PL 03/13/1974 - 303950
r"°�
�
TiINUTES OF THE JOTNT MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF APPEALS
OF MARCH 13, 1974
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Eitzpatrick at 8:30 P.M.
Plannin� Comnission
MEA�ERS PRESENT: Fitzpatrick, Harris, Lindblad, Drigaas
MEN�ERS ABSENT: Blair
Board of Appeals
MEMBERS PRESENT: Drigans, Crowder, Plemel, Wahlberg
MII�ERS ABSENT : Gabel
Others Present
Mr. Uirgil Hexrick, City Attorney
Mr. Darrel Clark, Community Development Adm.
Mr. Howard Ma.ttson, Engineering Aide
Item ot Discussion
THE POLICY TO FOLLOW IN HANDLING REQUESTS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS AND
VARYANCES FOR EXISTING NON-CONFORMING BILLBOARDS
Mr. Ma.ttson handed out a status report which was ma.de up by the City on the
existing billboaxds and how each sign meets or does not meet each code requixement
of the billboa�cd ordinance.
Mr. Clark gave a suunnary of why these requests will be coming before the
Couunissions. He said in September of 1969 the Planning CouBnission and the Council
adopted a Sign Ordinance. He said this ordinance requires that a11 billboaxds wi11
need a special use permit granted before Septembex 15, 1974 or will have to be
removed. He said there axe appxoxim.ately 24.existing billboards in the City with
only four having had a special use permit granted. He said the list �Chat was
handed out shows the location of the signs and how most of them don't meet at
least one Code requirement and some don't meet two or more. He said before we
staxt getting the requests, it was thought to be a good idea to have a joint
meeting, with the City Attorney present, to decide what the Cammissions would
do and what they can do on the requests. He said on the last page of the st�tus
report is a taac base report on foux of the billboaxds.
Mrs. Wahlberg asked if there is a figure fox the total tax dexived from all of the
signs. Mr. Claxk answered that this wa.s not done but it would probably amount to
less than $50.00
Chaixznan Fitzpatrick stated that �Chis ordinance was presuma,bly looked into and
studied before it was adopted and he asked Mr. Herrick if it would hold up in
aourt for removing billboaxds that were constructed before the ordinance was
edopted. '
Mr. Herrick stated that our sign ordinance is constitutional. He said it allawed
^ � for a 5 yeax moxatorium for depreciation on existing signs so it is satisfactory
in this regard. The Commission will have to decide as to whether i�s reasonable
_ for �.special use permit on a sign or before they ask that it be taken down. He
�said they must take it on a fact to fact basis. He said the Council will have to
March 13, 1974 Page 2
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and the Boaxd of Appeals
. decide whether they axe going to issue any special use permits and they could say
take them all_dawn or they could grant them all. He said whatever action is taken
on the xequests should be consistant whether it is extreme measures or not. He
'�`� said if you a11ow some and deny some, you need guidelines and a criteria as to what
is needed fox approving or denying. He said as far as determinixig in advance
whether the court would support the City or not, thats hard to do. He said a form
should be made up showing factoxs you th�.nk would be important to make your �
decision on.
�
Mr. Harris brought up the point about the City's xesponsibility as far as a laase
for the sign goes. He said as an example if a sign company leased the land theix
sign is oa for 10 years, and they have 5 years left on the lease, and the Cou�issi.on
decides �he sign should b� removed. He asked if the Attorney thought the City
would be held responsible for the balance of the lease. Mr. Herrick replied that
in some cases no. He said the ordinance was adopted 5 years ago after most
property owners and sign companies knew about it. He said even though we might
diminish the value of the land, i�t would be difficult to determine. Ha said we
have given them 5 years to recoup their investment. He said the question that then
comes up is is 5 yeaxs reason�ble.He said the court has decided that 3 years is
suf£icient. He said he would suggest that the City get information on the lease
and the cost of the sign when it was built to add to the data they alxeady have
on the signs.
Mic. Harris asked if the Co�anission could recommend to the Council that the Special
Use Pexmit, if approved, ra.n un�il the end. of the lease. Mr. Herrick replied that
could be done and that was why he suggested �ooking into the length of the lease.
He added they could also grant the.special u:se permit for a specific length of
time, say 1 year, and review them again after that time.
Mr. D�igans asked the Conanission to look at the denial extreme. He said if the
denia]. was done on a mass basis, would the City need a resolution passed. He asked
if that would be one way of Eovering not granting any special use permits.
Mr. Herrick replied he would think that that is what the City would want to do
if they wanted a mass denial. He said if that was the result, the City would
have to look into the reasons for doing it. Mr. Drigans said the Ordinance was
drawn up and somebody must have looked into this throughly. He asked if it would
be better to deny all the requests before we get all the requests to eliminate
the consideration on an individual basis. He said thats what we want to get
away from.
