The URL can be used to link to this page

AF-S - 43952�1 T r � h� , � a C�TYOF FRIDLEY CIVICCENTER • W�I UNIVERSiTI' AVE. N.E. FRiDLEI',1�11NNESOTA i5432 • PHONE(612)571-�i.5p � RF�ISTERED !l�n. � April 1, 1 g 86 - Hr. Ralph Skinner 6217 Ceatral Ave. � !1. E. Fridley, !W 55432 Dear Nr. Skinner: PY 86-6 4 This letter is a follorrup of our telephone conversation oa Narch 31� 1g �. A visual inspection of your property revealed a total of six real estete related signs have been erected. Cbapter 214.06.28 of the Sign Code apecifies tbe requirements of Real Estate Signs in Aon-multiple developments such as yours. TDe aign requirements are as folla+s: 1. One (1) sign per building. 2. A maximum size of six (6) square feet in area. 3. To be removed within five (5) days Pollowing � tbe aale or lease of the building. � 4. A minimum distance of tea (10) teet trom any property line or driveway. Real estate signs are classified as temporary and do not require a permit. Hrnrever, as aoted above, you are�permitted one aign aot to exceed six (6) aquare feet in �rea vhich is to be installed a minimum of 10 feet from a property line. You are hereby requested to remove the signs or Dring them into conformance with Lhe City Sign Code. I vill make aaother inspection on Aprfl 11 to determine if Code compliance bas been met. Than)c you tor your cooperation ia this matter. Siacerely, Clyde 9. Moravetz S�tgn Code Enforcement Lil!!/ta , - :.-•- �� ;' , ��. r � n �� s�uu�: con�tete � �, a, a�a a, ; �. j 3 $. Put ya�reddre� irtthe �.7iETURN TO", s pscenrt the ' 3 revar� siae. Fat�ure co do th� wtU arevenc shb eara f►om :; �pj be1n9 returned to you. The ret�m recei t fea xri1G ovt� 3 Ya► the name of the peraon delivsratl to ar� ie a�fe At ': i daltv�er . For additionel fees the followring .' ��t . r� :; e' evailabla Co�lt postmaet� for f�s and cA �x(em�'� ; �e fOr seroiCe�si �testad. .. Ce - � �=. � � � 1. 0 Show to whan, date and addt� of deiWe�/�E >^� z � �. � 2, i� Reatrtcted DeliverV• � ,., �j 3. Artic� �kkd, `,c�ress@d to ,:,� ' ' ' � „ "� � a. `"� � ' � 3�' � us � ;,� � ,` _ fi� ' t N ��lS a - `y� t �� , ; k ; � � + �, � � I "`� :.� '� � �''< � 4: Ty� of S�rv( e�, ` N` -� t� I , �� . . _ . ;> � � .� ,�"wf ., - �;- ❑ Re�� .In�l►�! - '� � /�j � ��a I 0p ��@{�. ❑ �Q �V g � CI;��S.�� . �� l u� � �� A�iF �' ' °-�;� .a-�w.a. - � :.. } o �' � �. � ��,_= -:.,� .. .. _ . . . _,. . .. . , I. . DATE OELIVEFiED. ; ;: � s.;•," ,- '•; � � � re—Ad %, I �'- 4 � 8. S re —'qg�t _ !! %� � � � 7. Detebf Deliveryr � � ,; � , y. , . _ . _ ;. ; Z 8. Addr�see'sAddree��,j�Y�fl r �; ' � � �i � m ; i m ". . __ . , s � d ' � � ; 0 � P22 �:��.`�� RECEBPT F09� CERTIFIED IVIAIL NU INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDEO— NOT FOR INTERNATI�NAL MAIL �' Y (see Reverse) �f SENTJI'O _ . .. CERTIFIED FEE � SPECIAL DELIVERY o RESTRICTED DELIVERY u. � �+ w SHOW 70 WHOM AND y U � M7'EDELIVERE� �°u3 y SHOW TO WHOM, DAiE. y �' � ANOAO�RESSOF g � � oeuveRr �� W sr+ow ro wHOm aruo on � � °0 DELIVEREp 6111TH RESTpI � � s DELIVERY � SHOW TO WF10M, �ATE p s ADDRESS OF �ELIVERY Y ^ RESTRICiED DEIIVERY ^ TOT,4L pOSTApE WVD FEES � POSTMARK OR DATE g � E ` 0 w a 0 3 I � ¢ � ¢ ¢ e ¢• ¢ ¢ $ . � — -- - --- . •' I ' � �,r W l /y, "�++.....+.� � UNITED SfAt�S PQ 2 vl� �, � w. OFFlCIAL BllSl I�'^ Cn r'--�.�, I 9ENDER INSTftUCT NS� ' �,_ _ _ .'""_ i ' Prtntlluurtame.addreas. 1 opa� I�low � • Complets items 7. z, 8, end4 on�te ravarae. I • At�ch to iront of artYde ff spaas �rniYb�, PENACr�► FoR PatVAI'e _ �•�� CITI' or FR�DLE�'�°° ; • Endoras artide "Ratitm ReceYpt Reque�t�d° a sea�tonumber. 