Agenda Packets - 2007/04/02 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Item No: 3C Meeting Date: April 2, 2007 Type of Business: Worksession Administrator Review: ____ City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: James Ericson, Community Development Director Item Title/Subject: Request from Charlie Hall Representing the Mermaid, Regarding their On-Premises Animated Sign Introduction: As reported at the Council meeting on March 26, 2007, Charlie Hall, owner of the Mermaid Entertainment and Event Center located at 2200 County Road 10, has submitted a letter concerning the Mermaid’s animated on-premises sign fronting County Road 10. Mr. Hall is seeking permission from the City to replace their sign, which was damaged last year after a lightning strike, utilizing newer LED technology. Discussion: Mr. Hall has explored repairing the sign however it has been determined that parts are no longer available through the manufacturer or vendor. It had been expressed to Mr. Hall in a letter dated March 9, 2007 that a sign moratorium had been adopted which prohibits new electronic changing message signs. While the moratorium does allow damaged signs to be replaced, the caveat is that the sign may only be replaced to the same condition and method of construction and operation that existed prior to the damage. (Sect. 3.03 of Ord. 784.) Mr. Hall is urging the City Council to make an exception to the ordinance to allow them or the future owner to replace the existing, damaged sign with a new sign using new technology, as the old technology cannot be replicated. Mr. Hall has also inquired as to whether the City Code presently would allow for the advertising of off-premises goods or services on their on-premises sign. The Code is somewhat silent on this matter as a result of previous ordinance amendments eliminating content-based regulation. Billboards, however, are defined in the code as a sign upon which goods or services located off site are advertised. Billboards may only be located in certain predefined areas and only with an IUP, so it clearly could be argued that advertising a good or service NOT available at the Mermaid would render the sign equivalent to a billboard and thus prohibited, as the City is presently at its maximum threshold for billboards—ten. If the City Council agrees that the intent of the Code was to prohibit off-premises advertising on an on-premises sign, clarifying language will need to be added to the City Code. Legal Review: Before sending the letter to Mr Hall dated March 9, staff had asked Kennedy & Graven to review the ordinance in response to Mr. Hall’s request. The legal review indicated that the moratorium would in fact prohibit the replacement of the existing Mermaid sign if a more advanced technology were utilized.