HomeMy WebLinkAboutPL PACKET 02181992 Meeting Sheet
IIIIII VIII VIII VIII VIII VIII IIII IIII
100453
Box: 15
Folder: PL PACKETS 1992
Document: PL PACKET02181992
• CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
FEBRUARY 18, 1992
7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
I. CALL TO ORDER.
II. ROLL CALL
III. MINUTES.
A. JANUARY 21, 1992 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
IV. DESIGNATION OF COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE TO THE MARCH 10,
1992 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS.
• A. 7:35 P.M. - ADEL ALWAN SHEIK'S GARDEN RESTAURANT), 3800 APACHE
PLAZA, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS.
A. GOVERNMENT TRAINING SERVICE (GTS) WORKSHOP -- 'THE BASICS" --
SATURDAY, MARCH 14, 1992.
B. SELECTION OF SPONSOR FOR NEW PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER.
C. STAFF REPORT -- LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES IN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL
ZONE.
D. BACKGROUND READING -- SIGN ORDINANCES FOR SMALL AND MEDIUM
SIZED COMMUNITIES.
VII. STAFF UPDATE.
VIII. COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS.
IX. , ADJOURNMENT.
•
•1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
3 JANUARY 21. 1992
4 1. CALL TO ORDER
5 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. by Chairperson Madden who led the
6 Pledge of Allegiance.
7 2. ROLL CALL
8 Present: Brownell,Faust,Franzese,Gondorchin,Madden,and Werenicz.
9 Absent: Murphy.
10 Staff Present: City Manager Burt and Management Assistant Urbia.
11 3. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 17, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Motion by Brownell, second by Gondorchin to approve the minutes of the December
W3 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting.
14 Motion carried unanimously
15 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS
16 There were no public hearings scheduled.
17 5. APACHE SQUARES
18 City Manager Burt provided the staff report. The owners of the Apache Squares
19 shopping center wish to inquire if it would be possible to lease space to tenant(s)
20 which are not allowed for in a commercial zoning district. Their inquiry into this
21 issue is due to a high retail vacancy rate at Apache Squares, other St. Anthony retail
22 centers, and throughout the metropolitan area and nation. Apache Squares would
23 like the City of St. Anthony to reconsider the commercial district section in the
24 zoning ordinance, so as to permit light industrial types of uses within a commercial
25 district.
26 The owners of Apache Squares, Jim and Dave Koch, and their real estate agent, Jim
27 Moche of Accent Real Estate Company, were present to discuss their inquiry.
Currently, there are only two tenants out of the six to seven potential tenant spaces.
9 According to Mr. Moche, a problem of vacancy is the loss of property tax to the city
City of St. Anthony
Planning Commission Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 2
1 (from a previous high of $36,040 to the current $10,526). The owners would only
2 consider uses such as an office storeroom/showroom or light industrial. They would
3 not want heavy industrial. In addition, they would not have truck docks.
4 The Planning Commission would like to see an increase in business and in property
5 tax. However, there is a concern that by changing the zoning ordinance for the
6 permitted uses within a commercial district would allow other shopping centers to do
7 the same.
8 The Planning Commission encouraged staff to look at the permitted conditional uses
9 within the commercial zoning district. Staff will report back and notify the owners
10 of Apache Squares.
11 6. MACALASTER APARTMENTS
12 City Manager Burt invited Ken Solie, owner of Macalaster Apartments, to provide •
13 an update to the Planning Commission of the proposed CDBG project. The City will
14 apply on behalf of Mr. Solie to-Ramsey County to obtain the funding. The CDBG
15 funds will be used to convert six units into efficiencies, six units into three bedroom
16 apartments, flood proofing, interior aesthetic renovations, and heating control
17 modifications. The application is due on February 14, 1992. The prospects of the
18 project are favorable, as Ramsey County representatives have given favorable
19 responses to proposed plans.
20 7. CENSUS INFORMATION
21 Census information was requested at a previous Planning Commission meeting. A
22 staff report addressed the information that was requested. The Planning Commission
23 had questions of clarification. In addition, the Planning Commission discussed the
24 demographic information which was presented.
25 8. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS FOR 1992
26 Election of Planning Commission Chairperson
27 Franzese nominated Faust and Faust accepted the nomination. Motion by Madden,
28 second by Franzese, for an unanimous vote in favor of electing Faust as the 1992
29 Planning Commission Chairperson. •
i
4 y�
City of St. Anthony
Planning Commission Minutes
January 21, 1992
Page 3
1 Members voting aye: Brownell,Franzese,Gondorchin,Madden,and Werenicz
2 Members voting nay: None.
3 Members abstaining: Faust.
4 Election of Planning Commission Vice-Chairperson
5 Brownell nominated Werenicz and Werenicz accepted the nomination. Motion by
6 Madden, second by Brownell, for an unanimous vote in favor of electing Werenicz
7 as the 1992 Planning Commission Vice-Chairperson.
8 Members voting aye: Brownell, Faust, Franzese, Gondorchin, and Madden.
9 Members voting nay: None.
10 Members abstaining: Werenicz-
11 9. ADJOURNMENT
aMotion by Faust, second by Murphy to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at
13 9:15 P.M..
14 Motion carried unanimously
15 Respectfully submitted,
16
17 David Mark Urbia, Management Assistant
STAFF REPORT
DATE: February 12, 1992
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: David Mark Urbia, Management Assistant
ITEM: APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM
SHEIK'S RESTAURANT, APACHE PLAZA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following report is regarding a request from Adel Alwan for a conditional use permit to
allow for more than three amusement devices at Sheik's Garden Restaurant, Inc.; 3800
Apache Plaza.
The conditional use permit is necessary as Mr. Alwan proposes.to have up to 30 amusement
devices. According to the Zoning Ordinance, Appendix I, Section 9, Subdivision 3(14), an
establishment is permitted to have more than three amusement devices (as defined in
Section 51'0:05) only by conditional use permit.
Mr. Alwan's proposed plan (see attached drawing) would allow him to generate additional
revenue in the older, rear portion of the restaurant. The front portion of the restaurant has
been renovated. Mr. Alwan proposes rules that he believes will create a family atmosphere.
The three conditions are satisfied for this conditional use permit, if the owner carries out the
intent stated in answering the conditions. The Planning Commission should consider adding
the following conditions in conjunction with recommending approval of the conditional use
permit:
(1) The arcade shall prohibit tobacco, alcohol, and drugs on the premises.
(2). The arcade shall prohibit individuals under the influence of tobacco, alcohol,
and/or drugs.
(3) Proper supervision should be available at all times to ensure appropriate
conduct and behavior.
(4) The access from kitchen to dining area shall be segregated to ensure safety.
(5) The number of amusement devices allowed will be dependant upon the
available number of amusement device licenses and available space within the
area designated on the proposed plan.
Additional Background Information
The City's current amusement devise licensing ordinance allows the owner of the amusement
devices to hold the license, even though the amusement devices are not in use. The holding
of licenses presents a problem to those who would like to operate amusement devices, since
the City has a limit of 106 licenses. The first reading of Ordinance 1992-001 was on
February 11, 1992. This ordinance will allow only the operator of the amusement device
establishment to apply for and hold the license.
City staff discussed the conditional use permit request at a recent staff meeting. The Police
Chief did not foresee major problems with the arcade at Sheik's. The Police Chief would
have to realign some patrol schedules. A disadvantage of the arcade is it is inside the mall
and not in a free standing building. A previoius request in 1987 to allow for an arcade in
Apache Plaza by conditional use permit was tabled by the City Council. The applicant,
Amercian Amusement Arcades, did not persue the request after it was tabled. The City
Council tabled the request to do further study of the impact of arcades in mall areas. Of
particular concern was this arcade was proposed to be next to the municipal liquor site.
?n n�
CITY OF S", f""i'HONlY-
fPrLICPTIOY FOP CONMI„IOTUL `13E DER"l"'
Ppplic<<nt : Adel Plwan Phone 788-3880
Pedress: 3800 Ppache Plaza; St. AnothonyyId�T. 55421
Status..-of applicant (owner, buyer, renter, agent, ) : owner
Street a0dress Fin(4/ or legal description of property in question :
SHEIK' S GARDE N R.ESTAUR 'L,\TT inc.
Zoning district in which property is locatee :3800 Api:che Plaza
Conditionril use proposed : Expand existing restaurant to ir.cluee
elrctroric f7ar-,-c &z entertainment devices. Full-service ,m ies
�2
with a non-alcohol .l+tmosphere.
Minnesota Statutes and City Ordinances require that the followi.ig
conditions be satisfied before a conditional use may be fiuthorized.
please respond to these conditions, using Fudditional sheets, if
necessfury.
1) The-:proposed , conditional` use is one of the conditionf:l uses
specifically listed for the-.zoning district in which" it is to' be
located. Yt4.
2) The, proposed conditional use will not be detrimental to the health,
safety, or generful. welfare of persons rediding or wc1`rking in the
vicinity of injurious to property values or inprovepents in the
vicinity7.
"There is no apparent, indicF:tion or evidence tSis request
would be detrimental or harmful to persons eluding
employees, general public or ' customer/patrpp s. Sufficient -
full time supervision during fill business hours will be
furnished. Also, see cattachel list of ru� s'.
3) The proposed conditional rise is necessary or desireable Fit the above
location to provide a service or a facility which is in the interest of
public convenience find. will contribute to .the general welfare of the
neighborhood or community.
A fFUmily orientated enviornment of entertainment
consisting of kiddie rides, video games, find billiards.
This dimension is to enhance and Fuld to the existing
m
restaurant by offering the comunity a clean & wholesome
atmosphere that has entertainment appeal for full ages
& members of the family."
7
Signature of applicant :
01 -22- 92A *130 . 0-0a
'"HE SHEIKS R--JLFS:
- ) ,,To sr'ox r r 0p ,0T3P cco
3) r()*T." S , 0�1 FOOL ^P 3LFS
Can "P CH h ;s
4 ) PPOPEP CC,!-D--JC^ gL P-EITP V IOT?
IS R.QTJ Ir?En
5) TJYD R —Tir I"'rL T:."C OF
PLCOHOL G^ nn—'-T Ts IS yo—
P
i
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
NOTICE OF HEARING
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that there will be a public hearing by the PIanning Commission of the
City of St. Anthony on Tuesday, February 18, 1992 at 7:35 P.M. in the Council Chambers
of the City Hall, 3301 Silver Lake Road (enter northeast corner) for the following purpose:
Consideration of a request from Adel Alwan for a conditional use permit to
allow for more than three amusement devices at Sheik's Garden Restaurant,
Inc.; 3800 Apache Plaza.
Anyone wishing to be heard with reference to the above matter will be heard at said time
and place. Questions regarding this matter may be referred to the City Manager, 789-8881.
Thomas D. Burt
City Manager
Publish: Bulletin, February 5, 1992
C. G. Rein Co. Sentinal Management Dave & Jim Koch
949 Sibley Memorial Hwy. 5151 Edina Industrial 4901 Excelsior Blvd.
St. Paull MN 55118 Boulevard St. Louis Park, MN 55416
Edina, MN 55435
Re: 2504124-39th Ave.
Ken Solie Taco Bell Tires Plus
Village Properties 3704 Silver Lake Rd. 3800 Silver Lake Rd.
2500-39th Avenue N.E. St. Anthony, MN 55421 St. Anthony, MN 55421
St. Anthony, MN 55421
Marquette State Bank
3928 Silver Lake Rd.
St. Anthony, MN 55421
, i
AN
�l _ ...............
��x r
CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
ORDINANCE 1992-
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO LICENSES FOR AMUSEMENT DEVICES;
AMENDING SECTION 401:00 TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF LICENSES
AT ANY ONE ESTABLISHMENT; AND AMENDING SECTION 401:00
TO ADD NEW SECTIONS 401:15 and 401:20
The City Council of the City of St. Anthony ordains:
Section 1. Section 401:00 of the 1973 Code of Ordinances is amended to read as
follows:
Section 401:00 Limited Number of Licenses. No more than 106
licenses for Amusement Devices, as defined in Section 510:05, shall
exist in the City at any one given time. Not more than 35 licenses will
be issued for any one establishment. If application is made for a license
which if issued would cause the number of Amusement Device
licenses to exceed the maximum, the Council shall table action on the
license and shall consider it only when issuance of the license would
not be in excess of the maximum number specified in this Section.
Section 2. Section 401:00 of the 1973 Code of Ordinances is amended to add a
new Section 401:15 to read as follows:
Section 401:15 Issued to Operator. A license for Amusement Devices
shall be issued only to the person or business entity which directly
operates the business establishment in which the Amusement Devices
are used.
Section 3. Section 401:00 of the 1973 Code of Ordinances is amended to add a
new Section 401:20 to read as follows:
Section 401:20 Expiration of Licenses for Failure to Operate. If the
licensee does not have the Amusement Devices for which the license
was issued available for use by the public within 6 months after the
license is issued, or if use of the Amusement Devices is discontinued
for a period of 6 months, the license shall expire and shall be available
for issuance to other licensees.
Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its
adoption and publication according to law.
First Reading:
Second Reading:
Adopted:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Published: St. Anthony Bulletin on the day of , 1992.
2''
ANNUAL PLANNING INSTITUTE:
THE BASICS
Thursday, February 13, 1992
or Saturday, March 14, 1992
9:00 a.m. -4:30 p.m.
For those new to land use planning and zoning
or interested in a review of fundamentals
INTRODUCTION TO PLANNING
• Why plan?
• Players in the planning process(includes video)
• Understanding the planning process
• Elements of a comprehensive plan
BASIC PLANNING TOOLS—PART I:
ZONING,VARIANCES,CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Definitions,Rationale,Uses,Myths/Misconceptions,How
to's,Non-conforming Uses.I¢a s e C a h` c ��✓� "' o—
ZONING CASE STUDIES: /q qt--t VfA
{
HYPOTHETICAL PROBLEM SOLVING 0'+ �
Participants are placed into small groups In which they
work on rural or urban zoning issues based on actual
situations and timely concerns p!1 t,J '4o
YOUR LEGAL LIMITS: i
YOUR ROLE AS A DECISION MAKER
• The changing environment in land use i
• Legal limits
• Procedures to keep from being sued ,
• When something goes wrong,who's liable?
• Conflict of interest !
• How your attorney can help
• Video presentation:"Rudehaven"
HOT ISSUES—PART I:
ANSWERS TO YOUR OUESTIONS(Faculty Paned i
BASIC PLANNING TOOLS—PART II:
SUBDIVISION REGULATION
Definition,Rationale,Uses,Content,Procedures,Design
Standards,Financial Guaranties,Special Provisions,
EVALUATION OF A SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL,
A SIMULATION
Participants work in small groups to evaluate a developers
subdivision plan using standard planning tools—the com-
prehensive plan,ordinances,aerial and soil maps.
HOT ISSUES—PART II:
-ANSWERS TO YOUR OUESTIONS(Faculty Paneq
FACULTY
IAN TRAOUAIR BALL, Planner and Attorney,
Rasmussen 8 Ball
WILLIAM GRIFFITH,Attorney,Larkin,Hoffman,
Daly 8 Lindgren t
ROBERT'LOCKYEAR,Director of Planning and
Public Affairs,Washington County
GEORGE MARKS,Council Member,City of St Anthony
LOCATIONS ;
Thursday,February 13, 1992 I
Earle Brown Center
U of M St.Paul Campus
1890 Buford Avenue
St Paul,MN 55108
(6 112)624-3275 i
Saturday,Maich 14,1992
North Hennepin Community College I
7411 85th Ave.North I
Brooklyn Park MN 55445
(612)424.0880
FEE
$75 per person or$65 per person for 3 or more people I
from same jurisdiction.This course has been approved for I
six hours of Continuing Real Estate Education Credit. -
MEMORANDUM
DATE: February 5, 1992
TO: Thomas D. Burt, City Manager
FROM: David Mark Urbia, Management Assistant
ITEM: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USES IN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE
I have contacted the following 1st-ring metropolitan suburbs: (1) Crystal, (2) Hopkins, (3)
Richfield, and (4) Robbinsdale. -I inquired if their.commercial-zone allows.either as a use
or conditional use the uses that the owners of Apache Squares proposed (i.e. silk-screen,
print shop, non-retail offices).