6431. UNIV��SITY AVE. N. E., . � RETURN � fRiD�EY; M�iV�VESQTA 55432 9 i TQ (Name of Sendar) I e I (No. and Stree� Apt, Suite, P.O. Hox or R.D. No.) ." � : � (C[ty. State.'end 21P Code) : � , � , I `�1 � � v � � � � �il � � � _'� � v � � � a �� - ;?�° _ g. :Nr; CIIYOF FRIDLEY CIVIC CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 • PHONE (6l2) 57t-3450 April 16, 19� (Kr°. Ralph Skinner 0 217 Central Avenue N. E. �'riclley, AfN 55�32 Re: Sign Inat�llation Violations Dear Mr. Skinner: Certified #P 207 444 754 S 0n April 1, 19�, I mailed a certified letter to you regardin� Lhe above matter. I have enclosed a copy of this lettem. As indicated in that lettor� an inspection on April i1, 99a6 wa� scY�eduled. The actual inspection on April 15, � 996 revealed the si�ns t�ave naL been re�..oved nor hsve t�iey beett brou�ht into eonformanee wi�h the City Si�n Cod�. ;;hapter 21�.19.2A, provides the ot�ner t�renty (20) calersdar dagts following the fi,st notice of violaiion io either re�ove such si�ns �r urin� th�m into comp"liance. ?f not corr•ected by �re o�aner within tw+enty l2D) days, the C.odc� allows the C3ty to rex�ove such si�ns. If the removal is per�i�rmed by S:I�e City, all expenses shall be a sp�eial assessmEnt against the prc�perty owner. You hereby have until April 27, 1986 to correct these violatians. Thank you for your co�peration in thi� matLer. Sincerely, CLYDE �l. AiDRAVETZ Gode Enforcement CVA9/mYi ENC: 1 r= i �. � � � p 2Q7 444 754 ` ��;E9P�' FO� CE��'�F'9�� A�� P10 IfdSOAANCE COVERAGE PROUIDED— MOT F09i 1�9TE�INATIOiVAL MfAIl. (See Reverse) SENT TO � .. �� , S R Ef AND NO. � _ � I r7 _ � s _: 9 : .� n (� �.Vl� pOSTAGE �� $ CERTIFIED FEE � • ,u'h,� SPECIAL DELIVERY � � r RESTRICTED DELIVERY d s �` SHOW TO WHOM AtdD S • W W � DATE DELIVERED a > � SHOW TO WNOM, DATE. y�� ANO ADDRESS OF 6 • � � � �ELIVERY �- o W SHOW TO WHOM ANO DATE _ � � pELIVEflEO WITH HESTRICT 6 Z o � DELIVFAY ' � s ADO ESS OF DELIVENY WITH d � HESTRICTED �ELIVERY � � YOTAL POST�f3@ blPdD FEES . $ d � � POSTMA6iiC OR DAY� . g o M E �„ 0 w � ' � a .e 0 � �. C � � �6 �° � ��/i�;�"�a _-,,�c.� �� r_" - �_ April 23, 1986 City of Fridley 6431 University Avenue N.E. Fridley, NIN 55432 To the Honorable Mayor Nee Dear Sir, This letter is in regard to a problem in our neighborhood in Fridley. t4y wife and I reside at 6185 Heather Place. We think our neighbor- hood is a quality area and would like to keep it as such, however, we have a problem with the property just to the north of us. I know your aware of the unsitely signs that have gone up recently. This sure distracts from our view. This is not the only eye sore that ?;r. George Skinner of 6217 Old Central Avenue is creating. He seems to be storing a number of vehicles (outside) and now we see an earth moving tractor of some kind. Is this all permissable in a neighbor- hood such as ours? �de as healthy tax payers should not be subjected to this in our ad- jorning yards. I think it puts a blight on what could and should be a quality area. I would like to see some action on cleaning it up and on the sign removal. If this condition continues to exist and valuations are lowered because of it, then it seems only fair that our taxes would reflect this. I would certainly like to hear from someone in regard to this and more importantly some action soon. �lnank yo`��r your at�ention. ` � '% �r%-� ,%/�' • `r'i� �IGG��'� ,�-t�. � � James M. P4cCulloch �' 6185 Heather Place Fridley, NIt1 55432 Residence Phone 574-1819 Office 484-g607 � 6 � � CITYOf f R! DLEY TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: OtREGTORATE �F PuB��c woRKs MEMOAANDUM Clyde Y. Moravetz, Engineering Administration John G. Flora, rPublic Works Diector Intersigns April 17, 19 � F'W 86 � 92 �� .x`_ �- �, o °a �� o ,� �� I received a notice from the City Manager indicating that the Mayor does not want to proceed with the removal of the illegal signs on the Skinner property located at 6217 Central Ave. , N. E. Do not proceed with the sign removal unless advised otherwise. JGF/ts ec: Jock Robertson � _-. � •� � � �: �� .