Chairma,n Fitzpatrick stated some of the criteria is more important than others.
He asked how many of the billboards don't meet the Code. Mr. Clark answered about
90 percent of them don't meet the Code. Chairman Fitzpatri:ck said you ha�e talked
about a form and getting information on each sign. He asked if we would have to
take applications for special use permits if we were to decide to deny all of them.
Mr. Herrick stated we would have to accept.the applications.but you could
recommend that no special use permits be granted.
Mr. Harris asked if the City were to deny all of one companies signs, would the
court find the City acting in a capricious manner. Mr. Herrick stated that was
� a hard question to answer. He said Minnetonka took that position (to deny them
n all), and won in court, but he couldn't say what would happen now. Mr. Drigans
asked about the billboards that have had leases negotiated within the last five
years. He asked what chance the City would have in court if we denied their
' request�for a special use permit. Mr. Herrick answered that the City would have
a good position on these.
Marcn is, iyi4 Page 3
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board of ARPeals
. Mr.Plemel asked abou� the City's billboards. He said isn't that putting us in a
bad position. Mr. Clark said some of those billboards have agreements on them
and some have Council approval with just building permits. Mr. Herrick stated
,� • that was another reason to check into each billboard permit as they have been
erected under several different means. .
Mr. Lindblad sCated who:is governing who. He said why should a sign company be
able to tell the City what to do. He said if we are going to approve anything,
what will p�event anybody from coming in to get a billboard permit. Mr. Herrick
stated its a question of property owners rights. He said if the owner has a
banified property interest, then the City has to prove it is in the interest of
the he�lth, welfare and safety of the public to remove them.
Mr. Crowder stated the decisions ha�e to be a blanket denial, give everyone a
special use permit, or go through iche requests individually. He said it sounds
like we should set quidelines for each action.
Mr. Herrick stated the outcome that is accepted would not only affect the
existin� billboards but also would apply to new applications. He said the City
should come up with a form that will require all information about a sign.
Mr. Clark asked if two public hearings will have to be held for a billboard
needing both a special use permit and a variance. Mr. Herrick said there could
� be.a joi�t meeting between the Planning Commission and Board of Appeals and
hold one hearing. He said there could be the one advertisi.ng, one meeting and
have two separate votes; the Board of Appeals first for the variance, the Planning
Commission second on the special use permit. Mr. Clark said he felt we were
weakening our position by having two votes. Mr. Growder said he felt it should
n go to one board or the other.
Mr. Drigans said he felt the Commission sh�uld list the advantages and disadvantages
of the actions open to them. He said we should attack this on a systematic basis.
Chairma,n Fitzpatrick said lets look at the blanket.denial and what the rationale
would be. The Commission came up with; 1. Upholding the Code as written and adopted.
2. Save administrative time for going over individual requests. 3. Save Council and
Commission time. 4. Court costs on goi.ng just once instead of several ti.mes.
Pir. Lindblad asked if all 24 billboards have to have action taken on them before
September. Mr. Clark said there are 4 that may not have to as they had�special
use permits granted before the 1969 Ordinance but they do not meet the criteria
for billboards now. Mr. Herrick said he felt they should be lumped together with
the others. _
Mr. Herrick said he had a discussion with a sign company about taking down three
signs because of roadwork involving widening the street. He said compensation of
$1,000.00 apiece had to be paid out on the removal of the signs, and added that
might give the Commission an idea of what can happen.
Mr. Fitzpatrick said he didn't think the City would be going to court 18 times,
because of the court findings, one of the parties would learn. Mr. Clark said
he felt the signs are individual in themselves �,nd to state a blanket request
would be wrong. Mr. Herrick said some communities have had a blanket denial but
that would have to be the Commission's decision. He said if Council agrees with
�• �the Commission, then a portion of the Ordinanca would have to be deleted.
March 13, 1974
Page 4
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission and the Board of Apneals
Mr. Lindblad felt the City should eliminate them all. He said you cannot give
one sign approval without the rest getting approval also.
'� Mr. Harris aslced the Commission to consider Sandee's billboard. He said if we
denied this sign, would it be detrimental to his business. Mr. Herrick said
the owner would probably think so. Mr. Harris stated Sandee's was here before
the City so to speak, when Chings were different, but without that sign, no �ne
would know where the place is at. �
Mrs. Wahlberg asked why the City should be placed in that posit3on. She said
the City did not ask them to locate where they are so why is it the City's
responsibility. She said there are a number of restaurants that do not have
billboards that ara not on a main street. Chairman Fitzpatrick said he felt
Sandee's sign does not draw much business into the place that didn't know where
it was located beforehand. Mr. Lindblad asked if this sign was approved, and then
the.place was sold, would the new owner still retain approval for the billboard.