CRYSTAL
Permits only retail or service type businesses, similar to St. Anthony's zoning. However, a
wholesale auto sales business (considered Heavy Industrial)is allowed with a conditional use
permit.
HOPKINS
The proposed uses by Apache Squares are allowed in the general commercial zone.
RICHFIELD
The proposed uses by Apache Squares are allowed in the general commercial zone.
ROBBINSDALE
Commercial zoning classifications are B-1(neighborhood/local),B-2(limited),B-3 (highway),
and B-4 (community). The proposed use by Apache Squares are allowed in B-3 and B-4 by
conditional use.
Planning Commission Issue
February 5, 1992
Page 2
St. Anthony's zoning ordinance regarding permitted uses in a commercial zone is more
stringent than the four first-ring suburbs contacted. If the Planning Commission were to
propose permitting the uses that the Apache Squares owners request, there are two ways
to proceed. First, the general commercial "C section of the zoning ordinance could be
amended in a manner that would conditionally permit certain light industrial uses in limited
areas (i.e. allowed in a commercial zone of x acres, no closer than x feet from a residential
zone). The number of acres of feet can be decided upon by staff, the Planning Commission,
and the City Council using their best judgement in order to protect property values, safety,
health, and welfare. Second, a new zoning district could be created (i.e., C-1) which would
permit everything that is currently permitted in C and conditionally permit light industrial
type uses such as silk-screen shops, printing shops, non-retail offices, etc. In a discussion
with Dr.Perry Wood, Geography Department,Mankato State University(507-389-6949), he
recommended that the City create the new zoning district in more than one area in order
to avoid being accused of spot zoning.
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
• 2
3 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
4
5 JANUARY 14 , 1992
6
7
8
9 1 . CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1.0
11 The Council Meeting was called to order at 7 : 30 p.m.. and the
12 Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Ranallo.
13
14
15 2 . ROLL CALL
16
17 Council Present : Mayor Ranallo, Councilmembers Enrooth,
18 Marks, Fleming and Wagner
19
20 Staff Present : City Manager Burt and Management Assistant
21 Urbia
22
23
24 Mayor Ranallo requested that anyone seated in the audience who
25 chooses to make comments or ask questions step to the podium.
26 He noted that at prior meetings, comments were made from the
27 audience. This practice was disruptive to the proceedings of
*28 the meeting and were difficult to record.
29
30
31 3. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 14 , 1992 COUNCIL AGENDA
32
33 Motion by Marks, second by Fleming to approve the agenda as
34 presented for the January 14, 1992 Council Meeting with the
35 deletion of 8-B-2, "Draft from Minnesota Pollution Control
36 Agency of Proposed Contract Amendment for City to Purchase a
37 Generator. " ,
38
39 Motion carried unanimously
40.
41
42
43 .4 . APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 10 , 1991 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
44
45 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve the minutes of
46 the December 10 , 1991 Council Meeting with the following
47 corrections:
48
'49 Page 4 , Lines 27 & 28 : Insert before the word "comprehensive"
50 the word "revised" and change "St . Anthony" to "Apache Plaza"
51
. 52
V3 Motion carried unanimously
4
55
56 '
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 14 , 1992 •
3 PAGE 2
4
5
6
7 5. LICENSE/PERMITS/PETITIONS
8
9 Contractor License
10
it Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve the contractor
12 license for Midway Sign Company, Inc. of St . Paul . Mn.
13
14
15
16 Motion carried unanimously
17
18
19 Heatina Licenses
20
21 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve the heating
22 license for Dean' s Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. of
23 Cambridge, Mn.
24
25
26 Motion carried unanimously
27
28
29
30 6. PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS
31
32 A. American Bank
33
34 Motion by Marks, second by 'Enrooth to approve. payment in
35 the amount of $69, 516. 25 to the American Bank for the
36 equipment bonds .
37
38
39
40 Motion carried unanimously
41
42
. 43
44 B. Dorsey & Whitney
45
46 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve payment in
47 the amount of $998 . 40 to Dorsey & Whitney law firm for
48 legal services rendered through November 30 , 1991 .
49
50
51
52 Motion carried unanimously
53 •
54 .
55
56
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
• 2 JANUARY 14 , 1992
3 PAGE 3
4
5
6
7 C. Hance and LeVahn
8
9 Motion by Enrooth, second by Wagner to approve payment in
10 the amount of $2 , 400 . 00 for legal services rendered for
11 the month of December 1991 relative to St . Anthony
12 prosecutions .
13
14
15 Motion carried unanimously
16
17
18 D. Braun Intertec
19
20 Motion by Wagner, second by Marks to approve payment in
21 the amount of $1 , 192 . 00 to Braun Intertec for pavement
22 management and program installation.
23
24
25 Motion carried unanimously
26
27
•28
29 E. Barr Enaineerina
30
31 Motion by Marks , second by Wagner to approve payment in
32 the amount of $1 , 168 . 00 to Barr Engineering for
33 professional services rendered during the period of
34 September 29, 1991 through November 2 , 1991 for American
35 Engineering Testing, Inc. relative to the Highcrest
36 Street Outlet project .
37
38
39 Motion carried unanimously
40
41
42 F. Barr Enaineerina
43
44 Motion by Marks , second by Wagner to approve payment in
45 the amount of $1 , 051 . 00 to Barr Engineering for
46 professional services rendered during the period of
47 September 29, 1991 through November 30 , 1991 for the
48
49
50
51
52
•53
54
55
56
57
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 14 , 1992
3 PAGE 4
4
5
6 final design and assistance with rebidding the Highcrest
7 Street Outlet project .
8
9
10 Motion carried unanimously
11
12
13. G. . Barr Engineering
14
15 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve payment in
16 the amount of $5, 886. 32 to Barr Engineering for
17 professional services rendered during the period of
18 September 29, 1991 through November 30, 1991 relative to
19 Watershed District #6 .
20
21
22
23 Motion carried unanimously
24
25
26
27 H. Maier Stewart & Associates, Inc.
28 •29 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve payment in
30 the amount of $8 , 896. 53 to Maier Stewart & Associates,
31 Inc. for professional services rendered from September
32 29, 1991 through October 26, 1991 relative -to Chandler
33 Drive improvements and Kenzie Terrace sidewalks.
34
35
36
37 Motion carried unanimously
38
39
40
41 I . City of Golden Valley
42
43 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve payment in
44 the amount of $1 , 750 .00 to the City of Golden Valley for
45 St . Anthony' s participation in the study update of the
46 Joint Comparable Worth Study by Hay Associates .
47
48
49 Motion carried unanimously
50
51
52
53 •
54
55
56
57
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
• 2 JANUARY 14 , 1992
3 PAGE 5
4
5
6
7 J. Verified Claims
8
9 Motion by Marks, second by Fleming to approve the ten
10 pages of verified claims as submitted by the Finance
11 'Director.
12
13 Motion carried unanimously
14
15
16
17 7 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
18
19 There were no public hearings .
20
21
22 8 . REPORTS
23
24 A. COUNCIL
25
26
27 Report of Councilmember Wagner
W8
.,9 Councilmember Wagner had nothing to report but commented that
30 he sincerely appreciated the audience he had for his swearing-
31 in.
32
33 Report of Councilmember Flemina
34
35 Councilmember Fleming attended a meeting which addressed bus'
36 service in St . Anthony. She noted that there was a large
37 attendance of residents from .the Walker and Kenzington.
38
39 She will be presenting an informational program at Autumn
40 Woods on January 15th regarding precinct caucuses. She was
41 informed that no residents had previously attended their
42 caucuses:
43
44 Councilmember Fleming observed that a Planning Commission
45 meeting is scheduled for March 3rd as indicated on the
46 City/School Board calendar. March 3rd is Precinct Caucus Night
47 and no formal meetings can be conducted.
48
49
50
51
52
4
55
56
57
i
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 14 , 1992 •
3 PAGE 6
4
5
6
7 Report of Councilmember Enrooth
8
9 Councilmember Enrooth attended a Village Fest meeting on
10 January 13th. He noted that seven people were in attendance
11 who indicated their willingness to participate in the
12 organization of this year' s Village Fest , but there are no
13 firm plans in place.
14
15 He also met today with a local attorney, Ed Hance, to discuss
16 the Village Fest .
17
18 Mayor Ranallo stated that Village Fest , Inc. should probably
19 meet to complete its corporation paperwork.
20
21 The Mayor has received notice from the St . Anthony Chamber of
22 Commerce indicating that the organization chooses not be
23 involved in the "St . Anthony Dollars" promotion.
24
25 Councilmember Enrooth serves on the Board of Directors of the
26 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities . That organization
27 is taking a serious look at a new piece of legislation which •
28 would limit expansion of sewer systems. He feels this
29 legislation would not affect St . Anthony.
30
31 Report of Councilmember Marks
32
33 Councilmember Marks felt the success of the Goal Setting
34 session was enhanced by the leader' remaining overnight in the
35 facility. He observed that one goal of the session was to
36 produce a City/School Board calendar and this goal has been
37 attained.
38
39 Report of Mayor Ranallo
40
41 The Mayor noted that the "Shop St . Anthony" campaign is
42 progressing very well . The St . Anthony Dollars" should be
43 available by February 29th.
44
45 The City' s "Spring Fling" arrangements are nearly all
46 complete. The music for the event will be supplied by the
47 school band and the City' s orchestra.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
• 2 JANUARY 14 , 1992
3 PAGE 7
4
5
6
7 . Mayor Ranallo stated that the tickets for the affair are
8 $10 . 00 , a cost which he attempted to have reduced. He noted
9 that this event was originally a community event for the
10 entire family and the ticket cost may prove to be prohibitive
11 for a family.
12
13 He met last week with Maxine Fluegel and Bill Feyo of the
14 Chamber of Commerce to continue planning for this* affair.
15
16 Bill Zawislak, the City' s representative to the Cable
17 Commission, spoke to the Mayor regarding the summary of the
18 goal setting session. Zawislak is anxious to put this
19 information on the City' s government channel . In the past , he
20 has run the tape of the candidates ' .forum sponsored and hosted
21 by the League of Women Voters .
22
23 Zawislak is requesting that a St . Anthony Cable Commission be
24 organized and that a training strategy be developed for
25 residents to learn the use of cable cameras and equipment .
26
27 Zawislak and Urbia attended a cable seminar last week.
t28
29 Councilmember Wagner advised he had received a call from the
30 Apache Merchants Association regarding a meeting of that group
31 with Dennis Cavanaugh on January 23rd.
32
33 Mayor Ranallo stated he had met with representatives of
34 Herberger' s and Penney' s recently. He noted that Barb
35 Olsonoski has resigned from the Apache Plaza Merchants
36 Association and that these two businesses have indicated a
37 willingness to coordinate activities in the shopping mall .
38
39
40 B. CITY MANAGER
41
42 1 . Set Date for Board of Review
43
44 The date and time being recommended for the Board of
45 Review is April 14 , 1992 at 6: 30 p.m.
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
54
4
55
56.
57
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 14 , 1992 •
3 PAGE 8
4
5
6
7 The City Manager noted that this is the date of a
8 regularly scheduled City Council Meeting. He suggested
9 that if the Board of Review is not completed by 7 : 30 p.m.
10 when the Council Meeting should start , the Board of
11 Review can be adjourned until the Council Meeting is
12 completed.
13
14 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to schedule the St .
15 Anthony Board of Review for 6: 30 p.m. on April 14 , 1992 .
16
17
18 Motion carried unanimously
19
20
21
22 2. Lease Aareement and Permit for Sale of Pull Tabs in
23 City' s Liauor Establishments
24
25 The City Manager advised that this request is being made
26 by the St . Anthony Village Sports Boosters for both of
27 the City' s liquor establishments .
28 •
29 Ray Nelson, Liquor Operations Manager, recently spoke to
30 the Council regarding his request that $1 ,000 be the fee
31 for leasing space in a liquor establishment .
32
33 Presently, the Athletic Sports Boosters are paying $600
34 per month for the space leased.
35
36 Dan Kramer and Terry Taylor, representing the Athletic
37 Sports Boosters, advised that the funds being netted from
38 the operation have declined in that the State has
39 dramatically increased taxes . It was felt that some of
40 the gambling activity previously done at Tri-City
41 American Legion has filtered into St . Anthony, but it has
42 made minimal difference in the profits .
43
44 The City Manager noted' that the City has benefitted from
45 the generosity of organizations such as the Athletic
46 Sports Boosters, the Lions Club and the Chamber of
47 Commerce, particularly with the D.A.R.E. Program, in the
48 Fire Department and new park equipment .
49
50
51
52
53 •
54
55
56
57
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 14 , 1992
3 PAGE 9
4
5
6
7 Kramer suggested that the lower the lease fee the more
8 funds will be available for donating to the City. He
9 noted that seventy-eight percent of the profits go to
10 winners .
11
12 The Athletic Sports Boosters would like the lease fee to
13 stay at $600 . 00 .
14
15 The City Manager stated that the gambling activity at the
16 liquor establishments necessitates additional rubbish '
17 hauling which is very costly. He also noted that the
18 Liquor Operations Manager felt the $1 , 000 lease fee being
19 requested is comparable to what is being charged at other
20 gambling locations .
21
22 The City Manager suggested a survey could be done of
23 other municipal operations .
24
25 Mayor Ranallo noted that the lease fee can always be
26 lowered and that the lease agreement can be made on a
27 one-year basis .
028
29 Councilmembers Wagner and Enrooth suggested that a lease
30 fee of $800 . 00 would be an acceptable compromise.
31
32 Motion by Fleming, second by Enrooth to increase the
33 monthly rent for gambling operations at each location in
34 the City to $800 . 00 and that the license for the Athletic
35 Sports Boosters be approved.
36
37 Roll Call : Enrooth, Fleming, Wagner, Ranallo - aye
38
39 Marks - nay
40
41
42 Motion carried
43
44
45 Taylor advised that the Athletic Sports Boosters had its
46 first compliance audit last week and the organization was
,..._.,4,7 informed by the auditor that its gambling concession is
48 operated very well .
49
50
51
52
4
55
56
57
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 14 , 1992 •
3 PAGE 10
4
5
6
7 : - 3 . Appointments to Plannina Commission
8
9 Letters from the three Planning Commissioners, whose
10 terms are expiring, were received indicating that they
11 all were interested in being reappointed.
12
13 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to reappoint Dennis. .
14 Murphy, Rick Werenicz and Rosemary Franzese to the
15 Planning Commission.
16
17
18 Motion carried unanimously
19
20
21
22 9. NEW BUSINESS
23
24 A. Resolutions # 92-001 through #92-006
25
26 1 . _Resolution No. 92-001 ; Designation of Mayor Pro Tem
27
28 Councilmember Wagner felt the position of Mayor Pro Tem •
29 should be one given with pride and honor to an
30 experienced person.
31
32 Motion by Wagner, second by Fleming to approve Resolution
33 _ No. 92-001 designating Richard Enrooth as Mayor Pro Tem
34 for the calendar year 1992 .
