CCP 07-10-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 26, 2006 , 6 She requested Council give direction to the Mayor and herself regarding support for the . Community Foundation Committee, Councilmember Larson stated he believed this was a good idea for the City to pursue and a foundation could help out with the City, He believed there were long-time residents of Arden Hills who would be willing to contribute to this foundation, It was the consensus of the Council to proceed. 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS A. Motion to Approve the City's New Si!!:n Code Mr. Lehnhoff stated over the last several years, a lawyer from Georgia has been working with various sign companies to find new locations to construct billboards along major highways in many states, The proposed billboards have been reported to be as high as five to seven stories and have included the "tri-vision" types. which is a billboard with rotating panels, However, many cities do not pemlit new billboards or permit billboards of that size, The City of Arden Hills does not permit the construction of new billboards, He indicated despitc the restrictions on billboards in many cities, the lawyer applies for the sign permit with the expectation of denial. Once denied, the lawyer files a lawsuit against the City claiming that the sign regulations are unconstitutional and should be deemed unenforceable. If the sign regulations arc dcemed unconstitutional. a City may be obligated to approve the billboard or come to a negotiated settlement. . He noted while the results of the lawsuits have been mixed, the sign rcgulations in some cities and counties have been deemed unconstitutional because sign content was inadvertently regulated, He stated although the City has not received any requests for new billboards, the City's frontage on Interstate 35W, Interstate 694, and Highway 96 makes this an important issue, lie indicated on March 13, 2006. the City Council adopted a sign moratorium to allow time to remove potential constitutional issues without the pressure of facing a costly lawsuit. He stated the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed Sign Code at their June 7, 2006 meeting, Since the meeting was not a public hearing, an official motion was not made, Nevertheless, the entire Sign Code was reviewed and public comment was accepted. Most of the Planning Commission discussion focused on the proposal to move the sign regulations from the Zoning Ordinance to the City Code and how to deal with temporary ofT-premise signs, He stated if the public hearing provision is included with the Sign Code, a public hearing would not be required with the Plamling Commission before the City Council can adopt the Sign Code. .