATE: 1-9-03 8. DATE RECEIVED: 12-10-03 BY: Rich MaUoy DEADLINE FOR ACTION: Waived by Appellant A. PURPOSE: Appeal of administrative decision by the Office of License, Inspections, and � Environmental Protection (LlEP) to deny a building permit for instatlation of a new sign face on the west side of V-shaped, roof-top biliboard structure. The old west face has been gone for three years. (This appeal does not affect the east-facing side of the billboard, which has been in continuous use). B. PARCEL SIZE: 4,366 sq. ft. • C. EXISTING LAND USE: Commerciai office space D. SURI20UNDING LAND USE: North: Residential (RM-2) East: Residential (RM-2) South: Residential (RM-2) West: Residential (RM-2) E. ZOIdING CODE CITATION: §66.408(a) of the Zoning Code, which is part of the chapter on signs, states that "Any person affected by the decision of the zoning administrator dealing with the provisions of this chapter may appeai this decision to the planning commission within thirty (30) calendar days of the decision." §66.214 prohibits advertising signs in the City. §66.2167(e) Iists the requirements for nonconforming signs in fhe Sneiling Hamline Special Siqn District. Section 66.2167(d)(2) of fhe code states that no advertising signs shall be permitted within the Sneiling tiamiine Special Sign District. Minnesota Statute 462.357 Subd. 1 e. lists the conditions by which nonconforming uses of land may be continued. � d3- ys� Zoning File # 02-243-782 Zoning Committee StafF Report Page 2 F. HISTORY/DISCUSSION: No current history. G. DlSTRICT COUNCIL RECOMMENDATtON: 7he Snelling Hamline Community Council supports fhe LIEP decision to deny the Clear Channel application for a billboard repair permit at 1521 Selby Avenue. H, FINDINGS: On October 4, 2002, LIEP received a billboard repair permit application from Channel Communications (Clear Channel) to allow repair of the southwestern face of the advertising sign on the building at 1521 SetbyAvenue. On October 31, 2002, I�IEP sent a letter to Clear Channel denying their request for a biliboard repair permit. L.I.E.P. stated their records indicate this advertising sign face was destroyed/removed from this location around November of 1999 and there is no record of an application for a sign repair permit prior to fhe October 4, 2002, request. 2. Sec6on 66.214 prohibits advertising siqns in any zoning district in the City. Section 66.2167(d)(2) of the code sfates that no advertising signs shali be permitfed within the Snelling Hamline Special Sign Distriet. A billboard at this loqtion is nonconforming uncier both sections 66.214 and 66.2167(d)(2) of fhe zoning code. � 3. Section 66.216?(e) of the code states the requirements for nonconforming signs in the ! Snelling Hamline Speciai Sign District. Subsection (e)(2)(c) states that a nonconforming sign shall be immediately removed from the Snelling Hamline Specia! Sign District at fhe cost of the owner if use of the sign has been discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive months. Minnesota Statute 462.357 Subd. 1 e. states that " Any nonconformity, including the lawfui use or occupation of land or premises exisfing at the time of the adoption of an additionai control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair or maintenance, but if the nonconformity 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." LIEP has determined by its records that the sign has been discontinued since November of 1999 which is over two on�half years prior to their Ocfober 4, 2002, application for a sign repair permit. I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings above staff recommends denial of the appeai by Clear Channel Communications of the decision by LIEP to deny a building permi{ for a installafion of a new sign face on the west side of V-shaped, roof-top biilboard structure at 1529 Selby Avenue. � � o3 � APPLICATION FOR APPEAL Zoning Section 1400 City Ha11 Annex 25 West Fourth Street Saint Pau1, MN S.i 102 65I-266-6589 Department of Planning and Economic Development APPELLANT PROPERTY LOCATION Zoning Office Use Only File No 6 �3 - �a Z- Fee 3 �j , 8 � Tentative Hearing Date �2-(Z- -oZ Name Clear Channel Outdoov Inc. Address 3225 SDrine Street NE City Minneapolis St. MN Zip 55413 Daytime Phone 612-605-5140 Zoning File Name Billboazd ReDair Permit Address/Location 1521 Seibv Avenue TYPE OF APPEAL: Application is hereby made for an appeal to the Plannin� Commission under the provisions of