35
36 Roll Call : Marks, Fleming, Wagner, Ranallo - aye
37 Enrooth - abstain
38
39
40
41 Motion carries
42
43
44 2 . Resolution No. 92-002 ; Authorization to Sian City' s
45 Checks
46
47 Motion by Wagner, second by Enrooth to approve Resolution
48 No. 92-002 being a resolution specifying persons
49 authorized to make certain transactions regarding City
50 financial accounts. Those persons being Mayor Clarence
51 Ranallo, City Manager Thomas Burt , and Finance Director
52
53 •
54
55
56
57 "
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 14 , 1992
3 PAGE 11
4
5
6 Roger .Larson, Sr.
7
8 Motion carried unanimously
9
10
11 3. Resolution No 92-003; Designation of City' s Leaal
12- Newspaper
13
14 Motion by Fleming, second by Marks to approve Resolution
15 No. 92-003 being a resolution designating the Bulletin as
16 the City' s legal newspaper for the calendar year 1992 .
17
18 Mayor Ranallo requested that it be understood that this
19 designation can be changed if the Bulletin does not serve
20 the City as the Council desires .
21
22
23 Motion carried unanimously
24
25
26 4 . Resolution No 92-004 ; Establishina a Cut-Off Date for
a7 Public Improvement Petitions
8
29 Motion by Marks, second by .Wagner to approve Resolution
30 No. 92-004 being a resolution establishing March 15, 1992
31 as cut-off date for receiving petitions for public
32 improvements .
33
34
35 Motion carried unanimously
36
37
38
39 5. Resolution No 95-005 ; Designation of Depository for
40 City Funds
41 -
42 Motion by Enrooth, second by Wagner to approve Resolution
43 No. 95-005 being a resolution designating the official
44 depository for City funds .
45
46
47 Motion carried unanimously
48
49
50
51 6 . Resolution No. 95-006 ; Designation of Public Health
52 Officer
053
54
55
56
57
I REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 14 , 1992 •
3 PAGE 12
4
5
6
7 A public health off-icer is required for each municipality
8 by State Statute.
9
10 Motion by Marks , second by Wagner to approve Resolution
11 No. 95-006 being a resolution designating Dr. William
12 Carr as the Public Health Officer for the City of St .
13 Anthony.
14
15 Motion carried unanimously
16
17
18 B. Resolution No 92-007 ; Approval of a Joint Powers
19 Aareement with the City of Columbia Heiahts
20
21 This resolution addresses the installation of a
22 pedestrian/traffic signal on Stinson Boulevard between
23 38th and 39th Avenues.
24
25 Councilmember Wagner observed that the agreement mentions
26 a sign control button on the west side of Stinson
27 Boulevard, but does not mention one for the east side.
28 The City Manager will check the agreement regarding this i
29 matter.
30
31 Motion by Fleming, second by Enrooth to approve
32 Resolution No. 92-007 being a resolution approving a
33 Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Columbia Heights
34 for a pedestrian signal and authorizing the Mayor and
35 City Manager to execute said agreement .
36
37 Motion carried unanimously
38
39
40 C. Resolution No 92-008 ; Approval of a Contract for
41 Recyclina Pick Up With Nitti Disposal
42
43 Motion by Wagner, second by Marks to approve Resolution
44 No. 92-008 being a resolution approving a contract for
45 recycling pick up and authorizing the Mayor and City
46 Manager to execute said contract .
47
48
49 Motion carried unanimously
50
51
52 D. Resolution No 92-010 ; Approval of an Aareement with BRW,
53 Inc. for Plannina Services •
54
55
56
57
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
• 2 JANUARY 14 , 1992
3 PAGE 13
4
5
6
7 The City Manager intends to negotiate this agreement to
8 decrease the fees .
9
10 Motion by Wagner, second by Fleming to approve Resolution
11 No. 92-010 being a resolution authorizing the City
12 Manager to enter into an agreement for planning services .
13
14.
15 Motion carried unanimously
16
17
18
19 E. Approval of Proposal by Maier Stewart and Associates to
20 Report City' s Minnesota State .Aid
21
22 Maier Stewart & Associates have indicated, by letter,
23 that the firm will perform the work necessary for the
24 1991 M. S.A. S. annual report at a not-to-exceed cost of
25 $700 . 00 .
26
27 Motion by Wagner, second by Marks to approve the proposal
a-8 from Maier Stewart and Associates to draft the 1991
29 Minnesota State Aid System report at the not-to-exceed
30 cost of $700 . 00 .
31
32 Motion carried unanimously
33
34.
35
36 F. Enaineerina Proposal for Reconstruction of Old Highway #8
37
38 The City Manager advised that St . Anthony will be working
39 with -the City of Roseville on this project . . 'It. is
40 Roseville' s intention to do the inspection, construction
41 administration, staking, etc. for the project . Roseville
42 will be reconstructing their portion of Old Highway #8
43 from 33rd Avenue to 37th Avenue.
44
45 Discussion was had regarding the areas designated for
46 parking prohibitions .
47
48 Motion by Enrooth, second by Fleming to employ the
49 services of Maier Stewart and Associates, Inc. for the
50
51
52
�4
55
56
57
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 14 , 1992 •
3 PAGE 14
4
5
6
7 reconstruction of old Highway #8 at a not-to-exceed cost
. 8 of $10, 900 . 00 .
9
10 Motion carried unanimously
11
12
13 G. Traffic Sianal Improvements - 37th Avenue N.E. and
14 Stinson Boulevard
15
16 Motion by Wagner, second by Fleming to approve the
17 proposal submitted by Maier Stewart and Associates, Inc.
18 for the report of state aid contract and the final
19 estimate for the traffic signal improvements at 37th
20 Avenue N.E. and Stinson Boulevard at a not-to-exceed cost
21 of $250 . 00 .
22
23
24 Motion carried unanimously
25
26
27 H. Hiahcrest Spillway Proiec_t - Chance order #1
28
29 This change order is being requested by Barr Engineering
30 for the Highcrest Spillway Project in the amount of
31 $1 , 950 . 00 . Riprap and filter was omitted on the bid sheet
32 which necessitates the need for a change order.
33
34 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve Change Order
35 #1 for the fighcrest Spillway Project in the amount of
36 $1 , 950 . 00 .
37
38
39 Motion carried unanimously
40
41
42 10. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
43
44 Mayor Ranallo thanked Councilmember Wagner for his kind
45 remarks regarding to his swearing-in.
46
47 January 28 , 1992 is the Town Meeting.
48
49 The City Attorney is on vacation.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
!1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 14 , 1992
3 PAGE 15
4
5
6 11 . ADJOURNMENT .
7
8 Motion by Enrooth, second by Marks to adjourn the meeting at
9 8 : 25 p.m.
10
11
12 Motion carried unanimously
13
14
15 Respectfully submitted,
16
17
18 Jo-Anne Student , Council Secretary
19
20
21
22 Mayor Clarence Ranallo
23
24
25 ATTEST:
6 City Clerk
7
408
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
i
1 CITY OF ST. ANTHONY
2
3 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
4
5 JANUARY 28 , 1992
6
7
8
9 1 . CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
10
11 The Council Meeting was called to order at 8 : 30 p.m. and the
12 Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor• Ranallo.
13
14 2 . ROLL CALL
15
16 Council Present : Mayor Ranallo, Councilmembers Enrooth, Marks,
17 Fleming and Wagner
18
19 Staff Present : City Manager Burt , Public Works Director Hamer
20 and Management Assistant Urbia
21
22 3 . APPROVAL OF JANUARY 28 , 1992 COUNCIL AGENDA
23
24 Motion by Wagner, second by Fleming to approve the agenda for
25 the January 28 , 1992 Council Meeting as presented with the
26 addition of one item for the City Manager ' s Report .
•27
28 Motion carried unanimously
29
30
31 4 . APPROVAL OF JANUARY 14 , 1992 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
32
33 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to approve the minutes of
34 the January 14 , 1992 Council Meeting with the following
35 exception and corrections:
36
37 Exception: "Designation of Mayor Pro-Tem" - Counci.lmember
38 Marks is recorded as voting "aye. " He stated' he did not vote
39 as he felt this action was discussed by other members of the
40 Council when he was. not present . Mayor Ranallo . and
41 Councilmember Fleming took exception to Councilmember Marks '
42 remarks. . This motion will not be approved until a member of
43 the staff has listened to the tape recording of the
44 proceedings to determine what actually transpired.
4.5'
46
47 Corrections :
48
49 page 5, line 37 : Delete "Kenzington" and replace with "Autumn
50 Woods"
51
52 page 5, line 39 : Delete "program at Autumn Woods on January
&3 15th" and replace with "program" after the word
54 " informational"
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 28 , 1992 •
3 PAGE 2
4
5
6
7 page 11 , line 44 : Add "Firstar of St . Anthony" to the end of
8 the sentence.
9
10 Motion carried unanimously
it
12
13 5. LICENSES/PERMITS/PETITIONS
14
15 Amusement Devices
16 Motion by Marks , second by Enrooth to approve the license for
17 amusement devices for Sheik' s Garden which is located at
18 Apache Plaza Shopping Center.
19
20 The City Manager advised that this owner will be applying for
21 a conditional use permit in the near future for additional
22 amusement devices . Those machines presently located at the Fun
23 Center will be moved into the Sheik ' s Garden. The Fun Center
24 will be closing and the owner of the machines presently has
25 nine of them located at the Fun Center.
26
27 The City Manager felt it would be more appropriate if the
28 machines were licensed rather than the owner of the business •
29 where they are located.
30
31 The owner of Sheik' s Garden will be attending the Planning
32 Commission meeting in February regarding the conditional use
33 permit . He will also be relinquishing the wine license for
34 that location at Apache Plaza.
35
36 Sheik' s owner advised the Council he intends to enforce strict
37 rules in his restaurant , particularly the ban on alcohol and
38 smoking. He will maintain separate locations for the eating
39 area and the amusement machines and will also have a place for
40 children to play. He will post in a prominent place the rules
41 for using the machines.
42
43 Mayor Ranallo recalled the trouble these types of machines
44' have generated in the past and noted that they can attract an
45 undesirable element .
46
47 Motion carried unanimously
48
49
. 50 6. PRESENTATION OF CLAIMS
51
52 A. Braun Intertec
53 •54 Motion by Marks , 7second by Wagner to approve payment in
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
• 2 JANUARY 28 , 1992
3 PAGE 3
4
5
6 the amount of $2 , 384 . 00 to Braun Intertec for services
7 rendered regarding pavement management and program
8 installation.
9
10 -
11 Motion carried unanimously
12
13 .
14 B. Hance & LeVahn
15
16 Motion by Marks , second by Enrooth to approve payment in
17 the amount of $2 , 400 . 00 for legal services rendered by
18 Hance & LeVahn law firm for the month of January 1992
19 relative to St . Anthony prosecutions .
20
21
22 Motion carried unanimously
23
24
25 C. Maier Stewart and Associates
26
V7 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve payment in
28 the amount of $28.5. 36 to Maier Stewart and Associates for
29 engineering services rendered from December 1 , 1991
30 through December 28 , 1991 .
31
32
33 Motion carried unanimously
34
35
36 D. Verified Claims
37
38 Motion by Enrooth, second by Wagner to approve the two
39 pages of verified claims as submitted by the Finance
40 Director.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44
45 7 . PUBLIC HEARINGS
46
47 There were no public hearings .
48
49
50 8 . REPORTS
51
52 A. Reports of the City Council
0-3
4
I REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 28 , 1992 •
3 PAGE 4
4
5
6
7 1 . _Report of Councilmember Warmer
8
9 Councilmember Wagner reported he had attended the recent
10 Goal set ting/Planning Session held by the Apache Plaza
11 Merchants Association Board. He felt that Dennis
12 Cavanaugh was very cooperative and appeared to be eager
13 to try new and innovative things . The Session, which was
14 held in the Community Center, also addressed the future
15 of the Shopping Center with a CUB market and without a
16 CUB market .
17
18 Councilmember Wagner advised that CUB moving into a
19 location at Apache Plaza is not a "done deal . "
20
21
22 2 .Report of Councilmember Fleming
23
24 Councilmember Fleming had nothing to report at this time.
25
26
27 3 .Report of Councilmember Enrooth •
28
29 Councilmember Enrooth had nothing to report at this time.
30
31
32 4 .Report of Councilmember Marks
33
34 Councilmember Marks reported he was recently notified
35 that the contingent of visitors from Salo, Finland will
36 be about seventeen people. Originally, there had been
37 thirty-five people who intended to visit .
38
39 Councilmember Marks noted that presently these people are
40 arranging transportation and plan to be in the area in
41 July.
42
43 Mayor Ranallo inquired if they spoke English.
44 Councilmember Marks responded that some of the visitors
45 speak English. They plan to be in the St . Anthony area
46 approximately one week.
47
48
49 5.Report of Mayor Ranallo
50
51 Mayor Ranallo attended the Lions Club meeting last week.
-52 The members expressed an interest in environmental issues
53 within the City. They specifically noted the need for •
54 clean-up on 37th Avenue on the land adjacent to Monarch.
• 1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 28 , 1992
3 PAGE 5
4
5
6
7 Presently, the Lions Club has twenty-seven members and
8 are interested in increasing their membership. They do
9 not have female members at this time.
10
11 The Mayor congratulated Councilmember Enrooth on his
12 appointment to the Hennepin County Solid Waste Management
13 Committee. He was appointed by Commissioner Peter
14 McLaughlin.
15
16 The "Leap Into Spring" dinner dance, sponsored by the St .
17 Anthony Chamber of Commerce, is scheduled for Saturday,
18 February 29th.
19
20 The Mayor noted that this event will be held at Apache
21 Plaza and is similar to the "Ball " previously held. The
22 tickets are $10 . 00 .
23
24 B. Report of the City Manaaer
25
26 The City Manager acknowledged the presence of
•27 Representative McGuire. She stated she had intended to be
28 in attendance for the Town Meeting, but was tardy and
29 missed the discussion.
30
31 Representative McGuire requested a report of the
32 proceedings of the Town Meeting.
33
34 1 . Storm Sewer and Road Improvements - Old Hiahway 8
35
36 The City Manager advised that the timing of the storm
37 sewer and road improvement project for Old Highway 8 has
38 a very aggressive plan for completion.
39
40 This project is being done in cooperation with the City
41 of Roseville.
42
43 The plan is to divert water from Rankin Road by directing
44 water north on Highway 8 to a retention area. The City
45 crews wi11 be installing the underground piping necessary
46 for the project . This diversion may- also help alleviate
47 some of the water problems which were discussed at the
48 Town Meeting.
49
50 All of the project will be paid for from State Aid funds
51 and some of the work may begin before the City Council
X52 gives its approval . The City Manager will keep members of
3 the Council informed as to the progress of the' project on
54 a timely basis .
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING •
2 JANUARY 28 , 1992
3 PAGE 6
4
5
6
7 The Public Works Director advised that some of the
8 hydraulics will have to be checked.
9
10
11 2 . Entry to the City Sians
12
13 Replacement of the entry signs to the City were discussed
14 at the Council ' s goalsetting session.
15
16 The City Manager showed the Council examples of what is
17 being proposed for the sign lettering. These signs will
18 be located at all entries to the City.
19
20 The St . Anthony Kiwanis Club has indicated an interest in
21 funding these signs but has made no firm commitment at
22 this time.
23
24 Councilmember Enrooth suggested that the City Manager
25 contact Ken Solie as he was the individual who crafted
26 the present signs .
27
28 The City Manager noted that a letter of resignation has
29 been received from Ted Brownell who served on the City' s
30 Planning Commission .
31
32 Brownell will be presented with a plaque at the February
33 11 , 1992 Council Meeting.