� � � a c N � Z � � � � � � � � � � 4� �. � ■ �� l� � � � � � � '� � 0 � � � ■� . � � � � �. .�.+ � � � •� � ��'o �« 0 ��._ � �. �� .: � ~- m�a. n � �a�o � o�� m b z �� s � s o�� $ .. �� ;a a�� s�L� O �$ �, �� '� w p'pp }: a. e•+ � Z��w.. �a�� a�i �� d � ~� �� M � ��a m��B..� � �� o ��z� v,�3a aav, a� �� s ��-�� 0 ��eo� ��`�� e�=� a� .a �� atia'��'� t p 7 O a t7wJ 8�3 �� o�d� �� `. a�� 0 $b.�'� o�o� s�,� 0 �$b.. �� 8 . �� .. �� o=pOd '.-,°�03 �z�� <oa3 m �� Z� e��eS � . � ' � �. � �� ..� 00 �� .� � � � � � � � � � �� 8� �� 0 .. ada �� s9=. � � r� � ��a °—� .°. o'' � �� wr'� y ; FI a�� a_ ��yv 0 ��,� > o ��m � C� � C�' ar � ��°a�s �y��d � a�� $��=� ��m� Z a �. i� ao .°, �� m °o� s°�i .� � a ��.� �da �i o �.� > �ob � 0 � � � b �I FY � �eow �� sa �.� � � vagu �� a��a d � �, yu�� u H�b� � � lO� �� '�• � �`�.. � ~� M � � O � Iq �3$ �d � �. � o � d� �a�a' H� � m �li�ii� M ' a� �� d : o .� � °�}'p� O ~9� ��o��a �� $o�d�� Q'°�o��a a� �'3 aa� ��a�� ms.��s�s � �0�� 3 . ��_ - � - �s��m � � � &�� „� y ��w�� v�� m � �� m3o�� >� +-'�a��a $ a`►Q asa>>a�i; �3a. �>a�i�°�va�i i�A y :~b 0�� p�0 �aar � � 00 C � � � �a �� 8�m .� �� a oa � s �O a- a ,�°'. m �sy � � aa ,., �„ � ,, � � �'o �� m�� m �� °�a�o 0 F Q 41�� '� � �y��s 3 �r �� o�� V ��y '��u a°,i°F'`,�i ° ��os� ... :u > a. o �� , ;9 ��a°�� April t0, 1986 �lyde Moravetz City of Fridley �� CL � `�'c � 1�� S�coa�� rr�� r,v�.� ��'o � Dear Sir, calling attention to your let�er ate , 0 6, in which my recently erect�d signs seem to be of primary interest to you, it is most not�e worthy that you point out how I am suddenly in vialation of City Ordinance regulating real estate signs as I have displayed signs offering L��ts for Sale more than three and one half (3 1/2) years now with no mention of violation from you or any person from City Hall. �oar past silence on the mattxr of_ sians leads mE tc caiclud��, the issue is nc�t a matter of signs, I�ut rather ac� objec'-�.on to the mes�age of truth my signs reveal. �9y sigr.s are not P,eal Estate in pur �,ose or nature, ti�ey ace political. ns f ou krow, this is election year for Mayor in Fridley. I feel it is my civic duty and responsibility to help inform i.he citizens uf Fridley of the unfair practices and wrong doings of the present Mayor Bill Nee. Therefore I feel tA accomplish this purpose, my signs must stay up and in place until there is a disposition of the problem of my land locked property at 6217 Central Ave. N.E., in Fridley. My signs have prompted enquiries from many local residents as well as news media persons and affords me the opportunity to expose the preferrential treatment given by the city to some in violation of the Civil Rights of others. I reject your at�empt t�o deny my civic duty t� exploit the wrong, being done by public officials of our city . I also refuse t�o be intimid�ted by your effort to suppress my freedom of expression afforded me by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the Unitsd States. Basec� on the foregoing objections to your letGer, I hPr�bv give notice � have no intentions ol voluntary compliance with your request to remove or altar m,y �igns. If you care to pursue this matt�r by due process, I welcome you to do so. A copy of your correspondence and mine is being mailed to th� attention of: The Governor of Minnesota The P,i�rney General of Minnesota �, 4 C ti� � f� 3 The Anoka County Attorney /{, The Minnesota Civil Liberties Union �-/�� "�` � ` and the major Ne�rspapers of Minneapolis anr3 � �= � T � F / � c , )/,� ► � St. Paul Sincerely, � �.,��.