 |
City turns down request to reinstall storm-damaged signBy Joel Stottrup What a wind storm this past July took down in the form of a billboard along Highway 95 on Princeton's west edge will not be allowed to go back up, the City Council said last week. That was the council's decision Thursday when it turned down a request by Diane Hoey of Hoey Outdoor Advertising and her attorney, Peter Coyle. A storm with winds of about 50 mph came through Princeton between midnight of July 2 and 12:30 a.m. the next day, knocking down and damaging trees, tipping over a parked semi and damaging at least one structure. The structure was a building north of Highway 95 and where much of the roof was torn off, not far from the Hoey billboard. The billboard, which was blown down and severely mangled, was located on the north side of Highway 95 and a quarter mile east of Highway 169. When the sign company requested a permit to put the repaired sign back up, the city said no. Hoey, in a Sept. 12 letter to the city, asserted that the sign's value was more than $47,000 and that it cost Hoey $2,960 for repair, therefore claiming that the repair cost did not exceed 50 percent of the sign's value. State law says that if a nonconforming structure (which the sign was), is damaged in an amount in excess of 50 percent of the value of the structure, it may not be repaired or replaced. The city's ordinance requires only that the damage not exceed 25 percent but state law supercedes a city ordinance. City Administrator Mark Karnowski wrote in a memo to the council that he could only assume that Hoey's $47,000-plus figure for the value of the sign included how much revenue the sign could generate. City attorney Steve Anderson pointed out that case law indicates that income potential of a structure is an improper way of determining the structure's value in a case like this. Karnowski's memo also referred to Hoey's repair-cost claim and that city staff felt the $2,960 did not include all or part of the following: 1. The cost to remove and haul away the damaged sign. 2. The cost to remove the support I-beams and dispose of same. 3. The cost to dig the holes for the new support I-beams, lift them into place and secure them with cement. 4. The cost to straighten and reattach the angle iron stringers. 5. The cost to straighten and reattach the panels. 6. The cost to straighten and reattach the walkways. Karnowski also pointed out that a photo of the sign just after the July storm was the "most telling evidence supporting the staff finding that the cost to repair the sign would exceed 50 percent of its value." During the council's hearing Thursday for Hoey to appeal the staff's rejection of a permit to put the sign back up, it was brought out that the owner of the property the sign was on did not want the sign back up. The city also noted that the sign was considered a nonconforming use because of a city ordinance saying it was too close to another billboard. Attorney Coyle, at the council hearing, countered that even if the landowner where the sign had stood did not want it back up because of it being nonconforming, Hoey should be entitled to reinstall it because of Hoey's lease with the landowner. Coyle also said that by statute in such cases, the market value of a property is what a buyer would be willing to pay and that he and Hoey didn't feel the repair cost even came close to 50 percent of the sign's value. Coyle also said that various messages on the billboard had promoted businesses in Princeton and that Hoey's goal is to promote communities. Mayor Brian Humphrey noted that he and a couple of other council members are in construction trades and another is in building maintenance. Then saying he was just speaking for himself, Humphrey said that it would have to be inexpensive labor to get the sign put back up at the cost cited by Hoey and Coyle. Coyle, responding to statements about the repair cost, noted that two I-beams are new to the sign but that parts from the sign were reused. Putting the sign up with all new materials would cost in the range of $13,000, Hoey said at the council meeting. After closing the hearing, the council continued the discussion. Council member Lee Steinbrecher, who owns a commercial painting building not far from where the sign stood, said he felt the sign had been completely destroyed. He added that it would be hard for him to allow the sign to be replaced considering the amount of damage. The council then unanimously passed a resolution denying a permit to Hoey to put up the sign. Princeton Union-Eagle |