Chapter 66, Section 66.408 of the Zoning Code, to appeal a decision made by the Office of License, Inspections and Environmental Protection on October 31, 2002, copy attached. File number 481. � GROUNDS FOR APPEAL: Explain why you feel there has been an error in any requirement, permit, decision or refusal made by an administrative o�cial, or an enor in fact, procedure or finding made by the Boazd of Zoning Appeals or the Planning Commission. The decision by LIEP in the attached letter contravenes Minn. Stat. §462357, Subd. (1)(e) and city ordinances. Cleaz Chumel owns and maintains a legal nonconforming sign structure at 1521 Selby Avenue consisting of two poster panels. The damage to this nonconforming use was less than 50% of its market value. Cleaz Channel has not discontinued the use of the legal nonconformity for more than one year. Accordingly, Cleaz Channel has the right to continue this use, including its repair and maintenance. ApplicanYs Signature -__.., �' Date -a-7� J� City agent Marvin A. Liszt BERNICK & LIFSON, P.A. Suite 1200 The Colonnade 5500 Wayzata Boulevard � Mimieapolis, MN 55416 ATTORNEY FOR CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, IlVC. � A7TOANEyS AT LAW BERNICK N LIFSON D A PgOgE55SONAL ASSOCXATION December I0, 2002 Via Facsimile to 651-228 3314 & U.S. Mail Larry Soderhoim, Planning Adminish Dept. of Planning & Economic Develop. 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: 1521 Se1by Avenue (File Number 481) 1084 University Avenue (FiZe Number 156) Deaz Mr. Soderholm: Suite 120Q The Colonnade 5500 Way�yiy govlevard Mmneapolis, MN 554161270 unuru.beiniclo-lifsaa.com phone 763-5461200 fax 763 5 46-1 0 03 . O� , y�y � SaulA Bernick= Mazvin A Liszc**+ Scott A L.ifson David g. Nighringale ** Pau1 j.Quast• Jessita L. Roe Daoid M. Ness Geo�e E. Wazner, jr. ofc��ei Nea1 J. Shapiro Lcgat nsss.seanu %athryn G. Masterman Nancy L. Whay(en Tresa &. Sauer Gina M. Ylkroza This shalI confirm our talephone conversation today in which � agreed that the public hearing before the zoning committee for the above two appeals woutd be held on January 16, 2003. This shaIl aiso confirm that Cleaz Channel Outdoor, Ina hereby waives the requirement that the public hearings be held within 30 days from the filing opthe appeal. Tf you have any questions, piease feel free to contact me. Very truiy you�, ]BEFillTIC�K AND LIFS�LIY, P. A. ��/G)� i � Mazvin A. Liszt MAL:crb cc: Cleaz Channel Outdoor, Inc. � � /� 'AlwCezriSedAvblicACCOVatan[ � �f / "` Also Admiaed in Wssconsin v •+•gealp�oK�q9law5pedaiut Ce't� 6Y rhe Mmaewta Siate BaAssaRUt»n ATTORNEYS A2 LAW BERNICK p LIFSON � I A PROFESSIpNAL ASSOCIATION December 9, 2002 Mr. Paul Dubnuel Dept. of Plauning & Economic Development 25 W. Fourth St. St. Paul, Iv�T 55? 02 Re: 1521 Selby Avenue (FiZe Number 481) 1084 University Avenue (FiZe Number 156) Deaz Mr. Dubruiel: Suite 1200, The Colonnade 5500 V✓aqzata Boulevard Minneapolis,bII3554161270 vnu%bernick-Iifson. cam, pr�m,� �e3-��vi2oo fas 7655461008 Saul A Bernick= '.�4at'etn. �1. j.i5rt+'<* Stott A Lifron David & Nighringale+�* Paul J. Quast * Jessca L Roe David M. Ness George E. Wazner, Jr. of cau�ez Neal J. Shapiro Leg¢1 Assist¢nn Xathryn G. Masterman Nancy L. Whaylen Tresa K Sauer Gina M. Viktore This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated December 6, 2002 (copy enclosed) in regard to the above-referenced matters. Enclosed please find two replacement checks made � payable to the City of St. Paul in the amount of $380.00 each. My secretary called your office on November 27�' to confirm the amount of the filing fee for the applications and was transferred to several different people. She was finally told that the fee was $300 per application. Accordingly, the documents were filed with that fee. These applications were timely filed and I expect the date of appeals to reflect the November 27, 2002 filing date. V ery truly yours, BERNICK D LIFSO .A. Marvin A. Liszt MAL:CIb Enclosures �� _ � .. N � e �: . RECEIVEET Dt� 1 � �EC4 ��t�ING � `ALo Certfied Public Accomtan� 2 � * ALco Admined in Wssco�vin '*" Rea3 Propexry Law 5peoalss� Bm�n�aMrz naora5we DEPARTMENTOFPLANNING & ECONOMIC DEVEI,OPMENT Marth¢ G. Fuller, Director CITI' OF SAINT PAUL RandyKelly, Mayor December 6, 2002 Mr. Marvin A. Liszt Bemick and Lifson Suite 1200, The Colonnade 5500 Wayzata Boulevazd Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416-i270 Deaz NIr. Liszt: 25 Wert Fourth Sireet