�: , � � � G. Ralph Skinner , i �., v�'t C,-. :��.� �� Date: �� /19/86 PETITION FOR SIGN CODE ENFORCEMENT �e f�� '�t�i� "-' �I! / We, thl undersigned, are petitioning the City of Fridley to proceed with � the en rcement of the Sign Code (Chapter 214.06.2B) at the residence of 6217 C tral Avenue, N.E., Fridley, MN 55432. The resident, Mr. Skinner, has be notified in writing by the City of Fridley in a registered letterl ated April 1, 1986 of the Sign Code requirements. The specific violat� ns are as follows: 1' Only one sign is permitted per building and there are a total of six. 2 The maximum size is six (6) square feet in area. `All the signs ,: exceed this size. 3i The minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line has j also been violated. The le' er further states that the resident is "requested to remove the signs � bring them into conformance with the City Code". As an ' tion step, we again reference the Siqn Code (214.19.2), "If the owner ils to remove the sign or bring it into compliance with the provis ns of this Chapter within 20 calendar days following the date of sai notice, such signs may be removed by the City". We thel etitioners, are asking the City of Fridley to exercise their right ' remove these signs, as the existence of illegal signs is a misdem nor in the City of Fridley. � , , l0 � % � /�.t?��A��i�c�Ae�� /11 �%�S'`/.� � � �/ %/ /,Y��'2, �� / /%�/r! S sS� 3 z .� � • rg' � ��l� � � / �.� �—�.. �, � ��,. � � s�3 � �J �'�j� �/��.�-�/-�,��,c�� P ` � � -' ��Z ��a�.�.c.� � / � '7 �� c,. "�' � ��. . ��' � 2�� , ��-�.� c� � 7 0 �,�.�., -�� :�. �� 5��3� �� s-1�-�-�-�c�Q� � � �'�;. S-s�� mz. � J ` .� 6 /�� '-��y'� � �'� �, �"�s-y��. �`,� - � � .� .�" � � y � �.�?.�,� � . , ,�.., ,�� - �,. �' � �'�� - - l��. � , �p�,�3 �G�..� � � �� l �'L G�2e� /'Y ►'�'' " �� j �� e�C n / 1 ~ o "+ � �vi.. �e� �Iv�c°� �JP ��Gi�6 � �� -- ��-�� , �� . �� .��,� �f �ZrC/ �� °�� /��, �� - - �� a�� 8..� .� � �'� � � � � e , „ ; �� .� � CIlYOF FRtDLEY CIVIC CENTER •(ri�l UNtVERSIT�' AVE. N.E. FRIDLEI', A1INNESOTA g543? • PHONE (612) 571-;45p � RE�ISTEAED MAIL April 1� 1 g 86 I�lr. Ralph Skinner 6217 Central Ave. � N. E. Fridley, t�l 55432 Dear Mr. Skinr�er: P'ri 86-6 � This letter is a follovup of our telephone conversation on Hareh 31� 1g�. A visual inspection of your property revealed a total of ais real eatate related signs Dave been erected. Chapter 214.06.28 of the Sign Code specifies the requirements of Real Estate Signs in aon-multiple developments such as yours. Tbe sign requirements are as followrs: 1. One (1) sign per buildiug. 2. A maximum size of six (6) square feet in area. 3. To be removed within five (5) days folla+ing ; the sale or lease of tbe buildiag. 4. A minimum distance of ten (10) feet from any property line or driveway. Real estate signs are classified as temporary and do not require a permit. Hovever, as noted above, you are permitted one sign not Lo exceed siY (6) square feet in area vhich is Lo be iastalled a mini�um of 10 feet from a property line. You are hereby requested to remove the signs or bring them into conformance vith the City Sign Code. I vill make aaother inspection on April 11 to determine if Code compliance has Deen met. Thank you for your cooperation ia this matter. Sincerely, Clyde Y. Noravetz Sign Code Eaforcement CY!!