01-34council File # Ol - 3�
ORIGINAL
Ordinance #
Green Sheet # ���
Presented By
Referred To
��
n
i
z
3
4
5
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
Date
An ordinance to amend sections of Chapter 66 of th Saint Paul Zoning
Code pertanung to the repair of advertising signs recommended
by the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission pursuan o Council Ffle
No. 97-1658 and Minn. Stahxtes Section 462. 5, Subd. 4
The Council of the City of
That the Saint Paul Legislative
ARTICLE I. PURPOSE AND
Section 66.102 Definitions
Section 66.121. S.
ART`ICLE III. 66.300.
Sec. 66.301. Intent.
ORDINtANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
:�/— —=1 V� �—
SIGNS
Paul Does Ordain:
66 be amended to read as follows:
:
It is recognized th signs exist within the zoning districts which were lawful before this chapter was enacted,
which would be ohibited, regulated or restricted under the terms of this chapter or future amendments. It is
the intent of thi chapter that nonconfomung signs shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or ea�tended, nor be
used as gro s for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. It is further the intent
of this cha er to permit legal nonconfomung signs, e�sting on the effective date of this chapter, or
amendments thereto to continue as legal nonconfomring signs provided such signs are safe, are maintained so
as not to be unsightly, and have not been abandoned or removed, subject to the following provisions:
(1) No sign shall be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconfornuty except for temporary
e�ensions on billboards as pernutted in paragraph 7 of this section.
, ��- 34.
40 -
41 ,
42 tiris-ekapter.
43 (21 Should any such si�n or si�n structure be suhstantiallv destroyed bv anv means it shall not be
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
same size and tyne of construction and in the same location.
(3) Should such sign or sign structure be moved for any reason for any distance �
thereafter conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located
(4) No e�sting sign devoted to a use not pemutted by the zoning code in the zoi
is located shall be enlarged, ea�tended or moved except in changing the sign to a
zoning district in which is it located.
so ver, it shall
it is moved.
district in which it
pernutted in the
(5) When a stzucture loses its nonconfomvng status, as set forth in the zoni code, section
62.102Lfl(57) all signs devoted to the structure shall be removed and all gns painted directly on the
structure shall be repainted in a neutral color or a color which will ha onize with the structure.
(6) Signs may be repainted, reposted or replaced when there is a ch ge of any nonconfomung use as
set forth in the zoning code, section 62.102(e)(3).
(7) Any rectangular billboard may contain extensions, cutouts o top lettering which occupy a total azea
not in excess of fifteen (15) percent of the azea of the basic a ertising sign and form an integral part of
the design thereof; and provided further, that no such e�cte on, cutout or top lettering may project
more than six (6) feet from the top, eighteen (18) inches om either side or fifteen (15) inches from the
bottom of the basic rectangular advertising message. T e area of an extension, cutout or top lettering
shall be deemed to be the area of the smallest rectan e into which such extension, cutout or top
lettering will fit. Temporary extensions shall be co pletely removed not later than ninety (90) days after
installation and the total combined period of tem orary e�ensions for a sign face shall not exceed one
hundred eighty (180) days per year.
67
68 Sec.66.302. ,
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
9Q
91
...�.....�
m���nun�m�
Basic maintenance and minor repairs of nonconfomun� advertisine sisns shall be permitted, including�aintin�,
repair of eacisting electrical services, replacement of border trun, and up�radin� catwalks and safety cables that
protect companv workers.
92
93
94
95
96
Section 2
This ordinance shall become effective thirry (30) days after its passage, approval and publication.
OR(G(NAL
Requested by Department of:
0�-3`1
Plannina & Economic Development
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
Adopted by Counc�7.: Date
Adoption Certi ied by Council Secretary
By:
Approved by Mayor: Date
By:
B �l��G��wCVy� /
Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Council
By:
DEPARThI�NT/OFFICE/COUNCII.: DATE INITIATED � � ��V
City Council 1/3101 GREEN SHEET No.: 10 �(� ��ij
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: IHITTAI/DATE mn'rrermq�
Lazry Soderholm, PED 266-6575 � D�r,uz�r�xx nuz i crrv covivcn.
ASSIGN ? CTTY ATTORNEY 3 CITY CLERK
MUST BE ON COUNCII., AGEI�DA BY (DATE) NU�� p[�*�.7CIAL SERV DIIL FINANCIAL SERV/ACC'CG
FOR M�1YOR(ORASST.) _CNII,SERVICECOMMISSION
RODTING
ORDER
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES i (CLIY ALL LO('ATIONS FOR SIGNATORE)
ACfION REQUES7'ED:
RF,COMIvfENDA1TONS: Approve (A) or Reject (A) PEIiSONAi, SERVICE CON'1'RACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING Qi7ESfIONS:
I. Hasthispersodfirmeverworkedunderaco�xc[fortivsdepartmen[7
A PLANNINGCOMN�IISSION(avariatioa oftheir Yes No
recommendation) 2. Aasthis personlficm ever bezn a city empbyee?