S¢int Paul, MN SSIO2 EfECEIVED Ocv 1 �J � ZONlPlG 03 - - Telephone: 61 Z-266-66589 FaesimiZe: 6I Z-218-3220 I am writing to follow up on your two applications appealing billboatd decisions by LIEP at 1521 Salby (File number #481) and 1084 University Avenue (Fi1e number #156) . The applications were received in PED November 27, 2002. Both applications are incomplete. The fee to appeal an administrative decisions is $380.00. You submitted applications with $300.00. (No do�bt you assumed the fee for these cases would be the same as for your recent appeals for Planning Commission decisions to City Cotzucil, which are $300.00) We aze rehuning the two checks, but aze holding your application forms. When I receive the conect fee, I will open the case files for these two appeals. � Therefore, we cannot pmceed with the applica�on. P�zrsuant to Minnesota Statute Chapter 248, Article 18, concerning deadline for a�ency action, we cannot accept the application at �his time. This notice is in accordance with Subdivision 3 of this statute with allows the city ten (10) business days to determine if the application is sufficient to accept and conduct the required action. Thank you for your fime and cooperation. You can contact me at (651) 266-6583. S � ely, �� < �,/ Q.�-Q / � � Pau1 Dubruiel PEb-zonin� AA-ADA-EEO Et�loyer �rr - 9 %r�? Z� � �.9� Y AiTORNEYS AT yAW BERNICK p LIFSON • • • A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION November 27, 2002 Via MessenQer Planning and Economic Development Zoning Section 1400 City Hall Annex 25 West Fourth Street St. Paul, MN 55102 Re: Appellant: Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. Properiy Location: I.i215elby Avenue File Number: 481 Deaz Madam or Sir: Suice 1200, The Colonnade 5500 Way�ata Boulevard Minneapolis, B1N 5541612'70 wroru.beraick-kfs' aa.com phorze 76 35 461 2 0 0 fax 763-54G1003 Saul A. Bemickt Maivin A I.isz[++* Scott A Li&on David B, ri'ighringale *+ Pa,il j. Q„as� jessia L. Roe David M. 2vess Geoxge E. Wamer, Jr. of cou�et Neal J. Shapiro Leg¢Z Assistants Rathryn G. Mastexman NancyL. Whaylen Tresa %. Sauer Gina M. Viktora Enclosed for filing please find an original and one copy of the Application for Appeal along with the $300 filing fee. Very truly yours, BEI2NICK LIFSO , .A. � M ' A. Liszt MAL:crb Enclosures cc: Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. �� `ellwCerdfiedPubli<ACCOUnmat a� t "* Also Admitted in Wismnsin if ` J 3.x Real Ptop<rty Law Spedalis� �•/ Cemlud bY rhe Mxrsrvsata Stc+e BarAUOnapon � CITY OF SAINT PAUL Randy C. Kel!}; Mayor October 31, 2�02 Chris McCarver V/P Reai $state Manager Cleaz Channel Communications 3225 Spring Street N.E. Minneapolis, MN 55413 OFfICE OF LSCENSE, INSPECiIONS AND E��Nb'1ENTAL PROTECIION RogerC. Curtis, Director LOWRy pROFESS[ONAI. BUII.pMG 350 St. PeterSneel, Suite 300 Soint P¢uf, Minnesota 5510?-ISIO l/3 - yisC Teiephonc 6 � Facsimilc 657-266-9124 1T'eb: �eRVw.cis/povF.mnus/!ie Re: Bilfboard Repair Permit For The Biliboazd Located At 1521/23 Selby Avenue With Our Reference File #481 And Your Sign Face Control �078140 Dear Mr. McCarver: On October 4, 2002, the City received a billboard repair perrnit appIication from Clear Channel Communications (Clear Channel) for a southwestem facina adveztisiiig sign face as described at the above referenced location. This location is in the SneI2ing-Hamline Special Si� District. The biliboard repair permit appiication is denied. Legislative Code Section 66.214 prohibits the constructian of advertising signs in any . zoning dishict in the City, therefore, all advertising signs in the City aze nonconforming si�s. Legislative Code Section 66301 pezmits legally constructed nonconfomung signs to remain provided such signs aze safe, are maintained so as not to be unsightly and have not been abandoned or removed. City of Saint Paul Legislarive Code Section 66.301 fuRher provides that "shouId such sign or sign structure be destrayed by any means to an.extent �eater than fifty-oae (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter." Minnesota Statutes Section 462 provides that if a nonconformity is destroyed to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its mazket value, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land oi premises shall be a conforming use or occupancy. Additionally, untier Section 66.2167 (e)(2)(c) of the Legislative Code, a nonconforming sign shall be immediately removed from the Snelling