/ta !.J►.�}. ,c�� 4� •, v • • ' �� ' � _��.� � e+� �;� �. ' � �. �!��' .�'.• ' �v� �� .� � '��,��=�� Nls. Janioe Meierbachtal, 6171 Heather Place, presented a petition to the Cb�cil on behalf a� 17 residents of the C�ty, many a�f then present �at the meeting who had sic�ed the petition. Nls. Meierbachtal stated this petition is asking the City to er�foroe the Si� oc�de at 6217 Central Avenue. She stated the City has al ready notif ied the resident at this address that he is in violation of the Sign Code. She stated there are several violations regarding the nunber of signs, size of the si�s, � the distance fran property lires, which is a clear violation of the Sic� Code. Ms. Meierbachtal stated the letter sent to this resident also states that he renwe the sic�s or a�mply with the c�de. She stated, as of this evening, the sic�s are still up and in violation. She stated, as the next action, the Sic� Code states if the awrer fails to renwe such illegal sic�s or make then o�mply with the aode, these signs may be renoved by the City. Ms. Meierbachtal stated they are asking the Qty exercise this right to renove the sic�s. She stated illegal sicy�s are a misdenearor in the City. Ms. Meierbachtal stated they appreciated the Council's attention to this matter and would like a resp�nse to this request by or at the next Council meeting. I�DTION b� Co�cilman Schreider to reoeive the petition submitted by Janice I�leierbachtal. Se�onded b� Co�cilman Fitzpatrick. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. Mayor Nee stated there are two issues involved, and one is between two property aarers. He stated the City has proposed what would be a re3sonatle aocannodation to which Mr. Brickner agrees, but it is questionable on the part of the ather party, Mr. Skinner. Mayor Nee stated the other issue on the signs is direct and within the Qty's jurisdiction. Mr. Newman, Qty Attorriey's Office, stated in regard to the placen►ent of si�s, one af the mncerns is the constitutional question of freedom of speech. i�e stated the Sign Ordinance principally addresses signs of a commercial rature. He stated Mr. $kinner has a oertain aonstitutional rigt-,t to express his feelings, but believes the City has the right to impose oertain restrictions. Mr. Newrt�an stated he hasn't had sufficient tin�e to explore the oonstitutional issue, haaever, it is clearly a different situation than �meone having a eonanerical si� advertising their progerty. Mr. N�nan stated the petitioners have requested the City to r�nove the si�s. He stated, it has been the practice that before �e City take such a step, a laaasuit is aonmenced to say the sic�s do a�nstitute a violation of the ordinance. He stated if the City renoves the signs and the court -2- •�.�1� � Y�� f_ � y . determines the property cwr�er .had the right to have the sign, this could result in a pro�len for �e (Yty. i�TION by Councilman Schneider to di rect the a�ninistration and Ci ty Attorriey's Offioe to prepare a report for ti�e next meeting regarding actions which may be taken to s�lve this grob�len. Seocnded b� Qo�cilman Bar�nette. Upon a voive vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried t�vianimo�sly. Cotaicilman Schneider stated he reoeived calls fran several residents in the area and hoped an agreemertt o�uld be readzed between