34
35 A press release will be sent to all of the newspapers
36 which serve the City regarding the vacancy on the
37 Planning Commission and its responsibilities .
38
39 Mayor Ranallo welcomed Jerry Cassidy, the representative
40 of the Focus Newspapers.
41
42 It was noted that a date must be selected for the
43 Volunteer Appreciation Day.
44
45
46 9. NEW BUSINESS
47
48
49 a. Award Quotation for Purchase of Portable Air Compressor ;
50
51 Motion by Marks , second by Enrooth to award the purchase
52 of a portable air compressor to Carlson Equipment in the •
53 amount of $11 , 223 . 00 as recommended by the Public Works
54 Director.
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
• 2 JANUARY 28 , 1992
3 PAGE 7
4
5
6
7 Motion carried unanimously
8
9
10 b. Consideration of Quotations for Groutina and Patchina of -
11 Pipe for the Hiahcrest Project
12
13 The City Manager requested this item be taken off the
14 agenda as he felt more information was necessary.
15
16 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to not consider this
17 item.
18
19 Motion carried unanimously
20
21
22 C. Consideration of a Chanae Order for New Pipe Sections for.
23 the Hiahcrest Project
24
25 Motion by Wagner, second by Fleming to authorize the
26 change order for new pipe sections for the Highcrest
W7 Project as recommended by Barr Engineering.
8
29 The City Manager advised that an oval pipe was installed
30 and there will be a need for additional work and costs to
31 repair certain sections of the pipe. He felt it would not
32 be cost effective to replace the entire pipe at the
33 present time as it is very expensive.
34
35
36 Motion carried unanimously
37
38
39
40 d. Consideration of a Petition for Construction of the
41 Silver Lake Water Quality Protection Project
42
43 Motion by Enrooth, second by Ranallo to approve
44 submission of a petition to the Rice Creek Watershed
45 District for construction of the Silver Lake Water
46 Quality Protection Project .
47
48 The City Manager .advised that this petition will be
49 presented at a meeting at Shoreview City Hall on February
50 12 , 1992 which will convene at 7 : 00 p.m.
51
52 The contents of the petition is requesting that Silver
0-3 Lake be cleaned up by various methods . One of the methods
54 is an aeriation device which would avoid winter kill from
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 28 , 1992 •
3 PAGE 8
4
5
6 runoff from surrounding areas . Correction of problems
7 which begin at the start of the watershed district is
8 desirable.
9
10 The City Manager cautioned that Number 6 in the petition
11 which addressed financing could be costly if the project
12 does not go through. He noted that the watershed district
13 legal counsel did not see any problems in this area.
14
15 Mayor Ranallo and Councilmember Enrooth indicated their
16 intentions to attend this meeting. The City Manager will
17 post a meeting notice at City Hall and will invite Ray
18 Haik who may be interested as he resides on Silver Lake.
19
20
21 e . Consideration of a Pay Equity Implementation Report
22
23 This report must be submitted by January 31 , 1992 .
24
25 Motion. by Fleming, second by Marks to submit the Pay
26 Equity Implementation Report as prepared by the City of
27 St . Anthony to the Department of Employee Relations . •
28
29
30 Motion carried unanimously
31
32
33 f . Resolution No. 92-011 ; Re: Road Maintenance Agreement
34 With Ramsey County
35
36 Motion by Enrooth, second by Wagner to approve Resolution
37 No. 92-011 being a resolution authorizing the Mayor and
38 City Manager to execute the Agreement between Ramsey
39 County and the City of St . Anthony for Road Maintenance.
40
41
42 Motion carried unanimously
43
44
45 g. Resolution No. 92-012 ; Re: Local Government Trust Fund
46
47 Motion by Marks, second by Wagner to approve Resolution
48 No. 92-012 being a resolution urging legislative adoption
49 of a future local government trust fund distribution.
50
51
52 Motion carried unanimously
53
54
• 1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING
2 JANUARY 28 , 1992
3 PAGE 9
4
5
6
7 10. ' UNFINISHED BUSINESS
8
9 Mr . Reid, a resident whose property is located adjacent to the
10 Evergreen Development , stated he wants the debris left by the
11 developer of the project , Nedegaard Construction, removed. He
12 noted that some of this material has been left on the property
13 since 1988 .
14
15 The City Manager has visited the site. He felt there are two
16 issues that need to be resolved. One of the lots adjacent to
17 that of Mr. Reid is owned by Mr. Bochnak. This property owner
18 has given the City permission to spread clay on his land to
19 dry. It was noted that this drying clay has not impeded
20 drainage .
21
22 Mr. Reid had previously complained about this clay and stated
23 it was dirty fill . The City Manager advised him it was clay
24 and that if any other materials are dumped on this property
25 the City removes it .
26
X27 Previously, the staff had indicated a willingness to speak to
28 Bruce Nedegaard regarding the materials left on the Evergreen
29 land.
30
31 Mr. Reid had stated he would talk to Nedegaard about this so
32 the staff did not follow through. The City Manager
33 said he is still willing to contact Nedegaard. He will request
34' that he remove all building materials and debris and caution
35 him to be aware of property lines .
36
37 Mayor Ranallo inquired if Mr. Reid was _still interested in
38 contacting Nedegaard himself . Mr. Reid responded that he was .
39
40 The City Council requested the City Manager and the Public
41 Works Director to contact Nedegaard and request he clean up
42 the area.
43
44 The City Manager noted that the disposal of fill and clay is
45 a problem for both St . Anthony and New Brighton. He has been
46 in contact with officials and staff from New Brighton
47 regarding this matter.
48
49
50
51
�52
53
54
1 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING •
2 JANUARY 28 , 1992
3 PAGE 10
4
5
6
7 11 . ADJOURNMENT
8
9 Motion by Marks, second by Enrooth to adjourn the meeting at
10 9: 25 p.m.
11
12
13 Motion carried unanimously
14
15
16
17
18 Respectfully submitted,
19
20
21
22 Jo-Anne Student , Council Secretary
23
24
25
26
27 Mayor Clarence Ranallo
28
29
30
31 ATTEST:
32 City Clerk
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
•
Sign Regulation for Small and Midsize
Communities: A Planners Guide and
A Model Ordinance
Eric Damian Kelly and Gary J. Raso
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1.Substantive Issues in Sign Regulation................................................................. 1
SignDesign and Structure .......................................................................................... 1
Sign Dimensions, Number, and Location ....................................................................... 6
Animated, Flashing, and Lighted Signs.......................................................................... 8
Colors and Materials of Signs .................................................................................... 10
Flags, Banners,and Pennants..................................................................................... 11
SignContent ........................................................................................:................ 12
Enforcement and Administration................................................................................ 14
NonconformingSigns.............................................................................................. 16
Chapter 2.Legal Issues in Sign Regulation........................................................................ 17
The Guidelines Provided by the U.S. Supreme Court....................................................... 17
Lower Federal Court Decisions................................................................................... 21
Overview of First Amendment Issues: Practical Considerations.......................................... 21
The Special Problem of Nonconforming Signs ..........:.................................................... 22
The Courts and General Sign Regulations..................................................................... 23
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 24
Chapter 3. A Model Sign Ordinance................................................................................ 25
Chapter 1. Substantive Issues in
Sign Regulation
Sign regulation is more an art than a science.It is an art described in a book of the same name,' is a far more
that requires a careful balancing of the need of businesses sophisticated system of aesthetic controls.That system ad-
and others to communicate with the public with the need of dresses most of the issues discussed in the model and also in-
the public to receive that communication and with commu- cludes controls on the actual design of signs and sign
nity planning goals related to streetscape aesthetics and traf- messages. Because of its sophistication and the resulting
fic safety.Thus,there is no ideal system of sign regulation. complexity of administration, the Street Graphics system
Communities have broad legal authority to regulate signs will not work for every community.
based on safety or aesthetic considerations, or both.How Some communities will also be able to regulate signs with
they exercise that authority is a policy determination that a far simpler code than the model here. They might start
each community must make on its own. with the model in this report and simply delete those provi-
Each community must address sign control in a way that sions not relevant to their needs.
is appropriate to that community. Signs in Las Vegas and Before offering the model,however,this report discusses
Reno are a modern version of an Art Deco art form.The the major substantive issues in sign regulation,ranging from
Circus Circus clown and the lights of the downtown casinos issues affecting sign location and design to such management
are an important part of the glitz that is Las Vegas. Many issues as enforcement of sign regulations and control of signs
casinos have animated signs,consisting mostly of lights and, that were erected legally but that do not conform to current
sometimes,covering more square feet than the land area the regulations.Chapter 2 presents a simplified legal analysis of
casinos occupy.Las Vegas without its lights and signs would the major issues in sign regulation.The final chapter con-
simply not be Las Vegas.In vivid contrast,some relatively tains the model sign ordinance,with commentary explain-
exclusive residential communities prohibit all signs except ing many of the provisions.
wooden painted signs that are floodlit (not too brightly),
with no moving parts; some even limit the colors of paint SIGN DESIGN AND STRUCTURE
that can be used. The golden arches in such communities Sign regulations typically group signs in classifications,
may be little more than a mustard-colored shape painted on such as"ground signs,""pole signs,"and"wall signs."Just
wood. as zoning ordinances provide different rules for different
The needs and desires of most communities lie somewhere uses, sign regulations often provide different rules for dif-
in between the two extremes.The model sign ordinance that ferent classifications of signs. Thus, understanding the
appears in Chapter 3 of this report is designed for such com- similarities and differences among the groups into which
munities. Because it is comprehensive in scope, it may be signs are classified is a key to understanding sign regulation.
somewhat longer than models that have appeared else- The classification system for signs is usually based on sign
where. It is intended to address some issues that other design and structure.The sign groups described in this sec-
models and types of regulation systems have failed to con- tion of the report are common,but local definitions of these
sider.For instance,some earlier models offer provisions that groups vary. Thus, the descriptions given here are il-
regulate, in part,on the basis of sign content.Such regula- lustrative,not definitive;model definitions are provided in
tions can cause significant legal and practical problems,an the model ordinance.
issue discussed in Chapter 2 of this report. Despite the The most basic distinction for signs concerns whether they
model's comprehensiveness,it has been designed to be easy are permanent or temporary.Permanent signs are generally
to use and administer. as permanent as a small building;that is,they are set on their
The model ordinance also offers an alternative to other 1.Daniel R.Mandelker and William R.Ewald,Jr.,Street Graphics and
approaches to sign regulation.The Street Graphics system, the Law,rev.ed.(Chicago:American Planning Association,1988).
1
- •n foundation, sunk into the ground, or permanently
fastened to, or painted on, a permanent structure. Some
local sign regulations permit only permanent signs.Most of
the specific sign classifications discussed beloi%fall under the
_ general heading of permanent signs.
Temporary signs, on the other hand, are sometimes
Tr defined only as signs that are not permanent.They include
.�
such signs as sandwich boards,paper signs in grocery store
_ windows, banners stretched across the front of a store, and
those placed on small trailers. Regulations that attempt to
:{r %F• define temporary signs in detail often specifically list these
signs.A problem with such lists is that they inevitably leave <
x�r r , room for creative but unwanted advertising devices like
tethered balloons that have the shape of a logo or character
used for advertising.
Some regulations prohibit temporary signs; others at-
tempt to impose strict limits on the length of time that such
signs can be displayed.Because they are easily moved,tem-
porary signs pose particular enforcement problems. And,
because they are relatively inexpensive,temporary signs are j
D_ sometimes heavily used,creating a cluttered streetscape. It
<Y .
is not unusual to find two,three,or even more portable and
other temporary signs supplementing a pole sign and large
(Top) This low, solid sign witlr only exterior lighting is the wall sign in front of a business—particularly in front of con-
primary identification sign for a major shopping center irz a venience stores, service stations, and fast-food outlets.
community u-ith restrictive sign regulations. (Bottom) This roof Permanent signs are usually further classified. The
sign dwarfs the single-story building it sits on. It is indeed classifications provided in the following paragraphs include
"Bigger Than You E,er Imagined."Many communities prohibit those most commonly found in local sign regulations. Al-
signs extending abo,,e the roof line in many or all districts. though specific terms may vary slightly(for example,"low-
�
-0
Ever Irna yne
d: .
'So-1, 4
R � �y
2
I
profile signs"instead of"ground signs'),the concepts do not. — — - -- —
Many local sign regulations contain other classifications,
such as address signs,nameplates,real estate signs,and con-
struction signs.Those are classifications based on sign con-
tent. The distinction in many regulations between on-
premises and off-premises signs, usually used to limit bill-
boards, is also a content-based classification—an issue
that %.-ill be discussed more fully later in this chapter. A�; i 1 :,
Pole Signs I�tAT` B�
Pole signs are signs that are supported by a pole L
(sometimes more than one)and otherwise separated from
the ground by air. Pole signs are almost always separate ;= �'= •
from buildings and other structures.
Ground Signs
The entire bottom of a ground sign is generally in contact
with or in close proximity to the ground. Like pole signs, A,
ground signs are separate from buildings.
ULT BOOKS 8 VIDEO o
freestanding Signs V� ,
Some local regulations simply group pole signs and
ground signs into the simpler classification, "freestanding
signs."
(Top)Permanent signs affixed to buildings or poles are often far
less intrusive on the urban streetscape than portable,
Wall Signs temporary, and other easily installed signs, like this balloon.
Definitions of wall signs vary significantly.Virtually all (Bottom) This temporary sign detracts from an otherwise
such definitions include signs that are painted on or attached relatiz,ely uncluttered streetscape that includes a low pole sign
flush with a structural wall of a building.Some definitions and a logo made of flowers.
NO W HIRING
. • .
78S - 111 ,0
JA
s•
'� ' 'i* ..; � �. ate{ �^'ic.�•�a �r � � �,-.•�V t
� _�'3•'`�II it`,;;TF��;��s •'��'fi�.>;�i�i:�4 os .�sir�:�_ _ _ - _, e
3
iw
�.t.
HOU I
.,`egpr�L-� vYtb � Z+ `c;�•"���y�;������Y� �����.rrrvfye+�,'��w�.,� i�^ti'G�`.a-_ !��• - ''i
aei3. `..._ -����,'..�F_dS1��a:•�1'��b��L_-��?a- '';�a,�si..�a� �' �aSs=•��:°RZ•2_c..�'�S?�:- 'M+
�r- y.:•wsi�itm�r=?�FFi 11Hi.i3'C111i�.'���•x���l���`�rY1'�<_i-�i���.11��%il��l��`�����.1�2+.