Hamline Special Si� District at the cost of the owner if the use of snch sign has been discontinued for a period of 3 consecutive months. State of Minnesota Statutes Section 462357 Subd. 1{e) relatiug to any nonconfomuty states that if a nonconformity is discontinued for a period of more AA-ADA-EEO EMPLOYER • � � o3-y�y Chris McCarver October 31, 2002 . Page 2 than one yeaz, any subsequent use of the land or premises may only be for a conforming use or occupancy. Our records indicate the former advertising si� face was destroyedlremoved from this location azound November of 1999. The City does not have a record of you applying to repair this former advertising sign face until your recent submission of the biIlboazd repa'u pemut application on October 4" of this yeaz. We consider this sign face to have sustained damage such that it ceased to be a legal nonconformity and, furthermore, to have been removed and abandoned. Furthermore, the sign has not been maintained so as not to be unsighfly. Therefore, the billboard repair pernZit application you submitted to repair this non-legal nonconfornuty, which has not been maintained, and is unsightly, and is a removed and abandoned advertising sign is hereby denied. I have enclosed a copy of all referenced sections of the legislative code, state statute and a copy of the denied billboard repair permit application with its supporting documentation. If you believe this decision to have been made in error, you may appeal the matter in writing to the Planning Commission within 30 days of the date of this letter. If you have any questions about this issue, I may be contacted at 266-9085 Sincerely, � � A�z�� 7effrey Fischbach Billboazd Inspections enc. c. Anneliese Detwiler, Snelling Hamline Community Council � �-�A-SEO &tifPLOYER � 03- �� Sec. 66.214. Advertising signs. � Aiivertising signs prohibited. No advertising signs aze permitted in any zoning district in the city. The purposes of this prohibition aze to enhance views of the natural and built environments of the city, to improve aestheticaily the fusion of residential and commercial areas, to promote community pride on the part of property owners, to encourage beautification and investment in the city, to protect property values, and to reduce cluttered and chaotic signage, which draws attention away from the identification signs of businesses and institutions located in the city. (Code 1956, § 66_214; Ord. No. 17536, § 28, 2-2_gg; C.F. No. 93-1718, § 108, 12-14-93; C.F. No. 97-1089, § 10, 10-1-97; C.F. No. 00-686, § 2, 8-23-00; C.F. No. 00-973, § 1, 11-15-00) Sec: 66.2167. Snelling Hamline Special District Sign Plan. (e) Nonconforming signs. Nonconforming signs wYthin the SneIiing HamIine Special Sign District which lawfuily existed prior to the effective date of this sign plan_ or any amendments hereto and which would be prohibited, regulated, or restricted under the provisions of this plan, may cont'snue to eacist as legal nonconforming signs regulated under the provisions of section 66300 pertaining to nonconforming signs, subject to the foIlowing additional requirements: (2) A nonconfoiming sign shall be immediately removed from the Snelling-Hamline Special Sign District at the cost of the owner if: c. Use of the sign has been discontinued for a period of three (3) consecutive months. � Sec. 66301. Intent. It is recognized that signs exist within the zoning distri�t� which were lawful before this chapter was enacted, which would be prohibited, regulated or restricted under the terms of this chapter oz future amendments. It is the intent of tlus chapter that nonconforming sa�ns shall not be enIarged upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for addin� other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same dish It is further the intent of this chapter to permit legal nonconforming signs existing on the effective date of this chapter, or amendments thereto, to continue as Iegai nonconforming signs provided such signs are safe, aze maintained so as not to be unsightly, and have not been abandoned or removed subject to the followin� piovisions: j2) Should such sign or si�n shueture be destroyed by any means to an extent greater than fi$y- one (51) percent of its replacement cost, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this chapter. • � � 462357 Procedure f6r plan effectuation; zoning. Subd. 1 e. Nonconformities. Any nonconfoimity, including the lawful use or