Chairman Fitzpatrick said anyone could give reasons for wanting a billboard.
Mrs. Wahlberg said another item for consideration would be the environmental
impact.
Chaix�an Fitzpatrick asked the Commission to list the advantages a,nd disadvantages
for a blanket approval. They came up with; 1. Work load would be.Tighter and
faster. 2. Add few extra revenue dollars to the budget. 3. Leave avenues open for
additional billboards. 4. Failure to uphold Codes. 4. Reverse reasons for denial.
Mrs. Wahlberg asked if the ti.me limit of special use permits is standard. Mr.
Clark said it varies depending on what the special use permit is granted for.
�1 Mr. Clark stated the renewal fee for billboards is due Apri1 30, 1974 and
obviously the action on all variances and special use permits cannot be made by
then.. Mr. Herxick suggested that when the billing forms are sent out, attach a
reminder for the special use permit approvml and state in case of denial, the
fee paid taill be prorated with the excess returned. He said he felt this
Co�ission should make their decisions and see if the Council concurs. He said
the publi.c hearings could be held and any action taken before.the September date.
Chairman Fitzpatrick asked Mr. Herrick what would be the easiest to defend the
City on; blanket den�al and not issuing any special use permits or selective
denial. Mr. Herrick said from a legal standpoint, there is a good possibility
of winning on a blanket denial and if there are standards set up for selective
denial, he wouldn't be afraid of that either. Mr. Herrick said i£ there was
to be a blanket denial, a change in the Ordinance should be made prior to
September stating all non-conforming .signs must be removed by a certain date.
He said since we have already g�canted a 5 year moratorium u.nder the Ordinance,
he felt the court would agree with a 6 month to 1 year time li.mit. He said this
time would•allow them to recoup their investments and clean-up their affairs.
He added the Commission should do their homeworlc and then present it to the
Council before the hearings are held. • •
Mr. Crowder asked if the sign company's would fight the City if we gave them
6 months more. Mr. Clark answered that he thought they would because they want
their signs as that is their business.
^ Mr. Harr3.s asked if the buyers o£ advertising space could hold the City
> responsible. Mr. Herrick stated he doubted it as he was sure the companies
have severence clauses.
March 13, 1974 Page 5
Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Plannin� Co�ission and the Board of Appeals
' Mr. Plemel asked about the grandfather clause and why it doesn't apply here.
Mr. Herrick stated it has applied here for the last 5 years but after September,
� . it wi11 cease and then they need special use permits.
Mr. Crowder said the Commission has been assuming the sign companies will not
conform to the billboard requirements. He said maybe they will. Mr. Mattson
said some restrictions could be complied with and some couldn't be as far as
setbacks are concerned.
Mrs. Wahlberg asked if it was possible to prohibit signs on a specific roadway.
Mr. Herrick said he thought it could if you could show accident statistics or
something unique about it to qualify �ienying. He said the.Commission would need��
basis and fact and a qualified person in engineering or traffic study should do
the s tudy .
Mrs. Wahlberg stated she had been told that the book "Street Graphics" has
information in it giving statistics about signs and she felt the City should
obtain a copy which might be ot help on the billboards and especially helpful
to the Board of Appeals on the variance requests.
Mr. Drigans asked if this body should meet again after information is acquired
and the form made up. Mr. Clark suggested each board going over the information
when it is available and then calling a special meeting if it is decided it is
necessary.
Mr. Herrick stated that on the whole, it might be better to consider tlie requests
one at a time, and then try to adopt a consistant pattern of action.
^ � Mr. Drigans stated.the book "Street Graphics" might show that our Sign Ordinance
is outdated in relation to its findings. He said at the Board of Appeals meeting
it was brought up that the Code says nothing about the number of tratfic directiona.l
sign allowed. Chairman Fitzpatrick said if the people on the Commissions feel the
Ordinance or parts of the Ordinance are outdated and should be looked at again, it
should be done•
Mr. Clark said the City staff will research and get the information on each
billboard including lease, type of pern►it, etc., and also draw up the form and
get this report back to the members in possibly two weeks. He said after they
get this information the Commission can make up their forma,t and present it to
the Council fox thi.e � approval.
ADJOURNMENT .
7.'he meeting was adjourned by Chai�nan Fitzpatrick at 10:30 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
J
MARY HINTZ
Secxetary-Board ot App s
� .
o �_