The Downtown billboard proposal that ripped, tornadolike, through city government earlier this year is back, with a new sign added to the mix, a July 24 public hearing set, and new saber rattling from City Council.

The Zoning Board of Adjustment set the hearing date yesterday, responding to applications by Lamar Advertising to complete a 1,098-square-foot electronic sign on the Grant Street Transportation Center, and to build a 433-foot-long message board along the sides of the center.

The hearing will focus on whether the city should waive rules regarding where signs can go and how big and high they can be. In a broader sense, though, it may be about the future feel of Downtown and nearby neighborhoods.

"I just think that having a billboard at the end of Grant Street is wholly inappropriate. That's not what you want people to see when they're coming down that beautiful avenue," said Anne Swager, executive director of the Pittsburgh chapter of the American Institute of Architects.

"If done appropriately, this sign could be a big benefit," said Becky Rodgers, executive director of Neighbors in the Strip. "I do think it would make it more lively."

In December, the Louisiana-based billboard giant inked a sign lease with the Pittsburgh Parking Authority, which owns the transportation center, without competitive bidding or a board vote. It won a permit approval from the city zoning administrator in December, without the public hearings and votes the city code seemed to require. A legal battle with five council members led Lamar to agree to a public process.

In its new application, Lamar argues that the original permit was valid. But it also asks the zoning board to set aside rules that bar new advertising signs Downtown, restrict signs anywhere to 750 square feet, and cap their height at 45 feet above ground. The proposed sign would be 53 feet above the street.

"Boy, they sure are talking out of both sides of their mouth," Council President Doug Shields said. He said he and colleagues "may have to revisit the possibility of council going to court to uphold the rule of law."

Lamar's attorney, Samuel Kamin, could not be reached for comment.

Councilman Patrick Dowd said that in his view, Lamar is "actually going through the proper process."

The message board would be 2.5 feet high, for an area of 1,082.5 square feet -- more than triple the 300-square-foot limit the city code sets for that kind of sign in that part of Downtown. Language in Lamar's application triggers hearings and votes by the planning commission and council.

Lamar's applications for the sign and board both indicate a cost of $3.5 million, but it was not clear whether that is the total cost of the two items.

The legal picture is complicated by two council actions -- a six-month moratorium on sign approvals that runs out in September, and a proposed ordinance that would give council a vote on all sign replacement agreements. Proposed changes to zoning rules take effect temporarily as soon as they are introduced, so Lamar's sign application might have to go to council.

"I don't see how you have a fully vetted public process without this coming to council," said Councilman Bruce Kraus.

Lamar's original permit cut a swath through city government. Mayor Luke Ravenstahl first supported it, then ordered a halt to the billboard's construction just before Lamar could finish it.

Mr. Dowd appealed the permit as a private citizen, and Mr. Shields, Mr. Kraus and colleagues Ricky Burgess and William Peduto did the same as council members. Lamar sued them in civil court, and a flurry of legal activity ended with the firm agreeing to go through public hearings and votes.

During the legal wrangling, Pat Ford, executive director of the Urban Redevelopment Authority, and his wife, former mayoral spokeswoman Alecia Sirk, told a blogger and a reporter that they got gifts from Lamar Real Estate Manager James Vlasach. Ms. Sirk resigned, and Mr. Ford is on paid leave during a State Ethics Commission review.

Mr. Shields, Mr. Kraus, Mr. Burgess and Mr. Peduto hired attorney Hugh McGough to represent them. When they tried to get the city to pay the $10,706 legal bill, the Law Department declared it a personal debt, and said that if they voted to have it paid with city funds, they would forfeit their offices. The legal bill was set aside and the State Ethics Commission has said it can't provide guidance on who should pay it.