occupation of iand or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, includin� through repair or maintenance, but if the nonconformity or occupancy is discontinued for a period of more than one year, or any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other.pezil to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its mazket value, any subsequent use or occupancy of the land or premises shall be a conforniing nse or occupancy. A municipality may by ordinance impose upon nonconfoimities reasonable regulations to prevent and abate nuisances and to protect the public health, welfaze, or safety. This subdivision does not prohibit a municipality from enforcing an ordinance that applies to adults-only bookstores, adults-on1Y theaters, or similaz aduits-only businesses, as defined by ordinance. � U 4 /�f d�- s�� nelling Hamline � ,� Community �°° � Council 1573 Selby Avenue, Suite 3ll . Saint Paul, Minnesota 55104 ! 651.644.1085, fax 651.917.9991 . www.snellham.org November 18, 2002 Zoning Committee Planning & Economic Developmeat 1400 City Hall Anttex 25 W 4th Street Saint Paul, M1V 55102 Re: Clear Channel Billboa=d Repair Permit at 152123 Selby Avenue. LIEP Reference File #481 Sign Face Control #Q78140 i�-. .� �• .�� -- At the November 7, 20Q2 meeting of the Snelling I�amline Community � Council, the Board of Ilaectors reaffumed its support of the Saint Paul Special Sign I}istrict and its regulatipns. The Snelling Hamiine Community Council suppa� � �¢.p decision to deny the Clear Channel application for a billboard repair permit at 1521/23 Selby Avenue. The Board of Directors respectfully requests that the Zoning Committee uphold the LIE� decision througfi anY aPP� P�ess that may arise. Very truly yours, ;�'��.. Travis Snider Board President ca Jeffrey Fischbach, LIEP Chris McCarver, Qear Channel Commimications Saint Paul City Coucilmembers Mayor Randy Kelley � �� a3�9/� ��. � Snelling � = Hamline � �,� �ommunity '�'°"' �a �i0UriC11. Zoning Commitfee Planning & Economic Development 1400 City T3a11.Annex 25 W 4th 5treet Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: Ciear Channel Billboazd Repair Permit at 152i/23 Selby Avenue. LIEP Reference File #481 . Sign Face Control #078140 �-. .� �• .�.�� -- � At the December 5, 2002 meeting of the Snelling 13amline Comruunity Council, the Board of Directors reaffumed its support of the Saint Paul Special Sign I?istrict andiu regulations. • The Snelling-Hauiline Community Council supports the LIEP decision to deny the Cleaaz Channel application for a billboard repair permit at 1521/23 Selby Avenue. The Board of Directors respectfidly requests that the Zoning Committee uphold th� LIEP decision ttu�ough any appeal process that may arise. 1573 Selby Avenue, Suite 3ll Saint Paul, Mianesota �5104 651.644.1085, faz 651.917.9991 www.snellham.org December 6, 2002 ; Very t�uly yours, � _ �- , Travis Snider �oard President � cc. 7effrey Fischbach, LIEP Chris McCarver, Clear Channel Communications Saint Paul City Coucilmembers Mayor Randy, Ke31ep ,Zj} Ys� 6 B �6� cy � . ��iJIL ��L��'`i��8� �CPZ�� i��a�i�a§ ��` •OPFICE OP LICENSE, INSPECTIONS RND ENVlRONMENTAL PROTECTtO�Y � 350 ST. PETER 57REET, SUffE 300 O3 � y/� ST. PqUL, MINNESOTq 55'102-1510 �Slt OIJ� �11�Eb $ItE 8f WWW.Cf,5tE18U1.R7R.IS5/110P i _ �._- _ ,� .. ;;1- t 1 Ntunber Sheet Name St. Ave. Blvd. Etc. N S PROJECT �. , d*lg�� annx�ss ' Z / >� � i-e - Contractor / /� / [' ��c.r L{i<n/t.�� (J-�F�1'�•� 1hC. C 32( (Include Contact Person) (,'�. >; /`� � �.e.�.--z�" Siate, Zip+4 //i/.'„ e � Io/�%� �_ ..,.._... ..i ruuRe��/il iJ�. ��/i3 6U5-Sio� C��, rnone clude Conract Person suce, zip+4 New Billboatd Alter Existing Billboard Estimated Start Date Estimated Finistr Date ESTIMATED VAI,LJfi pF PROIEC7 � BiRboazd Demoli5on � � ❑ i� l�aZ fCJlso2_ $�"3��'S,z3 � � P`; r � �"^�r^r C.Q B' oard (Advertisi¢a Sign) Information Nofice: A Si ed Lease A eement a Site Plan and Structural Plans must accom an this ermit a DIicarion. Type of Billboard (Check appiicable box) BiIlboard Tota] Square Footape Billboard Dimensions rree Standing ❑ Wa11 ❑ Roof�� Width Len Hei2ht (Above Grade) � � � z� � C. 5 � �� 3 �fp��x Fill out this section for Elecffical Billboard. Description of Project Distance to Nearest Billbozrd on the same side of che s¢eec vote: A separate Electrical Pemut is REQL7IRED when the Billboazd is elec�ical! �`' � �"/�� ^ (In Pea): ilectricaiContractor: Phone#: .�X.