1tt117'_ H IMP-MMIAMwilIB
Odid
y -._, ..-.+.••r .:: Y ,:r-•�,,e�:,t -..�::5�"s..rsy, '.- ,r-3e
DUE _
mu
'it' f '.-t, t
s
of wall signs also include:signs on parapets,wingwalls,and Suspended Signs
other nonstructural flat surfaces, which may or may not As typically used in sign regulations, the term
have'been built as sign surface;signs attached flush with a "suspended"refers to a sign hanging down from a porch or
structural wall but extending above it; signs painted on or other structural element that would exist with or without the
attached flush with a functional roof surface. sign.Thus,although many projecting signs are suspended
from some sort of bracket or other structural member,they
Roof Signs typically do not fall in this category. Suspended signs are
There is no common definition of a roof sign.Some com- often little more than duplicate address signs or nameplates
munities refer to a freestanding sign that happens to be on to provide orientation to a.pedestrian who cannot see the
a rooftop (often found on older, flat-roofed commercial large wall sign above the porch or portico on the front of the
buildings)as a roof-sign, and many communities prohibit building.Such signs are usually small and relatively unob-
such signs.Some communities refer to anything that extends trusive. Because they often overhang a public sidewalk,
above the top of the highest wall of the building and that some communities also impose clearance and insurance re-
does not project horizontally as a roof sign. Other com- quirements on them.
munities have definitions carefully drafted to include as roof
signs such devices as the Pizza Hut'sign, integrated into a Marquee Signs
gambrel roof,or the 7/11 sign, integrated into a fake man- Definitions of marquee signs usually include any movie-
sard porch.Whether roof signs are prohibited,severely re- type marquee with manually changeable copy.Some defini-
stricted, or simply treated as another classification of sign tions focus on the triangular projecting marquees
depends in large part on the definition. characteristic of old movie theaters,but most definitions in-
As a practical matter,much if not all of the energy spent clude all types. Electronic marquees are often treated
in defining roof signs is wasted.The issue of whether or not separately because of the lighting issue(see the discussion of
a sign should be allowed to project above the top of the lighting in a subsequent section of this chapter) but are
highest wall or the highest functional part of a structure is sometimes included with manually changeable marquees.
basically a dimensional issue(see the section on sign dimen- Note that marquee signs will also be classified as freestand-
sions in this chapter).For purposes of measuring sign area, ing,pole,wall,or projecting signs.The principal reason for
there may be valid reasons for distinguishing between defining marquee signs separately is usually an unwarranted
freestanding signs and signs attached to a building on the concern about the possible abuses of manually changing
same site, but there is little reason for having separate copy.If a community can resign itself to the possibility that
number and area rules for roof signs and wall signs on the such a sign may,quite legally and legitimately,someday be
same building.Thus,roof signs can simply be included in the changed to read"Impeach the Mayor,"such signs can be
same classification as wall signs (whether or not they are regulated simply by their structural characteristics.
called something else)and regulated accordingly.
Window/Door Signs
Canopy and Awning Signs Window and door signs are simply signs on windows and
Merchants in downtown areas and in strip commercial doors.Although there may be a valid reason for prohibiting
centers sometimes install awnings or canopies on or in front the obstruction of more than a specified percentage of the
of their businesses and integrate signs into the awning or glass area of a business,there is usually little other reason to
canopy.Awning and canopy signs include signs on tradi- regulate window and door signs separately from other signs
tional canvas awnings, signs on the edges of structural on the front or sides of a building.Note that some window
canopies,and translucent plastic canopies that use dark let- signs may be permanently painted onto the window,while
ters or logos on a lighted background. Some communities others may be temporary paper signs.
consider signs such as 7/11 signs in the fake mansard porch The principal concerns with window and door signs are
covers to be canopy signs rather than roof signs.All such that they create clutter and that they block views in and out;
signs are,in a sense,a type of wall sign and should generally the latter issue is often a security concern because such signs
be counted as such in determining permissible sign area. might make it impossible for police to see into a business
However, separate regulation of this sign type may be while passing by.Both of these issues can be addressed by
justified in order to allow it in some districts while pro- regulating the amount of sign coverage allowed.Complex
hibiting it in others. definitions are not necessary.
Projecting Signs Billboards
Many modern sign regulations prohibit signs that are in- Most local sign regulations address the issue of billboards
stalled perpendicular to or at an angle to a building wall. by distinguishing between on-premises signs and off-
Even when they are permitted, projecting signs are often premises signs,with the latter more heavily restricted.For
treated in a separate sign classification because of the legal reasons discussed both in this chapter and in the next,such
and practical issues that arise when such a sign projects over a distinction raises difficult legal and planning issues.
a public street or sidewalk.Thus,local regulations often in- A better approach to the billboard issue is to address it
clude clearance requirements for projecting signs,and many through a combination of size and number regulations and
require that owners of projecting signs furnish proof of in- through special limitations applying to signs of a certain
surance in case the sign should fall on someone walking classification.The simplest way to regulate billboards,with-
by. Such additional restrictions can be both useful and out addressing content, is to define a billboard as a sign
necessary. located on a zone lot not containing a building and to include
5
i
in the ordinance sign size limitations tied to building floor dressed in the model ordinance.
area. Defining what constitutes the measurable area of a sign
also raises some problems.However,the definition of sign
Parked Vehicles With Messages area in the model ordinance—a definition based on common
Some proprietors park vehicles with signs on them in practice—effectively resolves those problems.Measurable
front of their businesses. Such vehicles may range from area is defined as the area within the outer boundaries of !
autos with signs on top,to school buses with billboards at- standard geometrical shapes(primarily squares,rectangles,
tached, to trailers with messages on their sides. Without and circles)containing and defined by the extreme reaches
stepping into the separate and complicated problem of reg- of informational or graphic parts of the signs.Note the enor-
ulating advertising on vehicles in general, the problem of mous difference between this approach and the approach i
advertising on permanently parked vehicles can be ad- advocated by some in the sign industry,which is that signs
dressed through broad definitions of "sign" or through with large letters should be measured by determining the
specific provisions. One effective approach to the total of the areas covered by the individual letters,disregard-
stationary-vehicle problem is to exempt from regulation as ing supporting graphics and surrounding and separating
a sign vehicles"regularly and customarily used to transport spaces.
persons or property for the business."Some communities
have abandoned-vehicle regulations, which prohibit the Total Sign Area Limits
parking in public view of any vehicle not in operating con- Sophisticated local sign regulations include total limits on
dition and/or lacking current registration;such a regulation sign area on a particular property. Some regulations have
effectively addresses the issue of parked vehicles used as one limit for all freestanding signs on a property and another
signs. limit for the total signage on the property,or a separate limit
for all signs that are not freestanding.
Snipe Signs For reasons discussed below,total sign area limits are a far
Snipe signs are signs fastened to trees or poles.Few com- more effective way to limit signage than attempts to limit the
munities have effective enforcement systems for such signs, number of all types of signs.Total sign area limits can be a
and most prohibit them.Because most sign regulations are function of lot area,street frontage,building area,or some
drafted to allow certain signs and prohibit all others,many combination thereof.Some regulations provide a formula
regulations essentially prohibit snipe signs without defining based on lot area or frontage but with an additional limit tied
them. to building area.A system that relates both to lot size and
to building size is typically the most responsive to aesthetic
SIGN DIMENSIONS,NUMBER, AND LOCATION concerns. Such facilities as drive-through banks and
It is necessary to classify signs so that they can be restaurants are often small buildings located on large lots;
regulated on the basis of their characteristics.The most im- allowing the same amount of signage on such buildings as
portant aspects of sign regulation are similar to the lot and would be allowed on a typical commercial building on the
building dimensional requirements of a zoning ordinance— same site can yield a building that is all sign.
limiting the size and number of signs and the location of each Note.that sign area limits tied to building size can effec-
sign on the lot or building. tively eliminate many billboard problems because most
There are a surprising number of possible approaches to billboards are located on lots where no building exists.As
these apparently simple numerical concepts.The most im- for billboards located on lots in industrial districts—where
portant are discussed here. there will be a building on the lot and space for the
billboard—sign size should be limited to a small percentage
Individual Sign Size of building floor area,and those limits alone may be enough
Probably the most common restriction on signs is a limit to prevent billboards in most such locations.
on the size of individual signs.That is a valid and important Area limits tied to lot dimensions can raise administrative
restriction for aesthetic and safety reasons.Planners draft- questions in many communities because several subdivided
ing sign regulations, however, sometimes ignore the diffi- lots are often covered by one commercial building or use.
culty of monitoring and enforcing restrictions on the sizes That problem is easily resolved by defining"zone lot,"as the
of individual signs.Although large pole signs may require model ordinance in this report does.
construction permits of some sort, many other signs are
erected, installed, or painted without any local permit, Limits on the Number of Signs
whether one is required or not.Thus,enforcing the size re- Most local sign regulations limit the number of freestand-
striction requires an after-the-fact measuring of a device that ing signs.That is a logical regulation to prevent clutter,and
is sometimes large and in an awkward location,such as on it is easy to enforce.Some regulations tie the numerical limit
top of a pole or a roof. to the number of streets on which the property has frontage,
This problem is complicated in local regulations that thus allowing two signs on a corner lot. Others tie the
specify a variety of different size limits on different types of number of signs to the number of driveways,a somewhat
signs, often based on sign content. Although the size of capricious limitation.The better approach is generally to tie
freestanding signs is an important issue,and one that is ad- the number of freestanding signs to the number of feet of lot
dressed in the model ordinance, the size of individual wall frontage.Since the issue is street clutter,frontage rather than !
I
signs is not the most important standard for regulation.The lot area is the better measure.
total area of all wall signs and the percentage of each building Those concerned with sign regulation should be aware of
surface covered are far more important and are both ad- one commercial issue affecting the number of freestanding
6
signs.Some national manufacturers and franchisers,whose may require a setback from side or rear property lines or
logo signs are very valuable to individual merchants,require may specify some relationship between the sign and the
that such logo signs be installed on separate poles and not building.Provisions of sign or zoning regulations may pro-
stacked on a pole with other signs.That poses a practical hibit signage, as well as fences and buildings, from being
problem for auto dealers and others who handle multiple located in a"clear-site triangle,"which is typically an isos-
lines of "name" products, each requiring a separate celes triangle with two 25-foot sides extending from the street
freestanding sign. Although local governments need not corner along the curbs;some communities refine this limit
cater to the dictates of large national companies,they must to include the area required for visibility from autos,which
be sensitive to the fact that the local Chevrolet-Honda dealer is from roughly two feet above the ground to nine or 10 feet
probably does not have enough bargaining power to per- above the ground.
suade either manufacturer to change its requirements.Since Some local regulations make sign location and height
multibrand auto dealers are likely to have large expanses of dependent variables, typically allowing lower signs to be
street frontage,a limit for freestanding signs that is based on placed closer to the street.Such a regulation provides an in-
street frontage should be responsive to that problem. centive for merchants to reduce sign height, thus reducing
Limits on the number of wall signs and similar signs can the elevation—and perhaps the intrusiveness—of street clut-
become difficult to define,administer,and enforce.Depend- ter.The varying heights and setbacks that will occur under
ing on the definition, a stacked sign that says"Mini Mart such a regulation can also eliminate the problem of rows of
Foods"and that includes a gasoline company logo below it signs obstructing the visibility of one another.
may be considered one or two signs.The problem is hardly Local sign regulations sometimes require additional set-
worth solving because the real issue is how much wall area backs for signs in residential areas or impose special restric-
is covered by the signs.Thus,the model ordinance does not tions,such as subdued lighting and reduced height,on signs
include limits on the number of wall signs, window signs, located within specified distances of residential property.
and door signs.Although that may result in some walls ap-
pearing more cluttered than others,some sign designers are Sign Height
capable of making even a single sign seem cluttered. For The height of freestanding signs is an important issue in
those who wish to regulate aesthetic details of sign design, streetscape aesthetics.Sign heights are often stunning to the
the Street Graphics system provides an excellent approach. casual observer.One wag once suggested to the author that
sign companies are in the business of selling poles,not signs.
Location There are significant ironies involved in the tall signs that dot
Location is an issue mostly for freestanding signs. The many commercial areas. An ideal sign height for auto
most common locational requirement is a setback require- visibility on a city street with a 35-mile-per-hour speed limit
ment from the front property line.Other local regulations is a height that puts a sign comfortably within the windshield
The CCB sign would be treated as a roof sign under most local regulations because the sign structure appears to be
separate from the building, whereas the First Federal sign is a wall sign.
IL
i
t
L
7
frame at a distance ranging from 80 to 400 feet—the 400-foot
limit should be lowered if other signs or street trees obscure
visibility at that height.Clearly,a sign height of 15 to 20 feet
or so serves that purpose nicely,and one of 25 feet or more
is likely to make it impossible to see the sign as the auto nears
it., �l
Many commercial signs along such streets,however,are = NO '
35 or 40 or even 50 feet high,well above the easy sight range P KI GI
of the passing motorist.Some tall signs are clearly oriented BUS �
to attracting traffic from a highway or an arterial several STOP
blocks away, but many others are simply too tall for any I j
reasonable purpose.When rows of independent merchants
compete for the "tallest sign" honors, with all the signs
touching the height limit in the district and all of them as near
to the street as possible,the result is a row of signs that block `� P RTS CRAFTS
each other from distances of a block or even less.And,from SUPPUES KITS,GIFTS
closer distances, the signs are hard to see because they are 4" 53L6
too tall.
Thus,reducing permitted sign height is often a net bene-
fit to merchants, who save money on shorter poles and ±
whose signs are more visible when lowered.However,few
merchants understand it that way,and lower height limits
are often very controversial.
r'
There are some logical approaches to determining sign r t
heights in zoning districts that have building height limits.
There seems to be little reason to allow signs that are taller
than permitted buildings,if the building height limit is rea- ts
sonable.Furthermore,where there are both a height limit :_ ;
and a setback requirement, there is little reason to allow a
sign to penetrate a plane extending from the top of the _
highest possible building at the setback line to the top of a
theoretical wall of 8 or 10 feet at the property line. Such a -
height limit produces an envelope effect that maintains the
scale of the streetscape. =
In commercial zones without height limits, the typical
height of existing buildings can provide guidance for reason-
able sign height limits.
ANIMATED,FLASHING, AND LIGHTED SIGNS E
Many sign regulations limit or prohibit moving or 7
flashing signs. Although moving or flashing signs can be
more distracting to traffic than other signs,the issue is more
likely one of aesthetics.Most sign regulations contain some Regulations governing snipe signs are very difficult to
form of limitation on sign lighting and some contain exten- enforce—as is evident front the number that have been
sive lighting specifications. plastered over each other on this light pole. Many regulations
Other than beacons and lights producing glare on adja- prohibit them.
cent properties,both of which can be considered nuisances,
matters of sign lighting are aesthetic judgments that should
be resolved as local policy issues.Special restrictions on sign regulations generally prohibit signs that are moved by
lighting adjacent to residential properties are appropriate in mechanical or natural means, such as wind. Local regula-
most communities;but other lighting restrictions should be tions sometimes allow moving signs in a downtown zone but
carefully considered in the context of a community's entire prohibit them in neighborhood shopping areas in the same
set of aesthetic goals—a darker sign is not necessarily a better community.Whether local regulations should address sign
or more attractive sign. movement is entirely a matter of aesthetic judgment.
The most common restrictions on sign motion and Some regulations address animated signs, including
lighting are summarized here. within their scope signs that use flashing lights to create the
appearance of movement.Other regulations simply include
Moving Signs them with other flashing signs.
Many regulations today prohibit moving signs. Those
Flashing Signs
2.Street Graphics,14-19,55-56 and 66-69.See especially the drawing Regulations that limit sign movement often limit Ilashing
on page 68.
signs for similar, aesthetic reasons. As with moving signs,
8
local regulations often exempt the time and temperature por-
tion of signs from the prohibition on flashing.Note that,in
,t drafting such a prohibition,it is important to exempt only
that portion of the sign,rather than"time and temperature
• } signs" in general; otherwise, a creative sign designer can
1
1
• t avoid the prohibition on flashing signs by installing a sma
clock or thermometer in the corner of a larger flashing sign.
Electronic Marquees
' Electronic marquees are replacing manual marquees at
many cinemas and theatres, and they are being used as
general advertising devices in many other situations.Some
electronic marquees show messages and graphics that
change constantly,while others are changed at infrequent
intervals. Some are used to display stock quotations and
thus are changed six times a day, five days per week.
Clearly,the marquees that are changed infrequently are not
{` "flashing" and should be exempted from a definition of
flashing signs if the definition is otherwise broad enough to
RES
TAURAW include them. Because such signs generally use exposed
bulbs to display changing messages,limitations on lighting
types, as well as limitations on flashing signs, may affect
these devices.