CIB COMMITTEE Yes No
CIVII. SERVICE COMMISSION 3. Does tltis petson/fum possess a skill not no�mally possessed by any cmrent city employee?
Yes No
Eaplam altyes aoswers on separate sheet and attach W green sheM
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTi7N111' (Who, Whaf, Wheu� Whem, Why):
In November 2QOQ, the Council adopted a new citywide ordinance that prohibits new billboards. But there was
disagreement over the Planning Commission's recommended language regazding what repairs should be permitted
on e�sting billboards. Facing a deadline due to the billboard moratorium, the Council's November ordinance
simply dropped the Planning Commission's proposal on repairs and instead left in some of the old zoning language
about pernutted repairs--language that is out of sync with the rest of the new ordinance. This proposed Zoning
Code amendment is similar to what the Planning Commission proposed and spells out what repairs of existing
billboazds aze pernutted (painting, existing electrical services, trim, safety features for billboard workers) and what
repaizs are not pernutted (r�lacement of sien faces. replacement or reinforcement of structural elements, new
electrical services). The key difference, and the xeason for the disagreement in November, is that the Planning
Commission proposed that damaged billboazd faces could be replaced if the rest of the sign structure is undamaged,
whereas this ordinance says that a damaged sign face cannot be replaced.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
This ordinance helps to implement the City's policy to reduce the number of billboards in the city over a period of
years through attrition. Structural repair and replacement aze prohibited so that billboards will actually wear out and
be taken down. If structural repair and replacement continue to be pernritted, then almost all e�risting biliboards will
be maintained in perpetuity. The only ones to be removed will be due to redevelopment or termination of a lease.
DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED:
The billboard industry will sue the City claiming that their rights, as the owners of nonconfornring billboards, aze the
same as the owners of any other nonconforming property, and that they haue a right to do whatever structural
repairs they want. (Of course, the City has also been sued a few times on the other side by the anti-billboard
groups.)
DISADVANTAGES II+NOT APPROVED:
The City is left with the old zoning repair language from before the November ordinance. This repair language is
inconsistent with the new ordinance; it talks about the replacement and relocation of nonconforming billboards.
However, the new ordinance prohibits the construction of any new billboards anywhere in the city.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TR.ANSACTION: $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED:
FUNDING SOURCE: ACTIVITY NUMBER:
FINANC7AL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIIV)
r
,
O 1-�`�
SAUL A. 3ERNICK�
MAFVSN q. LISZT�
SCO'�T A. 1IF50N
DAVID K. NIGHTINGAI�L
PAUL J. OLIAST
JESSICA L ROE
January 24, 2001
BERNICK AND LIFSON
A PROF£SSM1ONAL q$SOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SU�TE 1200, TME COLONNqDE
SSOO WAYZATA BOVLEVAFO
MINNEAPOliS, MINNESOTA 55416-1270
TELEPHONE (Z631 546-�200
FACS�MII.E O63I 646-1003
All Vlembers of the St. Paul
Citv Council
St. Paul City Hall
15 Kellogg Boulevazd West
St. Paul, MN 55102
OS COVrvSEL
NFAI J. SMl�PIRO
IEGAL ./ S5ISTANTS
KATHRYN G.MASTERMqN
NANCY L WYiAYLEY
TRESA K. $AUER
TAL5040MITTEOIN WISCONSIN
'/LL50 CERTIFIEO PVBIIC ACCOUNTANT
�REAL PROPERTY LpW $PECIYLIST
amr�m e+�c n�..cso+. s..re a.».tsocuno.
RE: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 66 of the St. Paul Zoning Code
Dear City Council Members:
Eller Media Company (Eller) submits that to the extent the proposed amendments to Chapter 66
of the St. Paul Zoning Code attempt to limit rourine repairs and normal maintenance to
advertising sians the amendments are illegal and unenforceable under Iong standin� rules of Iaw
in Minnesota. This includes, of course, the proposed ordinance's attempt to cateaorize certain
routine repairs and maintenance as renovarions.
A summary review of the general principles governing nonconforming uses illusuates the blatant
defects in this ordinance:
Existing, nonconforming uses must either be permitted to remain or eliminated by use
of eminent domain. County of Freeborn v. Claussen. 203 N. W.2d 323, 325 (Minn.
1972).