Mr. Brickner and Mr. Skinner which would elimir�te the need for Mr. Skinner to keep up the si�s. M�r. Newman stated one procedure would be to charge Mr. Skinner with violation of the ozdinance. He stated this would take a minim�n of four months knawing there are oertain oonstitutional defenses. He stated the ultimate result is Mr. Skinner could be fined or ordered to physically renwe tfie sic�s. Mr. Newn.an stated a declaratory action would take a minim�rn of six months thzough t�e o�urts. On�cilman Schreider stated it aeens the most expedierrt way for the sic�s to be renwed is to have an agreenent between the two property owners, Mr. Brickner and Mr. Skinner. M.r. Qureshi, City Manager, stated he has met separately with Mr. Brickner � and Mr. Skinner and tried to put forth a proposal that is fair to both ; parties. Mr. Qureshi stated Mr. Brickner accepted this proposal, and the ` Qty is awaiting a response fram Mr. Skinner. N.r. Qureshi stated if r:r. Skinrer accepts the proposal, there wouldn't be a t�eed for any signage. Mr. Jim McCulloch, 6185 Heather Plaoe, stated the oode says Mr, Skinner is in violation. He fe1t, if this was the case, the City should take some action and the code enforoed. Mr. N�nan stated he is reco�mnending no action be taken until the next meeting so the aonstitutional issues can be revieraed. Mr. McCulloch stated he would like a progran by the r�ext meeting to get this matter settled as quickly as possible. Mayor Nee stated the aode is t�asically for oo�►erical sic�s. He stated this is a si� of a differerrt gender and that raises the question of whether or ret it is o�vered under the stark reality of the letter of the la+. l�Ls. Meierbachtai stated they appreciated the Council's attentior, to hel� solve this m�tte� an� �vo�:ld i�ke to prooeed with a solution no matter how long i t takes. c Mr. Joe Nelson, Avenue, appeared before the Council regarding the watez prohlen at his reside . . Nelson stated he realizes this is the -3- � N�ND �: Jock Robertson, �uiity Developaent Director N�hD FROM: Darrel C1ark, C�ief Building Off icial 1�D nATE: J�e 18, 1986 R�ARDING: Ralph Skinner, 6217 Central Avenue N.E. On Jtuie 17, 1986, at 4:30 p.m., I deliverecl a letter fran you to Mr. Skinner. 7�ie letter oontained info�ation about sic,� ordinanoe oo�nplianoe. I introduoed myself to a lady sitting on the patio and asked if I wuld speak with Mr. Skinner. She escorted me into the house where Mr. Skinner was resting. He recocg�ized �te from previous occasions when he was constructing an addition onto his house. I handed him the envelope containing the City letter and told him it was a letter oontaining information about his signs. He did not read the letter in my presence. I told him that if he had any questions ab�ut the oontents of the letter that he should wntact you. Mr. Skinner then brought up the discussion of the Oouncil meeting of J�e 16, 1986 about him having done oonstruction without a permit. He asked that I inspect his prenises with referenoe to what he had cbrie in the recent past. He shaved me a wncrete patio that he had poured at grade with ranps to allaw him the use of his power wheelchair. �e work looked okay and is ex�npt fran the Building Code requirenent of having to be authorized tr� a valid building pernait. DGC,/mh e VIRGIL C. NERRICK DAVID P. NEWMAN JAMES E. SCHMECKPEPER HERRICK & NEWMAN, P.A. ATTORNEVS AT LAW M E M 0 � s� ��_ ,��_ 8278 UNIVERSITY AVENUE N.E. FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA 55432 571-3850 T0: Fridley City Council FROM: David P. Newman, Assistant