$T�nq c��.,,, [�•� �/,-e � J I � � /( // l G7 Tc . Ck!! � i'h22 /� � ! Approvak ' Reyuired Structural RevieM� Dy,T£ B �ird" oC.7(b/7 / � � phcant cernfies that at1 mf rmateoa is correct and that a11 pertinent state regulations and city ordinances wiYl be complied with in perfor�� the ork for which this permit is issued. Date SUMMARY OF FEI� Bill ard Permit Fee $ Plan Cfieck Fee $ 'otal Permit Fee $ ' FAX I'I'? Woutd you like your permit faxed to you? YES or NO If yes, enter fax � �i�) !�i� G'�. G x �. • �� 03-4/� ! _ a4' � �3 �'f�-''�-F1�c2 .<�c� ��SQ � , � -- --- -- '7 2 ,± �' � ��-�-� L t3 �'c_ L s y/3-7 } 3 �� l - `!� �'�> �� .,.� � � �.� � � 3 G . s6 ----__ .� - �� !��" ��° �� r� � �-o.Z� -,._. --- �its-�-:�_-� �- � �� 5-�-r �-J'�,�-c � i _ , s 1, , c, �-- - -- -- - -`-�°� ,.,.�� i 3•s 3 -_ _ S � € � c, � � �� £� � , y -- --- k.w�, Q �J e G`t� -- } ?-- �.�., �°. e � � �t� t�! � 3 �_� r --- ---- � -- -- I� c``�-� ea'::w � l G U c rr —_ ' �'G� T � � � �� 9 L� � �,. � 1.-$ , c�'€� 5 7 �r, fd fs -----�= � � ' -e� �,�� D �i 5 , ; � ---- � G?r�-:t� _ �� .---�.� � --.. —�--------- ---------------- Lv�%',. = S) 2..�:� 't — b e � v:a ° -- - - --- y-',s-^��--___ .u. _ � �� - . - -- c-�'>>-F�-� - �---_�. _._. - - _ r� F �' �'F�%�Catt' �.�5 � E . e' � f f„^ �'' .' � . . . �; ' J '"' """ " 1�1 ?' s—a-� c�.J "': L.: £, L. �, 7. � � __ � �_ , � . _, "7N-�j.�CE" I��'PY A�"F�"d�' f Q$TS d F�+� T'�3'i �i7Fr�te �rrre�r Il $L� pRp(' 1RF�(FNT_ I faces @ 3S� � {a�.,, � - Tot31 site procurement --- 5 3��"t' ?l SAS7C' fiTRTiC'�7}2F ,1�e c_ -?urchase ofbasic suuctnre, inciuding upzighrs end fascia: - Esrrnatedc�st------------------------ 533�'h �=" -DeliverycharSe' -------------------�-- ==�_�`; -Satescax@ G �=%------- - $ �:�. ------------ SUBTOTAI.----------- � ��'l'-.��h'� �IN ��NOP FARRiCe��i• - Labor to reaove basic mateZals from �uck; in-shop fabricarioa and assembly; ia-shop P��$ _ � man crew @ �� hoius @ �• � �J �� /�� 5'�T��A�„""_"""_"""' - . ;��$ =!4��:r 41 HAVt,/FARRiCATF FO{3'ITNC7S AR� crnrrr�� -F0/ S; � A�,�,� Z F1d F,; - Proc: 3�e mciades (a) czew & qvipmenl ue��,ssay to haul strucili. & aaterial to siie and -(b) ea�ploy an auger to dig hoIe sad haut ciut: (a) _ man crew Q hours @ �_�hr. to dig hole and haul �---------------------°------�_ (b) use of augez for _ ho @ - $ /br. -"""'-'_- --�------ �_ - Labor to fabricat ��eei't�s`at site $ad.�� coac�ts.fuoi�s�te. , . - _ maa czew @ % ? @ hours S � $ �'�^., . d� T, r:✓U�a-� �'-�--�GC -_yardscanc�te@�,/Yd- ---------- S t✓t� - Eauipment zequired: (a) one �xoc >��. Quck @ `„ hours • @ �_/hr. - � � .. , - �.� -------------,-- vuJ: .,1 � {b) one =_ ':.rf =�,' �uck @ '= hours @�.`_,—/nr. ---------------- 5 L /�� , �:� �.�"I'aTAI-------------------------•------- r � 7 �� J� }! � �3- y.� � • Page 1 03'9/4� u A.aPF�s3SAL # 3��CATT�?V # �_; % ; � r��_'- - n�� f-' 1� .': ' � � - . . :- .: �. �. �1,. _;._ _.._ � uE„ f � - L . .' � i t � t u�: r • : r. �U: � � - IncFudes asse�biy of fascia, stringe:s, plaifozms, laddess, braciceis, eta on-site. -,� mat� crew @ 1 C� hours @ � 27 � * . ------------------ ---- ---- 5 ,> bj�:;�� - Equipmeat re�uired: (2) one `�� b truck @ " hours @S� �; Pnr.----------------- S�,�v�d:,;l r , (b) one *r."-� 13t,r.'� �sck @ ji. fiours �p � �'`� /�-"_"'_""_""' �I.q' � a;`sy,? „� SL 7 � 3 TOTAL -------- - - - --- --------- --- - - - -- ----- 3> : :.�,�� Pa�e 2 � d3- y.� �.��saL � LC�E4TION h � � � 3 �1-� �S�',id� 7G-�.�,+� v � _._.::. = _. � ' ' �-'—� t • __ . . _ •. __ _ � tt�'1.'ail._ • �:.. � tl lu,i4 : � ! ► - Purchzse of basic elec�ical materiat incIuding �ght frxturas, baIla�L�, lamps, boxes, hzng�r, breake:s, clocks, nisc�llanea�s items sucfi as canduzt and cannectozs, clamps and ciips, etc. @ � - - - - - - - - - rG3 J. z �— . - Sales tax @ � ' ) °/a for mazeriaLs - - - - - - - - SG . � $ - Load sad unload equipmeni at site = a 2 ivan ctew @ Z— houn eanh Q S S G_ /Ii. --- 0`� c�G' c-� - fnstall ele�ical pane3s, run conduit, pull wire, instaIl fixtures and ball�cts: ` �� Z CiCW �q I � �3L5' �Q ��17. ""'_'_"_'____"_'$�!�sL�(� - Eauipmeat requued: (a) one L�p� � q Q j�i hotas @S So /hr. S �d?Jt<.`P? ('o) one U`n u 7� �ck @/ 2� fiours @ u ��? %hr. �BJ:� �C� dAE �'L1C�C Q�} �lUUlItS @� /hr. ,�_, SLT �-?' O T��.: - � ------------ ---------------------- S �.��r�G�et _ _ ... - �+N/ � �F 03-4�� APPRAIS?,L � LflCATIO�i R � ��y_�; .a� �;� �� ac� ,� �'�' c� 3 5 r�,s n�p F�ar�n�* t t��a'�'� I�� i ♦ y_ . - Crew to paint uprights inciud�g struciuiai st�?,12dde�, s�ingers, r.im, etc., all items gxC�gi fascia ` - � man czesv @ g houis @ S I Z-- 1 br.