The right to continue nonconforming uses necessarily embraces preservation of those
uses, includin� improvements in efficiency and reasonable renovations to prevent
deteriorarion. Countv ofFreeborn v. Claussen; Vlaris v. Citv of Cedarbure 498 N.W.2d
842, 852 (Wis. 1993).
Even if a repair caused an interruprion in use, it �vouid not cause a loss of the risht to
reinstate the nonconformin� use. since interruption due to necessary repairs is "beyond
the owner's control." Cauntv of Isanti v. Peterson, �69 �1.�V?d -�67. 470. (�tinn. 1991).
cirina Citv of Vlinot v. Fisher, 212 N.W?d 337. 3�0 (�.D. 1973).
The above principals enunciate the rule of law that the grant of zoning uolver Yrom ?he sta�e �o a
cit� is made subject to the riRhts of nonconformin2 users iiat-ing ! at t'.ie time the zonir._�
ti
� - �
� �'3`�
All blembers of the St. Paul Citv Council
St. Paul City Hall
January �4, 2001
Pa�e 2
ordinance is enacted. These principles aze common throuahout the linited States and lead to the
inescapable conclusion that blanket restrictions in repairs to nonconformina uses denies the
owner economic use of the land and constitutes a takine. �
It is di�cult to find ordinances in this State or elsewhere similaz to that proposed in St. Paul
since such ordinances cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. To prohibit or dramatically cunail
repairs to nonconforming uses as a matter of policy or to categorize them as renovations_ without
regazd to the extent of any damage or repair violates the law of this state. The passage of this
ordinance will lead to inevitable litigation in which Eller believes the City cannot prevail. The
likelihood that the City will also be liable for damages and attorneys fees for violatina Eller's
civil rights under 42 USC § 1983 should certainly cause the City to pause before enacting this
radical ordinance.
The Council should also be awaze that this ordinance has sia ificant problems under First
Amendment law, the Highway Beautification Act, Minnesota's Outdoor Advertising Control Act
and Minn. Stat. §462357. Eller believes that if this Council were to study the unpact of all the
above statutes and case law, it would not pass the proposed ordinance.
Finally, Eller does not believe the City Council has in the past or would in the future impose
such radical rules of repair on other legal nonconformina uses. Outdoor advertising is a
legitimate business and enjoys the rights oranted to citizens by the Constitution. Our Supreme
Court has stated "One limitation traditionally imposed on the right of a governmental body to
enact zoning restrictions is that such restricuons must be subject to the vested property interests
of law businesses and uses already established within the zoned district." Hawkins v. Talbot,
248 Minn �49, 80 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 1957). It is not too much to ask thatthis Council follow —
the rule of law and not infringe upon the constitutional rights �uazanteed to a lawful business. .
Eller is certainly more than willing to discuss this matter further or work with staff or the City
Council to approach this issue in a reasonable and lawful manner. -
Very truly yours,
BERNICK AlVD LIFSON, P.A.
�" : ..', �
Vlarvin.�. Liszt '�
YiAL: ate
cc: rllzr yledia Compam
council File # Ol - 3�
ORIGINAL
Ordinance #
Green Sheet # ���
Presented By
Referred To
��
n
i
z
3
4
5
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
Date
An ordinance to amend sections of Chapter 66 of th Saint Paul Zoning
Code pertanung to the repair of advertising signs recommended
by the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission pursuan o Council Ffle
No. 97-1658 and Minn. Stahxtes Section 462. 5, Subd. 4
The Council of the City of
That the Saint Paul Legislative
ARTICLE I. PURPOSE AND
Section 66.102 Definitions
Section 66.121. S.
ART`ICLE III. 66.300.
Sec. 66.301. Intent.
ORDINtANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
:�/— —=1 V� �—
SIGNS
Paul Does Ordain:
66 be amended to read as follows:
:
It is recognized th signs exist within the zoning districts which were lawful before this chapter was enacted,
which would be ohibited, regulated or restricted under the terms of this chapter or future amendments. It is
the intent of thi chapter that nonconfomung signs shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or ea�tended, nor be
used as gro s for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. It is further the intent
of this cha er to permit legal nonconfomung signs, e�sting on the effective date of this chapter, or
amendments thereto to continue as legal nonconfomring signs provided such signs are safe, are maintained so
as not to be unsightly, and have not been abandoned or removed, subject to the following provisions:
(1) No sign shall be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconfornuty except for temporary
e�ensions on billboards as pernutted in paragraph 7 of this section.
, ��- 34.
40 -
41 ,
42 tiris-ekapter.
43 (21 Should any such si�n or si�n structure be suhstantiallv destroyed bv anv means it shall not be
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
same size and tyne of construction and in the same location.