City Attorney �L-- RE: Ralph Skinner DATE: May 28, 1986 Pursuant to your request at the May 19, 1986 Council Meeting, we have researched the issue raised by Mr. Skinner's neighbors in which they allege that he is violating the Fridley Sign Ordinance. It is my understanding that the neighbors are alleging that Mr. Skinner's signs are in violation of chapter 214.06 subd. B of the Fridley City Code in that the signs in question are greater than six square feet in area; are greater than one in number; and are within ten feet of the roadway. In reviewing the code it appears that this section pertains to real estate signs for developments of less than ten d�vellings. However, in reviewing the signs located on Mr. Skinner's property, it appears that only one sign is there for the purpose of promoting the development and the balance of the signs voice Mr. Skinner's displeasure with the City of Fridley. Consequently, only the si3n which directly promotes the potential real estate development is covered under this section. In reviewing the Fridley Sign Ordinance it is difficult to find a description of a sign which accurately describes those signs located on Mr. Skinner's property. The best category would appear to be the regulations for political signs. In reviewing the definition of a political sign it is directed.at signs that promote the candidacy of a par- ticular candidate or address what the electorate is about to vote on. Mr. Skinner's signs do not directly fall into either of these two categories since as of yet, he is neither a candidate for political office nor are the issues raised on his signs an issue in any impending election. Since the signs do portray Mr. Skinner's frustration with the City and address Mr. Skinner's view point on action taken by the City Council, I would suspect that they are most akin to political signs. Several years ago the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the questions of what steps a City can take in regulating poli- tical signs, in United States v. 0'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 377, Fridley City Council May 28, 1986 Page Two 88 S. Ct. 1673, 1679. The test developed by the Supreme Court was recently followed by the Minnesota Supreme Court in a case involving the rights of the Hare Rrishna to distribute literature at the Sta�e Fair. The test adopted by the Court is three pronged: 1. Does the Ordinance further an important or substan- tial governmental interest. 2. Is the governmental interest in adopting the ordi- nance unrelated to this suppression of free expression. 3. By the passage of the Ordinance is the incidental restriction on free speech no greater than is essen- tial. If it is the intent of the City to address the remaining signs on Mr. Skinner's property, it would be the recommen- dation of our office that the current sign ordinance be amended. I would suggest that a new category of signs be created regulating signs of personal expression. This ordi- nance could require the signs to be maintained in a safe manner and that they do not contain any statements which are libelous or obscene. However, beyond this I would not recommend any greater restrictions for this type sign than for political signs. I believe that a strong Due Process and constitutional agrument could be made if the City were to permit greater leeway for political signs than it would for signs of personal expression. The City could also require this type of sign to be no greater than thirty-two square feet and for this type of sign to have the same set-back