Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />...... <br />LL. <br /><l <br />.... <br />~ <br />c <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 7, 2006 <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />D. <br /> <br />PLANNING CASE 05-14; UPDATED SIGN CODE <br /> <br />Mr. Lchnhoff explained that in 1997, a lawyer from Georgia, working with various sign <br />companies, began a search for locations to construct new billboards, some as tall as five <br />to seven story buildings. Many cities do not pcrmit new billboards, which is the case in <br />Arden I-lills, or permit billboards of that size. Despite the restrictions on billboards, the <br />lawyer would apply for the sign pcrmit with the expectation of a denial. Once denied, the <br />lawyer would file a lawsuit against the controlling government unit, often a city, claiming <br />that the sign regulations are unconstitutional and, consequently, the sign regulations <br />should be deemed unenforceable, If the sign regulations are deemed unconstitutional and <br />unenforccable, the city may bc obligated to approve the billboards or come to some sort <br />of a negotiated settlement <br /> <br />Although the results of the lawsuits have been mixed, the sign regulations in some cities <br />and counties have been deemed unconstitutional because sign contcnt was inadvertently <br />regulated. A city camlOt regulate the content of a sign and, generally speaking, cannot <br />show preferential treatment toward signs based on content Basically, a city cannot tell a <br />business or resident what they can and cannot have for a message on their sign or hold <br />higher regard for a sign based on its content <br /> <br />Cities that excmpt some signs from sign regulations or show preference for a type of sign <br />based on content are at risk of having their sign regulations deemed unconstitutional. An <br />exemption for for-rent, for-sale, or even religious signs has been construed to be a form <br />of regulating content Due to these types of cxcmptions, the cities of Hopkins, Eden <br />Prairie, and Bloomington have faced such lawsuits, some of which is ongoing and costly. <br /> <br />On March 13,2006, the City Council adopted a sign moratorium to allow the City time to <br />update the Sign Ordinance to rcmove any potential constitutional issues without the <br />pressurc of facing a costly lawsuit Although Arden Hills has not received any requests <br />for new billboards, the City's frontage on Interstate 35W, Interstate 694, US Highway 10, <br />and Highway 96 makes this an important issue. <br /> <br />Mr, Lehnhoff rcviewed the changes and modifications made to the Sign Code for the <br />Commissioners. He asked for all questions, changes, or concerns, including any spelling <br />or grammar mistakes, <br /> <br />Commissioner McClung stated he had a concern about changing from a Sign Ordinance <br />to a Sign Code, He stated he was not concerned about how difficult a Sign Ordinance <br />would be to change. He noted the City was unique and signs were a big issue in the City <br />with residential interest and he was concerned if they went to a Sign Codc, there would <br />bc no public hcaring involved. He indicated he prefcrred this be maintained as a Sign <br />Ordinance and not a Sign Code. Mr. Lehnhoff stated the City Attorney had <br />recommended the City switch to a Sign Code, which would become part of thc official <br />City Code. <br /> <br />Ms. Barton statcd with a Sign Code, it would allow staff to make minor adjustments to <br />the Code without have to bring it to a public hcaring. She noted any major content <br />changes to the Sign Code staff would foresee putting together a task force, which would <br />involve public participation, <br />