(3) Should such sign or sign structure be moved for any reason for any distance �
thereafter conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located
(4) No e�sting sign devoted to a use not pemutted by the zoning code in the zoi
is located shall be enlarged, ea�tended or moved except in changing the sign to a
zoning district in which is it located.
so ver, it shall
it is moved.
district in which it
pernutted in the
(5) When a stzucture loses its nonconfomvng status, as set forth in the zoni code, section
62.102Lfl(57) all signs devoted to the structure shall be removed and all gns painted directly on the
structure shall be repainted in a neutral color or a color which will ha onize with the structure.
(6) Signs may be repainted, reposted or replaced when there is a ch ge of any nonconfomung use as
set forth in the zoning code, section 62.102(e)(3).
(7) Any rectangular billboard may contain extensions, cutouts o top lettering which occupy a total azea
not in excess of fifteen (15) percent of the azea of the basic a ertising sign and form an integral part of
the design thereof; and provided further, that no such e�cte on, cutout or top lettering may project
more than six (6) feet from the top, eighteen (18) inches om either side or fifteen (15) inches from the
bottom of the basic rectangular advertising message. T e area of an extension, cutout or top lettering
shall be deemed to be the area of the smallest rectan e into which such extension, cutout or top
lettering will fit. Temporary extensions shall be co pletely removed not later than ninety (90) days after
installation and the total combined period of tem orary e�ensions for a sign face shall not exceed one
hundred eighty (180) days per year.
67
68 Sec.66.302. ,
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
9Q
91
...�.....�
m���nun�m�
Basic maintenance and minor repairs of nonconfomun� advertisine sisns shall be permitted, including�aintin�,
repair of eacisting electrical services, replacement of border trun, and up�radin� catwalks and safety cables that
protect companv workers.
92
93
94
95
96
Section 2
This ordinance shall become effective thirry (30) days after its passage, approval and publication.
OR(G(NAL
Requested by Department of:
0�-3`1
Plannina & Economic Development
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
Adopted by Counc�7.: Date
Adoption Certi ied by Council Secretary
By:
Approved by Mayor: Date
By:
B �l��G��wCVy� /
Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Council
By:
DEPARThI�NT/OFFICE/COUNCII.: DATE INITIATED � � ��V
City Council 1/3101 GREEN SHEET No.: 10 �(� ��ij
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: IHITTAI/DATE mn'rrermq�
Lazry Soderholm, PED 266-6575 � D�r,uz�r�xx nuz i crrv covivcn.
ASSIGN ? CTTY ATTORNEY 3 CITY CLERK
MUST BE ON COUNCII., AGEI�DA BY (DATE) NU�� p[�*�.7CIAL SERV DIIL FINANCIAL SERV/ACC'CG
FOR M�1YOR(ORASST.) _CNII,SERVICECOMMISSION
RODTING
ORDER
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES i (CLIY ALL LO('ATIONS FOR SIGNATORE)
ACfION REQUES7'ED:
RF,COMIvfENDA1TONS: Approve (A) or Reject (A) PEIiSONAi, SERVICE CON'1'RACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING Qi7ESfIONS:
I. Hasthispersodfirmeverworkedunderaco�xc[fortivsdepartmen[7
A PLANNINGCOMN�IISSION(avariatioa oftheir Yes No
recommendation) 2. Aasthis personlficm ever bezn a city empbyee?
CIB COMMITTEE Yes No
CIVII. SERVICE COMMISSION 3. Does tltis petson/fum possess a skill not no�mally possessed by any cmrent city employee?
Yes No
Eaplam altyes aoswers on separate sheet and attach W green sheM
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTi7N111' (Who, Whaf, Wheu� Whem, Why):
In November 2QOQ, the Council adopted a new citywide ordinance that prohibits new billboards. But there was
disagreement over the Planning Commission's recommended language regazding what repairs should be permitted
on e�sting billboards. Facing a deadline due to the billboard moratorium, the Council's November ordinance
simply dropped the Planning Commission's proposal on repairs and instead left in some of the old zoning language
about pernutted repairs--language that is out of sync with the rest of the new ordinance. This proposed Zoning
Code amendment is similar to what the Planning Commission proposed and spells out what repairs of existing
billboazds aze pernutted (painting, existing electrical services, trim, safety features for billboard workers) and what
repaizs are not pernutted (r�lacement of sien faces. replacement or reinforcement of structural elements, new
electrical services). The key difference, and the xeason for the disagreement in November, is that the Planning
Commission proposed that damaged billboazd faces could be replaced if the rest of the sign structure is undamaged,
whereas this ordinance says that a damaged sign face cannot be replaced.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
This ordinance helps to implement the City's policy to reduce the number of billboards in the city over a period of
years through attrition. Structural repair and replacement aze prohibited so that billboards will actually wear out and
be taken down. If structural repair and replacement continue to be pernritted, then almost all e�risting biliboards will
be maintained in perpetuity. The only ones to be removed will be due to redevelopment or termination of a lease.
DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED:
The billboard industry will sue the City claiming that their rights, as the owners of nonconfornring billboards, aze the
same as the owners of any other nonconforming property, and that they haue a right to do whatever structural
repairs they want. (Of course, the City has also been sued a few times on the other side by the anti-billboard
groups.)
DISADVANTAGES II+NOT APPROVED:
The City is left with the old zoning repair language from before the November ordinance. This repair language is
inconsistent with the new ordinance; it talks about the replacement and relocation of nonconforming billboards.
However, the new ordinance prohibits the construction of any new billboards anywhere in the city.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TR.ANSACTION: $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED:
FUNDING SOURCE: ACTIVITY NUMBER:
FINANC7AL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIIV)
r
,
O 1-�`�
SAUL A. 3ERNICK�
MAFVSN q. LISZT�
SCO'�T A. 1IF50N
DAVID K. NIGHTINGAI�L
PAUL J. OLIAST
JESSICA L ROE
January 24, 2001
BERNICK AND LIFSON
A PROF£SSM1ONAL q$SOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SU�TE 1200, TME COLONNqDE
SSOO WAYZATA BOVLEVAFO
MINNEAPOliS, MINNESOTA 55416-1270
TELEPHONE (Z631 546-�200
FACS�MII.E O63I 646-1003
All Vlembers of the St. Paul
Citv Council
St. Paul City Hall
15 Kellogg Boulevazd West
St. Paul, MN 55102
OS COVrvSEL
NFAI J. SMl�PIRO
IEGAL ./ S5ISTANTS
KATHRYN G.MASTERMqN
NANCY L WYiAYLEY
TRESA K. $AUER
TAL5040MITTEOIN WISCONSIN
'/LL50 CERTIFIEO PVBIIC ACCOUNTANT
�REAL PROPERTY LpW $PECIYLIST
amr�m e+�c n�..cso+. s..re a.».tsocuno.
RE: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 66 of the St. Paul Zoning Code
Dear City Council Members:
Eller Media Company (Eller) submits that to the extent the proposed amendments to Chapter 66
of the St. Paul Zoning Code attempt to limit rourine repairs and normal maintenance to
advertising sians the amendments are illegal and unenforceable under Iong standin� rules of Iaw
in Minnesota. This includes, of course, the proposed ordinance's attempt to cateaorize certain
routine repairs and maintenance as renovarions.
A summary review of the general principles governing nonconforming uses illusuates the blatant
defects in this ordinance:
Existing, nonconforming uses must either be permitted to remain or eliminated by use
of eminent domain. County of Freeborn v. Claussen. 203 N. W.2d 323, 325 (Minn.
1972).
The right to continue nonconforming uses necessarily embraces preservation of those
uses, includin� improvements in efficiency and reasonable renovations to prevent
deteriorarion. Countv ofFreeborn v. Claussen; Vlaris v. Citv of Cedarbure 498 N.W.2d
842, 852 (Wis. 1993).
Even if a repair caused an interruprion in use, it �vouid not cause a loss of the risht to
reinstate the nonconformin� use. since interruption due to necessary repairs is "beyond
the owner's control." Cauntv of Isanti v. Peterson, �69 �1.�V?d -�67. 470. (�tinn. 1991).
cirina Citv of Vlinot v. Fisher, 212 N.W?d 337. 3�0 (�.D. 1973).
The above principals enunciate the rule of law that the grant of zoning uolver Yrom ?he sta�e �o a
cit� is made subject to the riRhts of nonconformin2 users iiat-ing ! at t'.ie time the zonir._�
ti
� - �
� �'3`�
All blembers of the St. Paul Citv Council
St. Paul City Hall
January �4, 2001
Pa�e 2
ordinance is enacted. These principles aze common throuahout the linited States and lead to the
inescapable conclusion that blanket restrictions in repairs to nonconformina uses denies the
owner economic use of the land and constitutes a takine. �
It is di�cult to find ordinances in this State or elsewhere similaz to that proposed in St. Paul
since such ordinances cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. To prohibit or dramatically cunail
repairs to nonconforming uses as a matter of policy or to categorize them as renovations_ without
regazd to the extent of any damage or repair violates the law of this state. The passage of this
ordinance will lead to inevitable litigation in which Eller believes the City cannot prevail. The
likelihood that the City will also be liable for damages and attorneys fees for violatina Eller's
civil rights under 42 USC § 1983 should certainly cause the City to pause before enacting this
radical ordinance.