JA Beacons
Many local sign regulations prohibit beacons, which,
unlike most flashing signs,may disturb residents blocks or
;rr.. even miles away from the location of the beacon.
rs w
Sign Lighting
There are three basic methods of lighting signs:internal
lighting that shines through a plastic or other translucent
covering;direct external lighting,such as flood or spotlights;
and lighting that is external but integral to the sign,such as
bulbs that spell out the sign message.
Some local sign regulations contain no restrictions on
lighting.Very restrictive regulations may permit only direct,
external lighting.There are many variations in between the
o
two extremes,and,again,the choices are mainly aesthetic.
As noted above, some sign regulations impose special
E lighting restrictions on signs within a specific distance of
residential property.Lighting restrictions may also vary by
zone district.Many communities allow more extensive use
Here is a fairly cornrnon combination of signs. Some are aimed
at passing motorists on the street in front of the motel. The of lighting in a downtown zone than in other districts.Some
others are"im isible-to passersby and are instead aimed at even encourage lighted and flashing signs downtown in
passengers on a nearby highway, order to bring a sense of life to an area that otherwise may
appear dreary.In doing so,they are following the philoso-
phy of managers and merchants of enclosed shopping malls,
the issue is one for local policy resolution. who often use lighted and moving signs on store fronts that
Some trailer-type portable signs include rows of colored are well-lit from the mall lighting; the sole purpose of that
lights that flash in sequence.Such a sign feature is sometimes lighting is to create the kind of visual interest that will draw
separately addressed, with a provision of the regulations customers into the store.
prohibiting signs that might be confused with traffic signals Probably the most common restriction on sign lighting is
or warning devices. Such a restriction creates some risk of one prohibiting internally lighted signs.That is an aesthetic
arbitrary administration.That is not an issue in the model judgment,usually directed at bright logo signs with a com-
ordinance, which prohibits portable signs and allows pany's symbol displayed in color against a glowing white
flashing signs only in certain zones. background. However, some very elegant business parks
now use, and some communities even require, internally
Time and Temperature Signs lighted signs that show up white letters against a dark,earth-
Because many definitions of flashing signs are so broad toned background. Such a sign looks like a plain, flat sign
that they ensnare signs that change as the time or during the day and provides readable letters at night with-
temperature changes, or that flash from one to the other, out the glare often caused by external lighting.
9
Neon
Many local sign regulations prohibit neon signs, al-
though,in practice,many of those communities do allow in-
ternally lighted signs,which are often lit by neon.The goal
of such regulations is to eliminate the kind of decorative ` t '
neon work that characterized signs in downtown areas and
along automobile dealer strips 30 years ago;it is interesting _ -
to note that similar work now decorates the fronts of stores 'YM
in malls with careful aesthetic restrictions.Although a very
large neon sign can produce a lot of light,decorative neon '
work is typically less distracting to traffic and less disruptive j
to neighboring property owners than signs of similar size
with other types of lighting.Where and why the movement Ir F
against decorative neon began is a mystery, but it is now "
common. However, there is some movement in the other a Q
direction,often triggered by a desire to revitalize older com-
mercial areas and to do so using the same kinds of techniques
used in malls—ranging from sidewalk sales to decorative _
neon and flashing signs. Local prohibitions on decorative r-'
neon work should be carefully reevaluated in the course of
updating sign regulations.'
COLORS AND MATERIALS OF SIGNS
Some communities regulate sign colors and face mate-
rials. Such regulations are less common than the other
substantive regulations described above and are most often,
but not exclusively,found in relatively exclusive residential . •t
suburbs. Some of the more common restrictions are de-
scribed here.
The most restrictive of sign material regulations require
that sign surfaces be wood or masonry with painted or raised
messages. Less restrictive sign regulations sometimes pro-
hibit plastic sign faces but allow the use of a variety of other
materials.The consistency of sign materials is probably a
more important effect of such regulations than the choice of k '
particular materials.Regulations addressing sign materials
may also specify the materials that may be used in sign
supports.
Sign regulations may simply limit the number of separate
colors per sign,often to two or three plus white,thus reduc-
ing the possibility for garish and cluttered signs.Other sign
regulations may actually specify the color groups that are ac-
ceptable(e.g., earthtones).
Communities that do not limit the colors and materials of
signs in general sometimes impose such limits in historic
districts in order to ensure that signage is consistent with the
neighborhood's characteristics.
Regulating sign materials and colors increases the prob- ..
lems of administration and enforcement.Those problems `
can be solved,however,and should not dissuade a commu-
nity that is firmly committed to developing a streetscape of x .. -
relatively simple and uniform signs.A community that in-
tends to regulate sign materials and colors should develop
-,
explicit standards—such as lists of acceptable materials and
permitted colors—and should not draft regulations simply °'°"•' '" ' ':"° " "
giving a review board the power to approve or disapprove
sign colors and materials.The risk of arbitrary and incon- • �`. '
sistent decisions,resulting in political and legal liabilities for • • ' ' '"'= -
the community, is enormous when an unfettered review
process is used to permit or prohibit signs. _
3.For more on neon signs and on sign controls for historic signs,see Peter
H.Phillips,"Sign Controls for Historic Signs,"PAS Memo,November 1988. Z '
10
A .-
E
�i= q _ 21
ry
. 'l�ir.• f 4 1
Ak
f y
FLAGS,BANNERS, AND PENNANTS
y Flags, banners, and pennants present unique and
troublesome issues for sign regulation.Twenty years ago,
many communities cheerfully allowed flapping pennants of
the kind found on some used car lots, permitted flags as
fi f patriotic,and disregarded the issue of banners.Today,some
.01 `
auto dealers and other merchants use"garrison flags"that
„i t + may be 30 by 60 feet on 80-foot poles to attract attention,
' .;2' •<ti. while arts groups use banners to promote activity at
downtown centers;only pennants have not changed much.
Flags
No community wants to be unpatriotic.Prohibiting the
legitimate display of U.S.,state,or other official flags would
be lunacy and would probably violate the First Amendment.
However, there is little that is patriotic in the motives of
:? many who display mammoth flags far above their
° businesses on busy commercial strips.Furthermore,many
■ a r1 c .A r T } organizations,such as fraternal lodges,and some businesses
•o b 1ii +� + have their own flags,which are sometimes displayed in lieu
AM TO ,� ;:{� of or in addition to signs.
A rational approach to the regulation of flags should do
several things:limit flagpole height to the maximum height
of a permitted sign in the same location;treat flags other than
U.S., state,and municipal flags as signs that are subject to
total sign area limitations;and limit flag sizes.One commu-
nity exempts only U.S.,state,and local flags flown between
;x sunrise and sunset from regulation.
v Banners
Many local sign regulations prohibit banner,which were
once most commonly used as supplemental, temporary
signs with such messages as"Big Sale"or"Picnic Supplies
Here." Today, many arts groups and some cities, civic
groups, and commercial organizations use artistic and
#' decorative banners,often with no specific message,to give
f
a festive appearance to a plaza,street,mall,or other public
or quasi-public space.
There are several possible approaches to regulating ban-
?
ners.One is certainly a ban,although such a ban should be
carefully considered in light of the possible uses just outlined.
Another approach is to allow banners only as temporary
signs on public property when they promote events of
general civic interest,subject to a special permitting process.
Such an approach creates some legal hazards, which are
discussed in Chapter 2,but it is one that often best responds
to the real desires of a community.One local sign regulation
R .r expressly allows banners that are attached top and bottom
(or two sides)to permanent structural members on a post or
building erected for another purpose,provided that the ban-
ners have no logo or message on them.That rule allows the
attachment of decorative banners to lightpoles and buildings
but precludes their use as signs.
Pennants
Prohibiting flapping pennants is simple and logical,if pen-
This enormous clown rivals its large hotel in height. Although
it would be prohibited in many communities, it is an important
part of the streetscape in Reno.
' 11
nants are well defined.(See the model for a good definition.)
Rows of flapping pennants certainly contribute to
streetscape clutter and do not communicate any essential
message other than"look at me."
SIGN CONTENT
Although local officials may not announce,or even con-
sciously consider,an intent to regulate sign content,many
local sign regulations are heavily based on sign content.
Typical community sign regulations may allow a real estate
sign of six square feet, a temporary election sign of four
square feet(to be removed within 30 days of the election),
a home occupation sign of two square feet,and a construc-
tion sign (only during the period of construction) of 20
square feet, all on the same residential lot, with the size
depending only on the content of the sign. Those same
regulations may, in the same residential zone, allow a 32-
square-foot sign for a church,a 50-square-foot sign for a per-
mitted business,and a 15-square-foot sign for each entrance
to an apartment complex.These latter signs can be consid-
ered incidental uses to the principal use,thus avoiding some
of the censorship issues involved in content regulation,but
that approach still does not address the fundamental ques-
tion.Why is a 32-square-foot sign on a church less disrup-
tive to neighborhood aesthetics or traffic safety (the
purposes of sign regulation)than a political sign of similar n ,
size or an identification sign on an apartment complex in the
same location?Why is a real estate sign in the yard of a house
that does not sell for two years not disruptive if a political
sign in the same location becomes unacceptable 30 days after
the election?The issue is discussed in depth in Chapter 2 but
must be considered here to discuss the types of signs whose Where and why the movement against decorative neon signs
regulation is sometimes affected by the nature of their began is a mystery. Neon signs can be quite attractive,as this
content. sign from Seattle makes evident.Any prohibition of local
The content basis of local sign regulation is particularly decorative neon work should be carefully reevaluated in the
obvious in the Hiles for many residential zones,but it extends course of updating sign regulations.
into the regulation of commercial and noncommercial signs.
The most typical use of sign content as the basis for regula- front door to deliver messages,such as"Save the Whales,"
tion is to allow on-premises signs and prohibit all other signs, rather than to give their name, the impact on the commu-
with an on-premises sign defined as,"A sign that pertains to nity will be minimal. Commercial messages may be re-
the use of the premises on which it is located,"or something stricted separately.
similar.
The legal problem with such a definition, which effec- Real Estate Signs
tively prohibits most signs with political,religious,and other In commercial zones, there is no need for a special cate-
noncommercial messages,is discussed in Chapter 2.Other gory for real estate signs.If a commercial property is partly
content-based regulations affecting commercial signs in- or wholly vacant, it surely does not need its entire signage
elude permission for extra'logo signs"not bearing any com- allocation,and part of that can be devoted to advertising the
mercial message except a logo or business name;exclusion property for sale.If a fully leased and fully signed shopping
from regulation of menu-boards at drive-in restaurants;and center is for sale,it may have to be sold without a sign—as
special treatment of gas price signs. many investment properties are.
Some types of signs typically regulated on the basis of In residential zones, the simplest, content-neutral ap-
content and recommendations for other approaches to the proach to real estate signs is to allow each residential zone
regulation of such signs are examined here. lot a single,unlighted,freestanding sign of three or so square
feet(possibly double-faced)for whatever purpose the owner
Nameplates may choose.That sign can serve as the For Sale or For Rent
Many local regulations permit, or exempt from regula- sign or may say"Smith Residence,""Save the Coyotes."or
tion,a nameplate of one or two square feet.Permitting such "Impeach the Mayor" . . . whatever the owner may
a sign as a flush wall sign in virtually any zone, without choose.Such a sign could also be used to advertise a permit-
specifying content, is entirely rational.A community may ted home occupation.
choose to impose additional lighting restrictions on such The abuse of such signs to advertise fast-food and gasoline
signs in residential neighborhoods. Although a few in- operations down the road can be avoided by simply pro-
dividuals may decide to use the one square foot beside their hibiting the use of such a sign to advertise"any commercial
12
until the building is complete; thus, part of that basic sign
t: allocation can be used to identify the contractors,architects,
} engineers, banks, and others involved in making the con-
'� struction possible.Such an approach to construction signs
may require minor amendments to other sections of local
sign regulations,which may prohibit signs on unoccupied
commercial properties.
"Political"Signs
Many local regulations allow"political"signs as a sepa-
rate category,often for a specific period tied to an election
date.When such regulations are more restrictive than those
for real estate or other signs in the same locations(as most
are), they are clearly unconstitutional in preferring the
advertisement of real estate for sale over noncommercial
political messages.Furthermore,they typically prohibit(ex-
pressly or by implication)many protected messages that are
not related to a particular election date(e.g.,"Save the Ot-
ters," "Vote Populist," "Support Anarchy," or "Go to
NORTH Church on Sunday").A content-neutral approach to sign
BROADWAY regulation allows,by implication,political signs anywhere
that any sign can be erected—without special treatment—
and prohibits them where other signs of similar size or loca-
tion are prohibited.
Some communities have special regulations allowing
political signs to be installed on public property;such regula-
tions typically limit the period during which signs can be
erected and often require the posting of a bond to guaran-
tee that the signs will be removed.Such special permissions
3 for political signs only,which give preferential treatment to
political signs over commercial ones,are acceptable.How-
" ever,the safe approach to drafting such regulations is to in-
Groups like neighborhood organizations use banners to clude only a prohibition on commercial advertising in the
promote businesses and activities and to give a festive air to the regulations,leaving the noncommercial content open.If the
local area.Any ban of such signs should be carefully considered
in light of their possible civic and artistic uses. time period during which such signs can be erected relates
to a municipal election,it is unlikely that many of them will
say "Ban Nuclear Power," but permitting someone who
enterprise not permitted[conducted]on the same zone lot." wants to deliver that message to do so simplifies administra-
The use of"permitted" in the sentence simplifies enforce- tion of the regulation and offers important legal protection
ment, because it requires reference only to the ordinance to it.
rather than physical investigation;furthermore,the risk of
one resident using his/her three square feet of signage to pro- Menu Boards and Vending Machines
mote a neighbor's permitted home-occupation beauty shop There are a variety of incidental and supplemental signs
seems minimal.However,for communities concerned about on large commercial properties that have little or no impact
that risk, the use of the word"conducted"is appropriate. on the public but that are essential to the conduct of business
Note that this approach avoids the constitutional problems or even to the free flow of traffic.A simple,content-neutral
of billboard bans,which are typically worded to grant per- approach to regulating such signs is to permit signs of a
mission for certain commercial signs while prohibiting all specified size,located at least some specific distance from the
other signs;this proposed language bans most types of com- property line, and "not legible to a person of average
mercial signs,permitting all other signs that meet the size and eyesight standing on any property line."That blanket per-
location requirement, including noncommercial ones. mission short-circuits the potential problems with many dif-
ferent kinds of signs,including the"75 cent"price sign on the
Construction Signs vending machine, signs on the outside restrooms, the in-
Many local regulations create a special and preferred cat- structions for using the pay phone, the fast-food menu
egory for construction signs,an approach that verges on the boards, and the sign saying "Parking for George's Ham-
ridiculous. If a large real estate sign in a residential burgers Only."On the other hand,it prohibits circumven-
neighborhood would be disruptive,a large construction sign tion of the sign ordinance through such supplemental
must be equally disruptive; in short, in residential advertising techniques as vending machine supergraphics
neighborhoods, the basic freestanding sign described above that are easily legible from the street.
can easily be used to advertise the fact that "Bang'em Up
Contractors Is Building This House."In commercial zones, "Logo"Signs
the full sign allocation for commercial purposes is never used Some local ordinances allow a freestanding sign or an
13
4,
K1 ~�
Y'
Black
MUIe k
_ `•`4 " e.s q t LVERY UAY
PM 100*PURE GAS0 ° - F I LOW PRICES
suer BLAC� __ QUALITY UOUR ULI GAS
r 'F WON OILS
TVV US lops PURE '. Z'i _ .PURE AST SE Ana
wisacxtcs
Sign clutter is one of the biggest streetscape problems in many communities. In one case(top), clutter on an
individual site is so bad that the building is"obliterated"by its own signage. In another(opposite page),signs
overlap down the strip, making sign copy difficult, if not impossible, to read.
extra freestanding sign if it contains only a logo or the name such noncommercial districts as industrial and agricultural
of a business,with no advertising.Such a regulation creates zones,where barns and warehouses may have large sides not
ridiculous distinctions;for example,it allows Joe's Beer Bar, needed or used for signage related to the businesses located
which happens to have a beer stein as a logo, to deliver a there. Further limitations can be imposed by providing an
message that neighboring Pam's Place, an indentical busi- additional limit on sign size as a percentage of building area,
ness with a classy (but nonrepresentational) logo, cannot thus effectively prohibiting signs on vacant parcels;such va-
place on the same kind of sign.Furthermore,it raises directly cant parcels should be permitted one sign of 20 or so square
the difficulty of explaining,politically and legally,why the feet per tract or parcel in order to permit For Sale or political
Joe's Beer Bar sign is more acceptable to the public than a signs.