requirement as imposed by political signs. I would have serious concerns if the City were to attempt to limit the number of signs, particularly if the ordinance were to limit each property owner to only one such sign. I do believe though, that if the zaaximum number of such signs was kept at three or four such a restriction would much more likely withstand a constitutional test. We would required for sign is also located. also not recommend that there be a license such a sign providing that the author of this the owner of the property upon which it is We believe that an ordinance of this nature would withstand a constitutional challenge. The first test would be met in that the City has an interest in making sure that the signs do not interfer with the flow of traffic nor that they become so large that they are distracting or detract e Fridley City Council May 28, 1986 Page Three from the general neighborhood. The second test would also appear to be met in that the ordinance is not suppressing free expression but simply is attempting to balancA such a right against another proper City interest. Finally, it would not appear that the restrictions on freedom of speech are greater than essential in that the property owner would still have ample opportunity to express his personal politi- cal opinions. In summary it is our opinion that with the exception of one sign, the signs do not fall within the categories appropriate for promoting real estate development. It appears that there is not any category of sign in the current ordinance which directly addresses the type of sign which Mr. Skinner has on his property. If it is the desire of the City Council to regulate such a sign then it would be our recommendation that an amendment to the Ordinance be prepared in which this type of sign is defined and regula- tions similar to those imposed for political signs be adopted. As I indicated to you at the Council Meeting, the City has two alternatives if it wishes to attempt to enforce the Sign Ordinance as it applies to Mr. Skinner. The first option would be to bring criminal charges and to proceed through the criminal courts. If Mr. Skinner was convicted it cannot be guaranteed that Mr. Skinner will still be required to remove the signs although it would be extremely likely that the Judge would include such a provision in any type of sentence. The other alternative is to bring a civil abatement action. The recommended procedure would be for the City to commence a declaratory judgment action against Mr. Skinner seeking to have the courts declare that the signs are a violation of the City Ordinance and that the City has the authority to enter onto Mr. Skinner's property for the removal of these signs. I would strongly recommend the City not to attempt to remove these signs without first having obtained such a judicial order since the City could be exposing itself to considerable potential damages. I will be glad to assist the City and the City Council in any way you wish in further pursuing any of the items raised in this memorandum. � ,� ., ��;� , ..�. � '�I�► . . . � , .. �'- �� - > � �Lc� �v�-, ��7if �r �,7C� N .--i � (D � '-�1 d LL. !�L l',v G /7` C C.�'7 ii' P� V L/�GG� y-`.�-�-� ,� r , �;� , �� '� t, , i �` � ,. ��-..� .,. y. ."",� _ � ".�9�L". � L�7�i5 /1�� ?�� G'��' Li- �- � �° �� 3 � �> � �; � C �-=�.� �� . S/69/C�` L_ r�"7Tr'i �'�� , � N � � 0 � � � � _, � U Q J O C].. _i � I � I � �� ,rR � . f 1� � -. - ...' �. .. A '�@�A� aiEl`��,� ��-��C-� �� /��L> � �� --- - G�2i 5�� j'� � — � � �>�� ;� �a � < ��i�ic �= �-rT �r ��