The Council should also be awaze that this ordinance has sia ificant problems under First
Amendment law, the Highway Beautification Act, Minnesota's Outdoor Advertising Control Act
and Minn. Stat. §462357. Eller believes that if this Council were to study the unpact of all the
above statutes and case law, it would not pass the proposed ordinance.
Finally, Eller does not believe the City Council has in the past or would in the future impose
such radical rules of repair on other legal nonconformina uses. Outdoor advertising is a
legitimate business and enjoys the rights oranted to citizens by the Constitution. Our Supreme
Court has stated "One limitation traditionally imposed on the right of a governmental body to
enact zoning restrictions is that such restricuons must be subject to the vested property interests
of law businesses and uses already established within the zoned district." Hawkins v. Talbot,
248 Minn �49, 80 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 1957). It is not too much to ask thatthis Council follow —
the rule of law and not infringe upon the constitutional rights �uazanteed to a lawful business. .
Eller is certainly more than willing to discuss this matter further or work with staff or the City
Council to approach this issue in a reasonable and lawful manner. -
Very truly yours,
BERNICK AlVD LIFSON, P.A.
�" : ..', �
Vlarvin.�. Liszt '�
YiAL: ate
cc: rllzr yledia Compam
council File # Ol - 3�
ORIGINAL
Ordinance #
Green Sheet # ���
Presented By
Referred To
��
n
i
z
3
4
5
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
Date
An ordinance to amend sections of Chapter 66 of th Saint Paul Zoning
Code pertanung to the repair of advertising signs recommended
by the Saint Paul Plamiing Commission pursuan o Council Ffle
No. 97-1658 and Minn. Stahxtes Section 462. 5, Subd. 4
The Council of the City of
That the Saint Paul Legislative
ARTICLE I. PURPOSE AND
Section 66.102 Definitions
Section 66.121. S.
ART`ICLE III. 66.300.
Sec. 66.301. Intent.
ORDINtANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
:�/— —=1 V� �—
SIGNS
Paul Does Ordain:
66 be amended to read as follows:
:
It is recognized th signs exist within the zoning districts which were lawful before this chapter was enacted,
which would be ohibited, regulated or restricted under the terms of this chapter or future amendments. It is
the intent of thi chapter that nonconfomung signs shall not be enlarged upon, expanded or ea�tended, nor be
used as gro s for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. It is further the intent
of this cha er to permit legal nonconfomung signs, e�sting on the effective date of this chapter, or
amendments thereto to continue as legal nonconfomring signs provided such signs are safe, are maintained so
as not to be unsightly, and have not been abandoned or removed, subject to the following provisions:
(1) No sign shall be enlarged or altered in a way which increases its nonconfornuty except for temporary
e�ensions on billboards as pernutted in paragraph 7 of this section.
, ��- 34.
40 -
41 ,
42 tiris-ekapter.
43 (21 Should any such si�n or si�n structure be suhstantiallv destroyed bv anv means it shall not be
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
same size and tyne of construction and in the same location.
(3) Should such sign or sign structure be moved for any reason for any distance �
thereafter conform to the regulations for the zoning district in which it is located
(4) No e�sting sign devoted to a use not pemutted by the zoning code in the zoi
is located shall be enlarged, ea�tended or moved except in changing the sign to a
zoning district in which is it located.
so ver, it shall
it is moved.
district in which it
pernutted in the
(5) When a stzucture loses its nonconfomvng status, as set forth in the zoni code, section
62.102Lfl(57) all signs devoted to the structure shall be removed and all gns painted directly on the
structure shall be repainted in a neutral color or a color which will ha onize with the structure.
(6) Signs may be repainted, reposted or replaced when there is a ch ge of any nonconfomung use as
set forth in the zoning code, section 62.102(e)(3).
(7) Any rectangular billboard may contain extensions, cutouts o top lettering which occupy a total azea
not in excess of fifteen (15) percent of the azea of the basic a ertising sign and form an integral part of
the design thereof; and provided further, that no such e�cte on, cutout or top lettering may project
more than six (6) feet from the top, eighteen (18) inches om either side or fifteen (15) inches from the
bottom of the basic rectangular advertising message. T e area of an extension, cutout or top lettering
shall be deemed to be the area of the smallest rectan e into which such extension, cutout or top
lettering will fit. Temporary extensions shall be co pletely removed not later than ninety (90) days after
installation and the total combined period of tem orary e�ensions for a sign face shall not exceed one
hundred eighty (180) days per year.
67
68 Sec.66.302. ,
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
9Q
91
...�.....�
m���nun�m�
Basic maintenance and minor repairs of nonconfomun� advertisine sisns shall be permitted, including�aintin�,
repair of eacisting electrical services, replacement of border trun, and up�radin� catwalks and safety cables that
protect companv workers.