Pam's Sells Beer sign of the same size and design. Although such an approach will undoubtedly allow the
Merchants with franchises or auto dealership agreements development of some creative off-premises advertising signs
can often obtain logo signs relatively inexpensively, and (for example,a motel might convince a roadside gas station
they argue that they should be allowed to erect those signs to give the motel half of its sign space as advertising space
separately.Some franchise agreements actually require that to provide directions to the motel),all of the signs so devel-
logo signs be on poles that do not contain other signs. Re- oped will fall within the limitations on sign size,location,
quiring that George Smith,who sells pizza under a franchise, lighting, color, and design specified in the ordinance and
choose between having the Podgorny Pizza logo sign and a thus should be entirely consistent with local aesthetic and
sign saying "George Smith's Pizza Place," when Irene's traffic safety requirements.
Pizzeria is allowed only one freestanding sign,seems entirely
reasonable—however much George may want to have both ENFORCEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
his name and the franchise logo on poles in front of his busi- Enforcing and administering sign regulations is in some
ness. The special treatment of logo signs is simply not ways more difficult than enforcing and administering zon-
justified. ing regulations.Zoning administration is closely tied to the
building permit process—anyone putting up a building in-
Billboards forms public officials that he or she is doing so by applying
The major objection to billboards is that they are very for a building permit.It is then easy to review the plans for
large signs.Why many communities have stumbled into the the proposed construction to determine whether the building
quagmire of regulating them as off-premises signs instead of will comply with applicable regulations and to track the con-
banning large signs is a mystery. Clearly, the simplest ap- struction for conformance with approved plans.
proach to billboard regulation is to ban large,freestanding In contrast,many types of signs in many communities do
signs. Limiting the percentage of wall area that can be not require permits.Some types of signs that do require per-
devoted to signs and limiting the absolute size of a wall sign mits may be erected by individual property owners or
provides an effective limit on the use of buildings as tenants without complying with a permit process.Although
billboards.Those limitations should be more restrictive in building inspectors are very likely to notice a new building
14
i
----
at W
_ pluip t -
:Pt NEM -
E; i7Ti
- m
U rY' � i� � � .�.`_�v w�,�- '-+icy,• l,
going up without a permit, signs on buildings and some 2. Establish Records.The model ordinance includes a re-
freestanding signs may be added or changed without attract- quirement for a master sign permit in order to keep a
ing the attention of any official.Even when a sign is erected record of what signs are permitted on each zone lot
or installed in substantial compliance with regulations,the and in what locations. Such a record eliminates the
measurements required in many local sign regulations are need to recalculate permissible sign numbers and sign
usually more complex than those required by the zoning areas because those are all reflected on the permit.
regulations for buildings on the same lot. Field administration becomes a matter of comparing
The enforcement problems with signs generally do not in- what is on the site with what is on the permit.In many
volve large signs provided by sign companies.Many com- cases, the differences,such as the addition of an extra
munities license sign contractors and require permits for pole sign or the enlargement of a wall sign,will be ob-
large signs.Like building contractors,most sign contractors vious on initial inspection without the need for
will not work without required permits and have no desire detailed measurements.
to install signs that will violate local regulations.Thus,that
aspect of sign regulation,like zoning,can be self-policing. 3. Hire Adequate Staff. A community that adopts a
The regulation of banners,portable signs,pennants,painted policy of effective regulation of signs should hire ade-
wall signs, and small signs of all kinds can be much more quate staff to do the job.There is some reason to con-
difficult. sider separating that staff from the building inspection
Many communities make sign enforcement even more staff if the latter is often overworked. Any rational
difficult by adopting regulations that are far too complex to department administrator faced with a personnel
be easily enforced. Regulations that impose different size shortage and a decision about whether to inspect
limits on different types of freestanding signs in the same buildings under construction or to conduct random
location require endless measurements.Regulations that tie sign surveys will order his or her staff to inspect the
sign sizes to lot areas and street frontages require additional buildings.Thus,signs may always remain on the"to
measurements and calculations.There is nothing especially be done" list. If one or more inspectors are assigned
complicated about any particular set of measurements or specifically to sign inspection duties,that problem will
calculations—the problem is simply one of having enough be eliminated.
staff to do the job.Regulations based on sign content create Although the enforcement and administration of sign
even more problems of enforcement and administration regulations raises issues different from general zoning en-
because inspectors must monitor sign copy as well as dimen- forcement, it is certainly related to zoning enforcement and
sions and location. administration. Thus, the two should be part of one total
There are three key steps that a community can take to system, even if certain parts(such as inspections)function
make the enforcement and administration of sign regulation separately.'
efficient.
1. Keep Regulations Simple. Simple regulations are sim- 4.For a general discussion of enforcement of land-use controls,including
sign regulations,see Eric Damian Kelly.Enforcing Zoning and Land-Use
pie to administer.The model ordinance in this report Controls,Planning Advisory Service Report\o.400(Chicago:American
has been drafted with that concept in mind. Planning Association, 1988).
15
NONCONFORMING SIGNS of nonconforming signs by starting the amortization period
When a community amends or replaces its sign regula- with the date of sign installation.The problem with such an
tions,some signs that conformed to the old regulations,but approach is that few communities have an adequate record
that do not conform to the new ones,will undoubtedly re- of when signs were installed to use that as the basis of ad-
main in the community.Such signs are usually called non- ministration of a regulatory provision.A simpler and safer
conforming signs. approach is simply to have the amortization period begin
There are two basic policy choices for regulating noncon- with the effective date of the new sign regulation.As with
forming signs—require that,when they are replaced, they other dates in regulations, it is administratively simpler to
be replaced with conforming signs,or set a specific date by use a"date certain"(such as the next July 1 or January 1)
which they must be replaced with conforming signs.The lat- rather than"ten days from the date of adoption,"a stipula-
ter approach is often called"amortization"of signs because tion that requires someone to document the adoption date
it is based on the economic and business principle that a busi- of a five-year-old regulation in order to begin enforcing the
ness, on its books and in practice, "writes off"(amortizes) amortization provision.
the cost of the sign over some period of time. For tax pur- In communities that lack the legal authority or the
poses, most signs can now be amortized in three years, al- political support for a provision amortizing nonconforming
though for businesses with separate, nontax accounting signs,local sign regulations should contain a number of pro-
systems, a five-year or 10-year period may be a more visions requiring or encouraging sign owners to eliminate
realistic sign amortization period.Local regulations that re- nonconforming signs under certain circumstances. Al-
quire the replacement of signs by a specified date generally though some nonconforming signs will be replaced in the or-
base that date on a realistic financial amortization period. dinary course of business, others will be diligently
The amortization of signs is not an available policy option maintained by their owners,who may place great value on
everywhere. Statutes in several states expressly prohibit the special status of their nonconforming signs.
local regulations that require the removal of certain types of Incentives used by communities to eliminate old signs
signs,or of any signs,because of changes to regulations.In include:
some other states,the courts are hostile to such regulations, A bonus in the size of new signs as an incentive to remove
viewing them as unconstitutional takings. (See,generally, nonconforming signs by a specified date;
Chapter 2 of this report.)However, in other states, amor-
tization is a viable option that has been sustained by the An offer by the local government to accomplish the
courts. physical removal of the sign without charge to the
In a state that allows amortization, a local government merchant;
that has the necessary political support to adopt an amor- Nominal cash compensation for early removal of old
tization provision for signs has one basic question. to signs; and
answer—how long to make the amortization period. The
three-year amortization period allowed under the Ac- A prohibition on the installation of any new signs on a
celerated Cost Recovery System under the Internal Revenue zone lot while a nonconforming sign remains in use.
Code(Section 168)is probably the realistic minimum amor-
tization period that should be considered.Since most small Regulatory requirements for the removal of old signs
businesses keep only one set of books for both tax and include:
general purposes,most will write off signs over three years. A requirement that the nonconforming sign be removed
Going to court and claiming damages for a taking of prop- if there is a change in certificate of occupancy or business
erty that has been fully written off the books puts the busi- license on the premises;
ness in a difficult legal-position.
Other considerations that might affect the choice of amor- A requirement that it be removed if a building permit is
tization period are common lease and finance terms. Five issued for any construction, sign-related or not, on the
years is a typical basic sign-lease period; such leases premises;
sometimes have a five-year renewal option. If a sign is A prohibition on any modifications to the sign or its
financed separately, the term of the loan is unlikely to be message, allowing only routine maintenance; and
more than three years and is almost certain to be five or less.
Thus, a five-year amortization period is consistent with A requirement that a master sign permit allowing new
typical sign financing techniques. signs include a removal date for any nonconforming
For reasons discussed in the next few paragraphs,the most signs.
important thing about a sign amortization period is to have
one.Even if it is necessary politically to agree to a 10-year The model ordinance includes an optional amortization
or 15-year amortization period,such a provision is far bet- provision but also includes other incentives and re-
ter than the alternative of having no limit to the life of non- quirements for the removal of old signs that can be used ei-
conforming signs. ther in conjunction with or in lieu of an amortization
Some communities attempt to accelerate the elimination requirement.
16
Chapter 2. Legal Issues in Sign Regulation
Sign regulation,like zoning,is carried out by the govern- It should be noted that sign law varies from state to state
ment under the police power.The police power is the power far more than other aspects of zoning law.Thus,early in the
to regulate and, in some cases,prohibit private activity in process of preparing a new set of sign regulations,planners
order to protect the health,safety,and general welfare of the and public officials should consult with their local govern-
public at large.It is reserved for the individual states by the ment attorney regarding such issues as amortization of non-
Constitution and granted by each state to its various units conforming signs and the aesthetic foundations for
of local government. regulation.
Any regulation based on the police power must advance This chapter includes a discussion of important decisions
some public interest related to the preservation of the public of the U.S. Supreme Court, the lower federal courts, and
health, safety, and general welfare. Thus, a fundamental some state courts. Specifically, the chapter attempts to
issue in any police power case is whether;in fact,the regula- answer the following questions:
tion advances such a public interest.Courts have upheld sign What governmental interests are necessary to sustain sign
regulation under two separate aspects of the police power.
First,because signs may distract drivers,sign regulation has regulation?Is the promotion or protection of an aesthetic
often been upheld as a traffic safety measure.Second,some standard alone sufficient or must other purposes be ad-
court decisions,particularly more recent ones,have relied vanced7
on the power of a community to maintain or improve its ap- To what extent must a relationship between the regulation
pearance through aesthetic regulations that are related to the and the governmental interest it purports to protect or ad-
general welfare rather than to any particular health or safety vance be shown,and,importantly,who must prove the
issue. relationship?
Sign regulation raises significant constitutional issues.
Because signs are a form of communication, they are pro- In view of the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of
tected under the First Amendment.Because they are a form speech and expression, to what extent may a sign or-
of property,signs are protected from any uncompensated dinance regulate signs based on the content of the sign's
"taking"under the Fifth Amendment.The various and often message?
complex methods by which communities have'tried to To what extent may local governments require modifica-
regulate the use,location,number,message portrayed,size, tion or elimination of signs that do not conform with a
and design of signs has produced a steady-amount of litiga- new sign regulation?
tion in both the state and federal courts.
This chapter presents an overview of the recurring legal What is the permissible extent of regulations concerning
issues in sign regulation.It provides a general background sign structure,size,lighting,materials,and location upon
in sign law for planners and local officials considering the a particular piece of property?
adoption of new sign regulations.It is far from a comprehen-
sive treatment of the subject.s THE GUIDELINES PROVIDED BY
THE U.S.SUPREME COURT
5.Daniel Mandelker provides a thorough documentation and analysis Signs area form of communication.Thus,the dominant
of sign law in the revised edition of Street Graphics and the Law. A legal issue confronting sign regulation is the guarantee of
penetrating legal analysis of the First Amendment issues in zoning regula- freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United
tion by Kenneth Pearlman is set forth in"Zoning and the First Amendment,"
Urban Lawyer 16(Spring 1984),217.Attorneys representing local govern- States Constitution.On matters involving the Constitution,
ments in the adoption of new sign regulations and/or in litigation would the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter.This section in-
be well advised to consult these valuable resources. cludes an examination of some important recent decisions
17
a little complex because it involves several steps.The start-
ing point of the justices'reasoning is that noncommercial
speech,including political,religious,social,and other forms
of expression, is entitled to a higher degree of protection
under the First Amendment than commercial speech,which
ri advertises or identifies businesses.Looking at the ordinance,
it was apparent that every business could have some form
of on-premises sign. The way the ordinance actually
worked, a few commercial signs were permitted off prem-
ises.Given the ordinance's definition of"on premises,"many
r types of noncommercial speech(e.g.,"Impeach the Mayor,"
poly "Support Your Favorite Church," "Protect the Whales")
3'C'-,Ov,I KIREST F would have no "premises."Thus, someone advertising a
motel would have a greater opportunity to use signs than
someone supporting a particular candidate for governor.The
general ban on off-premises signs effectively banned(or at
least severely restricted)noncommercial signs.
In the process of reaching a decision,the Court addressed
J many of the secondary issues in sign regulation.Most of its
Ica answers to other questions about sign regulation favored
local governments and sign regulation in general.A plurality
of the Court and three of the dissenters agreed that,as a mat-
ter of law,billboards and other forms of outdoor signage are
t intended to divert,and do divert,a driver's attention from
the roadway.In their view,a city is not required to produce
evidence to support the claim that a sign regulation advances
its interest in traffic safety.Two of the justices who voted to
San Diego's sign regulations, which effectively banned strike down the ordinance would not conclude, without
noncommercial messages like this one, were challenged in the clear and convincing evidence, that the ordinance would
Metromedia case. The ordinance was struck down, but the U.S. promote traffic safety or was necessary for aesthetic reasons.