--------------- ------5� - Equipmeat reauired: (a) one panel mick require3 for �' hours@�Z� !hr• --------3 /(;O.frU SLTR T OTAi , ------ -^ -- --------------- ------- 5.� ut � �! : ! P ersnitcosts--------------------------- ��,a,'sv�l Soilstests --------------------------- $ �JI'� S I ]i �TQ'ZA 7. ------------- ----------------------- � ��o•c, ��cT�zD x��aomuc cosT � a-� - - - - - � !3 � <%, �,� m • _: s. The above costs are for labor 2nd raw materiaj oniv and do not include "indirect cosLS" including such iterns as stzndard overhead allowrsice and (2) entregraneurial/profit --- as explaine� ia :Le narrafive of the report. � � Page 4 , s� ; a:v?::��'I�I� #� �� i � r,/ -, .3 e...t1 +.A lr.' ,i 'i..+ -° r�r,y }. �' ✓'" y :. � " n. �s - y�� T3Y C3F RFPRn�nTr�rrpN COST�: �I� SICC� """""_'�f .�S-=`' (2) In-p2aca �pI�emmt (dire�t cos.) = S 13 �73 =s°�% (pa¢e I) (pa3es 1, 2, 3 & 4} Sub2otal -------------------- Y, Sl7t?3�O�C� '--------3a Overhesdlcontractoz's allowance @ ' S ')�L� Ot'� �� ° lo-------- � .,-- Entregreneuriai profii @ �� % - - - - - - � 73 ��cr0 ---- '-^'.S REPLACEMEi�IT COST i�+'EW - - - - - -- - - - - -- - - SAY, 5 �G3� r�J � � " � tif� �(u• ! Af�er cansdering: {I ) actual age of the in-place oui�oor adveatising structure and - (2) reca�izinS th= sttiC maintenance sche:iule appLied ta outdoor advertising sirueiures and - (3) the condition and quPlity of canstruction and - (4) the 1.ocztion aad economic Iife expertascy of Ehe out3aor advertising sttucfue ---- We have azzived at the canclusion thaz rhe over211 depreciaton es'�,;znate of / S� %* should be agalie3 or as fallows: ` TOTAS. DEPR�CIATiC3N ESTiMATE - - - ,0�'7, � + � 1�T0'I'E: DEPRECiATiON IS J� o t3F' DIREC'T CLIST (DEPRECIABF.,E ASSET5) � (��N T i75IONS: �'O;T'AI. REPLA�EME� �OST 1Y�� - - - - , - � �=��,?v � �+, 31ESS DEPR�:CIATIC?N AI.LOWr3NCES - - - - 4$ �� .33 FZEPLACEMEIY'i' Ct3ST I.E55 D�+ PREC`I.E4TIOied VAi.iIE - 5a9, S 2L� nQo-iowswpd % Page 5 of � o3-glY . � _ , �,� �? .• ,,� n , _f''r. � P - ._ -� �: ' , a =�. __� - .r" . . � �r:kt.�-4'".%.r _ ti _ _ �5�.3 �� Jr �-;-� ;�� y�> _ _ S I YJ � L.l. / Le�"�� fJ C ^ /^ J.-v% . . . �� _ _ T � " ? ? X 1% �� " 3 D Y -` �-Pi-�+s.-- � � o' ;� S 3 ��_..�--� --=��` � v � .. � �;,�� . . -- � i` i ��i�-1 s�': �^ � .. �_. � �f�l �..� �. F � � - � .. _O : l . � CJ ."�*-Lv � C,`.J `��,,,;� -- . . . . � . . . . . r - �.. � � ;�':� _ _.� � _ �^� r ._ . . � ^✓�-� _ ; � J`?..e�.v- _... 7 _ � -i'a �-°1'`-�',.G""'t ; ' k -�.r•,^' . � � .... .�za ' �oavu.:�-,.%C" _ �.z? J�-� '_ ! �.G'>.�hy-�u (. ,:;;T'.Z..•� :�.�- ._. � � . :r'°�� ^ -- � �.�.;,�.- `�a..L?tr�a-Lk'�E :r j Dc7 . t>e % ✓ _.._ �— '7,�✓ J 7S r �;':'.,� .'.J ,'C y L ._ � `�`- • �'. � �7 �i, �= e Ll r !J��7 77b , �� 36�Sv 30Z1 , ca i �• v-o �° . s a i . -%%' J J Xe >� J �� f / ��` 3 .� 5 � , z �i � 3 5 `�, a-� ��', �� 5 �J . = "'J /✓-� , � G � ��J � � �� i � ��/G 7 7 r'r ? 9�:i � �� C d'� .�a— J � �3- �1i� , . �- _ . M � � � , ; �r. - . � �, . -, � . � , .. .... Y,... . w ...b.. _.:. .s.._......,.�..a , �x �_-.. -. �.._ ._�a�.._.:.�..,-�..�._ ,.. . _.�.,_...:� ,. Selby @ Samtoga NS .. eeam Feet new �i o3-9�y� � � � � Photo taken in �Vovember of 1��9 _ ,�..., .:, _ .� _-� ` � _ ._ . _ ,..- -�.o .:r.. � �w..� �;.- ° :: � � �� 4 > � �� :i � S 'i:.�-=� ��' - q� ..,a a ' w : -�� . �'>. _��, �� ` ��- � � ' '� � �� 1 i �, . �� ; z � �'� '-'�, "e � q �"� � . � ��'�.��"�s ''� ,�.._�-.�.oi,. y .i " � c � '�. �.� �- z.r.�` `: � .Y.-m `� � � �i s''s�� , .-- ,__"` ' w � �„_" �.-^-- � � � ��+�^ �� . . � � ��^� � .zs_ �,cd�. '� � S'c�� S.k . � � ��4 k 1 ` S " � "" - `- � .�� ; :�:, .�S �`2..' : ?^` y 'j -f k ..�' - ' p T' . "`�' " _ ' �^ y x �: _ s _ �r � � S s ` t � @^3 9 F C ' ..i; � - - '£ •','-+,."` �: Y.. _ . �� Y �b "' . x - '' - '� - ,;� �s � ' - l � Y - "> �y,�, JZ '` P � . � � � � "�a � � � � ' � �G SJ T ' T-? : � ' � :;:^ _3 t �, �'.� _ � � 4 ` _ � - ��'se.:._ } : .�3:3a-�ie•-s-.a - _ '..— . > Y . y`s . v. . � `;$ _ +_ _;.,:_.. � �- i �-; � �- �,�_„_�„' �,,,:.�. �. � ._ E � t �C :�:�, �.a�� ,¢ . i:� i . ��a„i�tl � 'c ^_�, � � $ �� r � �. �� ' .�'� �� ' S �n� 3 ��a.m-�x�� -� .cvY�- _�� 7 • '" �� u S �� fi � � �� {4 . �� .�` �c<s� • . ' . ��y s ` � t i�� , r � .; a � ; ,� �' a ` .. �. �<i 1 3.. � '°" . i �' ��,.��y '�� .�.