92
93
94
95
96
Section 2
This ordinance shall become effective thirry (30) days after its passage, approval and publication.
OR(G(NAL
Requested by Department of:
0�-3`1
Plannina & Economic Development
By:
Form Approved by City Attorney
Adopted by Counc�7.: Date
Adoption Certi ied by Council Secretary
By:
Approved by Mayor: Date
By:
B �l��G��wCVy� /
Approved by Mayor for Submission to
Council
By:
DEPARThI�NT/OFFICE/COUNCII.: DATE INITIATED � � ��V
City Council 1/3101 GREEN SHEET No.: 10 �(� ��ij
CONTACT PERSON & PHONE: IHITTAI/DATE mn'rrermq�
Lazry Soderholm, PED 266-6575 � D�r,uz�r�xx nuz i crrv covivcn.
ASSIGN ? CTTY ATTORNEY 3 CITY CLERK
MUST BE ON COUNCII., AGEI�DA BY (DATE) NU�� p[�*�.7CIAL SERV DIIL FINANCIAL SERV/ACC'CG
FOR M�1YOR(ORASST.) _CNII,SERVICECOMMISSION
RODTING
ORDER
TOTAL # OF SIGNATURE PAGES i (CLIY ALL LO('ATIONS FOR SIGNATORE)
ACfION REQUES7'ED:
RF,COMIvfENDA1TONS: Approve (A) or Reject (A) PEIiSONAi, SERVICE CON'1'RACTS MUST ANSWER THE FOLLOWING Qi7ESfIONS:
I. Hasthispersodfirmeverworkedunderaco�xc[fortivsdepartmen[7
A PLANNINGCOMN�IISSION(avariatioa oftheir Yes No
recommendation) 2. Aasthis personlficm ever bezn a city empbyee?
CIB COMMITTEE Yes No
CIVII. SERVICE COMMISSION 3. Does tltis petson/fum possess a skill not no�mally possessed by any cmrent city employee?
Yes No
Eaplam altyes aoswers on separate sheet and attach W green sheM
INITIATING PROBLEM, ISSUE, OPPORTi7N111' (Who, Whaf, Wheu� Whem, Why):
In November 2QOQ, the Council adopted a new citywide ordinance that prohibits new billboards. But there was
disagreement over the Planning Commission's recommended language regazding what repairs should be permitted
on e�sting billboards. Facing a deadline due to the billboard moratorium, the Council's November ordinance
simply dropped the Planning Commission's proposal on repairs and instead left in some of the old zoning language
about pernutted repairs--language that is out of sync with the rest of the new ordinance. This proposed Zoning
Code amendment is similar to what the Planning Commission proposed and spells out what repairs of existing
billboazds aze pernutted (painting, existing electrical services, trim, safety features for billboard workers) and what
repaizs are not pernutted (r�lacement of sien faces. replacement or reinforcement of structural elements, new
electrical services). The key difference, and the xeason for the disagreement in November, is that the Planning
Commission proposed that damaged billboazd faces could be replaced if the rest of the sign structure is undamaged,
whereas this ordinance says that a damaged sign face cannot be replaced.
ADVANTAGES IF APPROVED:
This ordinance helps to implement the City's policy to reduce the number of billboards in the city over a period of
years through attrition. Structural repair and replacement aze prohibited so that billboards will actually wear out and
be taken down. If structural repair and replacement continue to be pernritted, then almost all e�risting biliboards will
be maintained in perpetuity. The only ones to be removed will be due to redevelopment or termination of a lease.
DISADVANTAGESIFAPPROVED:
The billboard industry will sue the City claiming that their rights, as the owners of nonconfornring billboards, aze the
same as the owners of any other nonconforming property, and that they haue a right to do whatever structural
repairs they want. (Of course, the City has also been sued a few times on the other side by the anti-billboard
groups.)
DISADVANTAGES II+NOT APPROVED:
The City is left with the old zoning repair language from before the November ordinance. This repair language is
inconsistent with the new ordinance; it talks about the replacement and relocation of nonconforming billboards.
However, the new ordinance prohibits the construction of any new billboards anywhere in the city.