° i ,�° ,. � „!"" � i °� _., y � �N� £ y A4= -•� , a^ � g 'h � �� 'k �: �y ' } ��"K1'1�_ � t �2 t ' �i �� i5 �'� e^1� � �� -' � � C �`'n S ��. � � 1� � � - �,� : �-� � � _ � � a �s �� , � � �� : a �� ::A ,=r ` � . � d '2��z5 1 . �� p� , � t�� . �� . . ^ �� i `� ' � .. . .....�.a.,� � ' :�� - � ��. � ..._ a . .- , . � , ,. �„ �� - ��, r ` . t : ..a�e �..r ��3 '� ��,. `t ' i sa°a ;?�R ; 't s� �� '? .l:�q .�a-^ . � . � �� . %- �� -- ' = �.�s.-.0 � — �_°. _.. `�..�o'_ . - ... �»_ _ ' ^2,:. a " .._._" .. . ,�.-- '� " �i-= "c..%K. " "'--_""�»;-. ? � ' ��: �.,.x'^� �.� ::s:� a3-q��F � � CITIZEN PARTICIPATIO DIS RIC S i.SUNRAY-BATTLECREEK�HIGHWOOD 2.GREATER EAST SIDE 3.WEST SIDE 4.DAYTON'S BLUFF S.PAYNE-PHALEN 6.NORTH END 7.THOMAS-DALE 8.SUMMIT-UNIVERSITY 4.WEST SEVENTH lO.COMO 11.HAMLINE-MIDWAY ST. ANTNONI' 13. RRIAM PK.-LEXIMGTOt3 NAMIiNE .6ROV€LAND-MACALES'�ER 15.HIGHLAND- 16.SUMMIT HILL 17.DOWNTT}WN '`�jZ- 2.�� -7�� ../ A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLANNING DISTRICTS �3- �iy� � u ��'� � �� ` � z 3 7 �� o Z � `� n �� J�� . �-:_. :: :� '. � ._ . r _ °?LIC�A:T ` �\L ° 2t/'� "_' ',""`-�� ;t�POSE �t — LE t: �Z-��.3-70 LDA7E �Z %v -d � _t.tG. DIS7� FdAP :? �� ' r� nl � n n r� r n r, .. �. LEGcND ,; � zoning d�stricf tvund=_ry �11I1, suSj�n prope;,y 0 on_ izmiiy � Mro family �j�-� l2lutti�l: (3�ilY �� `� -.'_' _ ""." _ "'.-��,.-'-_- E . ..,- .� � `< ....'..f � . 1 n .G a � h \ ' `� � CO�itT3:�i?; a .� �. industrta! . V V2C2:1! � - ��' �'.�? � .�:3�'v. � .� •.:_ .. . . .. ....4 � „^5r� t•.'�� _ . . . - 1 i i. i 1»� 1 � ,� o�- s,� SNEL.LING HAMLINE COMMUNITY COUNCIL 1573 SELBY AVENUE, SU[TE 31 1 SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA.55104 BOAR� OF DIRECTORS TfiAVIS SNIOEP PWES�OENi SXIRLEY REIOEP FIRST VICE PREStOENi COR£YqNDER50N SEC�NO YICE ERIK HOIUN� SECRETPRY oo« �wEw.Nx TRFASVRER GEORG£JUR6ENSEN CITREN AT IAAGE May 7, 2003 Councilmember Dan Bostrom Ward 6, Room 320-B Cify Hatl Saint Paul, MN 55102 Re: Clear Chanrtei Bil(board Repair Permif at 1521 Selby Avenue Zoning File Number: 02-243-782 Dear Councilrnember Bostrom: TIN COMO ' RE�EEOaaE�k=<o„o Atthe May 1, 2003 meeting ofthe Snelling Hamline Community �^• Council, the Board of Directors reaffirmed its support for the Sainf `"" Paul Speciai Sign District.and its regulations.- ---- HRFNDA NATALA ° "" °•G """ Tfie Snelling Hamline Community CDUncil supports ffie LIEP and KRlS Ra915ov r ,„ R , a , = ,„ Planning Commission decisions to deny the Ciear Channei apptication for a bitlboard repafr permit af 1521 Setby Avenue. The Board of Directors respectfu[Cy requests that fhe Saint Paul City Council uphold the LIEP and Pfanning Commission deeisions denying Clear Channel's applicafion for the billboard Pepair permit. Very truly yours, i� Travis Snider � Board President cc. Jeffery �ischbach, LIEP Chris McCarver, Clear Channel Communications Mayor Randy Kelly . � • � WWW.SNELLHAM.ORG 657-644-1085 SHCCC�SM1IELLHAM.ORG �� i�ay-U�-Ul v8:4�N To: All Saint Paul City Councilmembers Please Distribute ASAP From: Don Ludemann Snelting Hamline Community Councii Treasurer Re: Item #61 on today's Council Agenda President Bostrom and VIembers of the Council: �� Y_Ul a3-S�Y �� / �� May 28, 2003 I regret that, due to a family emergency, I am unab(e to testify before you this evening on behalf of our Community Council. I ask that this letter be read into the Record as our statement o( opposition to Ciear Channel's appeal regarding the biliboard at 7 521 Seiby. You will recall that I appeared before you several r�eeks ago regarding the billboards on the southeast corner of Lexington Pazkway and University Avenue. I� that case, Clear Channel argued that the damaged, unused board was not one of four or five separate boards, but rather just one side of a massive single boazd. �While the Planning Commission agreed with Clear Channel, you saw through their specious argument and voted that the damaged board could not be restored. At 1521 Selby, the situation is Iargely the same. Two boards sit in a V-configuration on a roo8op. One has been damaged and unused for many years. The other has been in constant use. The Planning Commission (perhaps thinking "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me") rejected Ciear Channel's argument that these two boards are actually just one. Thus, Cleaz Channel is appea(ing to you this evening. Please maintain the consistent, fair application of Saint Paul law and reject Clear Channel's appeal. The damaged, unused board at 1521 Selby should not be restored. Thank you for yaur considerarion. ,'� ` � � �`•�J�1-. ��