TOTAL AMOUNT OF TR.ANSACTION: $ COST/REVENUE BUDGETED:
FUNDING SOURCE: ACTIVITY NUMBER:
FINANC7AL INFORMATION: (EXPLAIIV)
r
,
O 1-�`�
SAUL A. 3ERNICK�
MAFVSN q. LISZT�
SCO'�T A. 1IF50N
DAVID K. NIGHTINGAI�L
PAUL J. OLIAST
JESSICA L ROE
January 24, 2001
BERNICK AND LIFSON
A PROF£SSM1ONAL q$SOCIATION
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SU�TE 1200, TME COLONNqDE
SSOO WAYZATA BOVLEVAFO
MINNEAPOliS, MINNESOTA 55416-1270
TELEPHONE (Z631 546-�200
FACS�MII.E O63I 646-1003
All Vlembers of the St. Paul
Citv Council
St. Paul City Hall
15 Kellogg Boulevazd West
St. Paul, MN 55102
OS COVrvSEL
NFAI J. SMl�PIRO
IEGAL ./ S5ISTANTS
KATHRYN G.MASTERMqN
NANCY L WYiAYLEY
TRESA K. $AUER
TAL5040MITTEOIN WISCONSIN
'/LL50 CERTIFIEO PVBIIC ACCOUNTANT
�REAL PROPERTY LpW $PECIYLIST
amr�m e+�c n�..cso+. s..re a.».tsocuno.
RE: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 66 of the St. Paul Zoning Code
Dear City Council Members:
Eller Media Company (Eller) submits that to the extent the proposed amendments to Chapter 66
of the St. Paul Zoning Code attempt to limit rourine repairs and normal maintenance to
advertising sians the amendments are illegal and unenforceable under Iong standin� rules of Iaw
in Minnesota. This includes, of course, the proposed ordinance's attempt to cateaorize certain
routine repairs and maintenance as renovarions.
A summary review of the general principles governing nonconforming uses illusuates the blatant
defects in this ordinance:
Existing, nonconforming uses must either be permitted to remain or eliminated by use
of eminent domain. County of Freeborn v. Claussen. 203 N. W.2d 323, 325 (Minn.
1972).
The right to continue nonconforming uses necessarily embraces preservation of those
uses, includin� improvements in efficiency and reasonable renovations to prevent
deteriorarion. Countv ofFreeborn v. Claussen; Vlaris v. Citv of Cedarbure 498 N.W.2d
842, 852 (Wis. 1993).
Even if a repair caused an interruprion in use, it �vouid not cause a loss of the risht to
reinstate the nonconformin� use. since interruption due to necessary repairs is "beyond
the owner's control." Cauntv of Isanti v. Peterson, �69 �1.�V?d -�67. 470. (�tinn. 1991).
cirina Citv of Vlinot v. Fisher, 212 N.W?d 337. 3�0 (�.D. 1973).
The above principals enunciate the rule of law that the grant of zoning uolver Yrom ?he sta�e �o a
cit� is made subject to the riRhts of nonconformin2 users iiat-ing ! at t'.ie time the zonir._�
ti
� - �
� �'3`�
All blembers of the St. Paul Citv Council
St. Paul City Hall
January �4, 2001
Pa�e 2
ordinance is enacted. These principles aze common throuahout the linited States and lead to the
inescapable conclusion that blanket restrictions in repairs to nonconformina uses denies the
owner economic use of the land and constitutes a takine. �
It is di�cult to find ordinances in this State or elsewhere similaz to that proposed in St. Paul
since such ordinances cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. To prohibit or dramatically cunail
repairs to nonconforming uses as a matter of policy or to categorize them as renovations_ without
regazd to the extent of any damage or repair violates the law of this state. The passage of this
ordinance will lead to inevitable litigation in which Eller believes the City cannot prevail. The
likelihood that the City will also be liable for damages and attorneys fees for violatina Eller's
civil rights under 42 USC § 1983 should certainly cause the City to pause before enacting this
radical ordinance.
The Council should also be awaze that this ordinance has sia ificant problems under First
Amendment law, the Highway Beautification Act, Minnesota's Outdoor Advertising Control Act
and Minn. Stat. §462357. Eller believes that if this Council were to study the unpact of all the
above statutes and case law, it would not pass the proposed ordinance.
Finally, Eller does not believe the City Council has in the past or would in the future impose
such radical rules of repair on other legal nonconformina uses. Outdoor advertising is a
legitimate business and enjoys the rights oranted to citizens by the Constitution. Our Supreme
Court has stated "One limitation traditionally imposed on the right of a governmental body to
enact zoning restrictions is that such restricuons must be subject to the vested property interests
of law businesses and uses already established within the zoned district." Hawkins v. Talbot,
248 Minn �49, 80 N.W.2d 863 (Minn. 1957). It is not too much to ask thatthis Council follow —
the rule of law and not infringe upon the constitutional rights �uazanteed to a lawful business. .
Eller is certainly more than willing to discuss this matter further or work with staff or the City
Council to approach this issue in a reasonable and lawful manner. -
Very truly yours,
BERNICK AlVD LIFSON, P.A.
�" : ..', �
Vlarvin.�. Liszt '�
YiAL: ate
cc: rllzr yledia Compam