Supreme Court's ruling in the case provides a firm legal basis The majority view on the traffic issue is extremely impor-
for restrictive sign regulation. tant to regulators. Billboard companies have produced
studies that purport to show that outdoor signage creates no
traffic hazard.The Metromedia decision is authority for the
of that Court.It is followed by an examination of some very position that a community need not produce evidence to
recent decisions by United States Circuit Courts of Appeals prove that billboards are traffic hazards.As such,it can be
including decisions in two cases that involved challenges to argued that the Metromedia decision relieves the city of
complete prohibitions of portable signs.These appeals cases, what may be a difficult task—proving a substantial relation-
two of which the Supreme Court has refused to review,serve ship between the end sought(traffic safety)and the means
as good examples of the application of the reasoning used by used(sign regulations).
the Supreme Court in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San When achievement or protection of an aesthetic goal is the
Diego,453 U.S.490,101 S.Ct.2882(1981),'and Members primary end of a sign regulation,however,the city should
of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent,466 U.S.789,104 still be prepared to introduce evidence of the relationship be-
S.Ct.2118(1984), (hereinafter Vincent),discussed below. tween.that end and the means used.It is easy for billboard
Metromedia is the leading Supreme Court case in the area companies to produce evidence of other eyesores in a com-
of sign regulation.In that case,the high court struck down munity and,on that basis,to argue that a city has arbitrarily
a city ordinance that imposed substantial restrictions on out- singled out billboards for control.The opinion of the Court
door signs. The ordinance distinguished between on- in Metromedia did not address whether aesthetics alone may
premises and off-premises signs. It permitted on-premises support sign regulations.However, the deference given to
commercial signs but forbade all off-premises signs, with the city's conclusion that signs present traffic hazards may
certain exceptions.As the Court noted in its opinion,most arguably be extended to its conclusions about the need to
noncommercial messages have no premises and,thus,were achieve or protect an aesthetic. Regulators should also be
effectively banned. mindful that the Supreme Court decision in Vincent,
Although unable to agree on a unified majority opinion, discussed below,clearly emphasized the importance of a rec-
six members of the Court did agree that the ordinance was ord that shows factual support for the sign classifications
invalid under the First Amendment.But the ordinance was employed by regulators.
not ruled invalid on the basis of its regulation of commer- The ruling in Metromedia emphasizes the importance of
cial speech,which,according to the justices, met constitu- a four-part test used to determine the validity of restrictions
tional requirements. Rather, it was the effective ban on on commercial speech.The test was developed by the Court
noncommercial signage that prompted the Court to in- one year earlier in Central Hudson v. Public Service
validate the regulation. Coimm'n., 447 U.S. 557, 553-556, 100 S.Ct. 2343 (1980).
The reasoning-of the decision, while straightforward, is The test,which is actually a rule against overbroad restric-
18
tions on commercial speech, as restated by the Court in
Metromedia, is outlined in its four parts here:
(1)The First Amendment protects*commercial speech only if
that speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading.A
restriction on otherwise protected commercial speech is valid
only if it(2)seeks to implement a substantial governmental in-
terest,(3)directly advances that interest,and(4)reaches no AVAILABLE 66.7500
farther than necessary to accomplish the given objective.(69
s.
L.Ed.2d.at 814-815)(Numbers indicating the parts of the test
have been added for clarification.)
This rule, as reaffirmed in Metromedia, is important to
' local governments concerned about tighter and more effec-
tive regulation of on-premises commercial signs.Commer- ;
cial speech is protected by the First Amendment. While ti
regulation of commercial speech does not receive the degree ( '
of scrutiny that regulation of noncommercial speech does,
it is subject to review and must not run afoul of the four-part
test set forth.
It is unclear whether clear and convincing evidence of the
relationship between governmental interest and a regulation
would be necessary to prove the validity of a regulation _
governing commercial signs only.The Metromedia Court
indulged the city by requiring no real proof of the relation-
ship between the purposes and the regulations involved in
the specific situation before the Court,a situation that also
included regulation of noncommercial speech.However,a "
local government contemplating additional restrictions on This commercial message—a sign for a sign on a sign—is not
commercial on-premises signs should be mindful of the Cen- entitled to the same protection from regulation as is
tral Hudson requirement that commercial speech restrictions noncommercial speech. But local regulations must not run afoul
"directly"advance the governmental interest being served. of the four-part test iterated in Central Hudson and reiterated in
In Metromedia,one justice expressed doubt that a regula- Metromedia.
tion prohibiting commercial billboards,but allowing non-
commercial billboards, would be constitutional. His
concern was with the issues of censorship and prior restraint business. The Court noted the presence of several factors
that may arise in the application of such regulations when (namely,the speech under review advertised a company,it
local officials must at some point—whether in the process referred to a specific product, and the speaker had some
of issuing permits or in the process of enforcement— economic motivation in putting it forth)and reasoned that
determine whether a sign is commercial or noncommercial. the content of the message was commercial. The Court
Based on the pronouncements of the Supreme Court, it noted that no single factor rendered the speech commercial
is,in fact,difficult to distinguish between a commercial and but that the combination of all such factors did.A commu-
a noncommercial sign. In Central Hudson, the Court nity that regulates signs on the basis of the commercial or
defined commercial speech as"expression related solely to noncommercial content of the message portrayed will, in
the commercial interests of the speaker and its audience." some cases,have to decide which regulation applies by con-
Using this definition,a sign that reads"American Steel Sup- sidering these various factors and then trying to discern the
ports Foreign Trade Restrictions,Buy American"is arguably weight the courts might give to each factor.
` not a commercial sign and should be permitted in some loca- The Supreme Court in Metromedia clarified the law of
tion.The Metromedia decision does not answer the ques- sign regulation to the extent that there is now a firm legal
tion,Is a sign commercial if it appears that its intent,at least basis for restrictive sign regulation. Even though the or-
in part, is to advertise some commercial activity7 dinance in San Diego was declared invalid, the plurality
In a more recent case, Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products opinion concluded that a community may, without
Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 103 S.Ct. 2875 (1983), the Supreme violating the First Amendment, ban all billboards (off-
Court was required once again to define commercial speech. premises signs)carrying a commercial message.Justice Bren-
Instead of using the definition quoted above from Central nan complained that the import of the ruling would be bifur-
Hudson,the Court decided that a number of factors,rather cated billboard regulations that prohibit commercial
than a strict definition, must be considered in making the messages but allow noncommercial messages. That is ex-
determination.The analysis begins with the basic notion— actly what has happened in many communities.
set down by the Court some years before—that commercial The Supreme Court's decision in Vincent is also significant
speech is"speech which does no more than propose a com- in this context.In that case,the high court upheld a Los An-
mercial transaction."However,the speech before the Court geles ordinance banning the attachment of signs to utility
in Bolger, like that used in the American Steel example, poles. Vincent was a candidate for political office who
could not be characterized solely as a proposal to transact sought to attach small campaign posters to utility poles.City
19
employees were ordered to remove them. ,..
Vincent sought an injunction against the removal of his
campaign signs,but the request was denied by the District ' ►� � ;�y> .
Court, which concluded that the ordinance was constitu-
tional. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the or- 4 F
dinance was presumptively unconstitutional because
significant First Amendment interests were involved and the
city had failed to make a sufficient showing that its asserted
; i
interests in aesthetics and in preventing visual clutter were
sufficient to justify a total.ban.
The Supreme Court reversed again, upholding the or-
dinance.The Court stressed the neutrality of the ordinance
n-'=r
in its opinion.The ordinance did not regulate speech or ex-
pression in a way that favored some ideas or expressions at
the expense of others;the prohibition applied to all signs or
..r��,•_,.. .
posters of whatever nature.The Court reasoned further that
the city's interest in aesthetic concerns, specifically in
avoiding visual clutter, was substantial and that the total
ban was the least suppressive way to protect that interest.
Importantly, the Court again refused to place a heavy _ r
burden on the city to prove that the signs actually would
cause harm to its interest in promoting an aesthetic standard.
In addition,the Vincent decision can certainly be read as
strong support on the Supreme Court for the proposition a ~
that a community's interest in preserving or promoting an
aesthetic standard is in itself a substantial interest justifying `^< �
strong sign regulation.Finally,and importantly, since the
prohibition in Vincent was content neutral, the Court
viewed the restriction on First Amendment rights to be one
of time,place,and manner.When the governmental interest
is unrelated to the suppression of expression (the content '
neutrality of a prohibition makes it presumptively so),the
regulation must further a substantial governmental interest
and be no greater than is necessary to achieve that objective.
This is essentially the same, more relaxed review given to `z
commercial speech by the test set forth in Central Hudson.
In other situations in which noncommercial speech is -
regulated, a much heavier burden is placed upon the -
regulator.The presumption against constitutionality is more Los Angeles's ban on the posting of signs, including political
severe and the governmental interest must be compelling in signs, on utility poles was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
order to sustain the regulation. Perhaps Chicago should institute such a ban. The election
In its most recent review of a regulation restricting First involving these candidates has been long over—and they lost.
Amendment rights,the Court arguably has relaxed even fur-
ther the Central Hudson test used to measure the validity of Another recent decision of the Supreme Court may have
restrictions on commercial speech.In Board of Trustees of implications for sign regulations, particularly for com-
the State University of New York v. Fox, U.S. munities that regulate on the basis of distinctions in the con-
109 S.Ct.3028(1989), the Court remanded to the tent of the message. In City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer
lower court an action challenging a university regulation Publishing Co.,486 U.S.750, 108 S.Ct.2138(1988),a news-
prohibiting private commercial enterprises from soliciting paper publisher challenged a local ordinance that required
on campus—in this case, in student dormitories. At issue licenses for coin-operated newsracks as a prerequisite to
was whether the fourth part of the Central Hudson test ac- placement of the machines on the city's sidewalks.The or-
tually requires that the government prove that it has dinance granted licensing authority to the mayor(subject to
regulated no more extensively than is necessary to serve the payment of a fee).Newsracks had to comply with architec-
interest it seeks to advance.The Court ruled that the means tural controls,and,in effect,meet whatever other conditions
need not be the best and least restrictive way to achieve those the mayor might impose.In ruling the ordinance unconstit tl-
ends,but they must be"proportionate to the interest sought tional on First Amendment grounds,the Court held, in part:
to be advanced." The Court used this phrase as an alter- The absence of express standards makes it difficult to
native way of expressing its ruling that regulation must be distinguish"as applied,"between a licensor',lel itimate denial
entirely reasonable.The more important the governmental of a permit and its illegitimate abuse of censorial powt-r.Stan-
interest to be achieved, the more likely it is that judicial Bards pro%-ide the guideposts that check the licensor and allow
review will be tolerant of a regulation that is not,perhaps, axuts quickly and easily to determine whether the liL V1110 1.i1
the least restrictive means of achieving that interest. discriminating against disfa�.•ored speech.(108 S.Ct.at 214-1)
20
Therefore,even if the government may constitutionally im- judgment of the city about whether less restrictive means
pose content-neutral prohibitions on a particular manner of could have accomplished the same objectives must be ac-
speech,it may not condition that speech on obtaining a license cepted if there is no solid evidence to the contrary.
or permit from a government official in that official's An apparently complete ban on off-premises signage
boundless discretion.(108 S.Ct.at 2147) similar to that at issue in the Metromedia case was the sub-
A system of sign control that relies in part upon the ject of recent federal court review.In National Advertising
distinction between the commercial and noncommercial Co.v. City of Orange,861 F2d 246(9th Cir.1988),the Court
content of the sign necessarily involves some sort of ad- of Appeals upheld a trial court ruling striking down as un-
vanced review of proposed signage.Though the distinction, constitutional a portion of the sign ordinance of Orange,
in many instances,will be easy to make,in others,it will not. California.The ordinance banned all off-premises signs but
The difficult distinctions may turn advance review into a exempted from the general prohibition certain governmental
prior restraint upon free expression, which is clearly un- signs and flags, memorial tablets, recreational signs, and
constitutional under long-standing judicial doctrines. temporary political,real estate construction,and advertis-
e There are other Supreme Court cases addressing free ing signs.
1 speech and expression issues that arguably apply in this area The exemptions required examination of the content of
of sign regulation.6 At this juncture, some confuse rather noncommercial messages. Clearly, some noncommercial
than enlighten. It is safe to say that those regulations con- messages were allowed and others were prohibited.The ex-
cerned primarily with the medium rather than the message emptions prevented the ordinance from being content
will pass muster in the Supreme Court.Metromedia clarified neutral:The court could find no compelling government in-
the law on several issues.However,some questions about terest in the distinction between the allowed noncommercial
the extent of on-premises sign regulation, control of non- speech and that which was prohibited. The ruling rests
commercial messages,and the distinction between commer- squarely upon the precedent set by the plurality opinion in
cial and noncommercial messages still remain. Metromedia. The court was also mindful of Vincent in
A content-neutral sign regulation runs far less risk of reassuring the officials of Orange that:
being found to be a prior restraint upon the exercise of First Cities are not powerless to regulate billboards containing non-
Amendment freedoms and, thus, less risk of being struck commercial messages.The City of Orange remains free to
down as unconstitutional censorship. In addition, the redraft its ordinance to conform to the Constitution by
governing body that imposes content-neutral regulations avoiding content-based distinctions in its treatment of non-
will face a less serious test if the purpose of the regulation and commercial billboards.(861 F2d at 249)
the means used to achieve that purpose are legally chal-
lenged.The regulations in the model ordinance in this report In Tauber v. Town of Longmeadow,695 F. Supp.1358
follow from this premise. (D. Mass. 1988), the court ruled unconstitutional an or-
dinance that banned all signs but created several exemptions
LOWER FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS based upon the content of the message to be portrayed.Ex-
Several recent cases in lower federal courts illustrate the -empted were address signs that could include the profession
application of the principles established by the Supreme of the owner if the owner was a doctor,lawyer,dentist,ac-
Court in the four important sign cases discussed above.Two countant,or architect;temporary real estate signs;on-site
stand strongly for the proposition,as did Vincent,that com- business signs;and certain governmental signs.Again,the
munities may regulate signage primarily on aesthetic ordinance was clearly based upon distinctions in the content
grounds.Lindsay v. City of San Antonio,821 F.2d 1103(5th of signs and particularly upon the content of noncommer-
Cir. 1987), U.S.cert. denied 484 U.S.1010, 108 S.Ct. 707 cial signs.The court found no compelling governmental in-
(1988), and Dons Porta Signs, Inc. v. City of Clearwater, terest to support the distinction.
829 F.2d 1051 (11th Cir. 1988), U.S. cert. denied OVERVIEW OF FIRST AMENDMENT ISSUES:
U.S. ,108 S.Ct.1280(1988),involved constitutional PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
challenges to each city's ban on portable signs.The federal
trial courts in each case had found that the respective cities The first three questions set forth earlier in this chapter
have been addressed by the courts primarily in response to
had failed to meet their burden under the Vincent test for
i content-neutral regulations(Lindsay)and the Central Hud- challenges predicated upon violations of the First Amend-
son test for commercial speech restrictions (Don's Porta ment to the U.S.Constitution.Challenges mounted in the
Signs). Specifically, the trial courts found that it was not state courts upon the same or similar grounds generally have
shown that portable signs are more offensive to aesthetic been analyzed according to the same or similar standards,
concerns than are other signs;there was also no showing that though some states have been slow to accept regulations
based solely upon aesthetic objectives.
less restrictive measures could not achieve the same basic
purpose. In short,courts have been remarkably supportive of sign
regulations.However,whether the sign regulations are con-
In each case, the appellate court overturned the trial tent neutral or regulate commercial speech, when a sign
court's decision,ruling instead that partial solutions to the
problem of visual blight are perfectly acceptable and that the owner claims a violation the First Amendment by the sign
regulations, the communi ty must show that:
6.See,for example,United States v.O'Brien,391 U.S.367,88S.Ct.1673, 1) There are substantial public purposes for the
20 Led.2d 672(1968);Lehman v.City of Shaker Heights,418 U.S.298,94
S.Ct.2714,41 Led.2d 770(1974);Young v.American Mini-Theatres.Inc., regulation;
427 U.S.50,96 S.Ct.244049 L.ed.2d.310(1976):and Regan v.Tirne,Inc.,
468 U.S.641,104 S.Ct.3262.82 L.ed.2d 487(1984). 2) The regulation directly advances the public purposes;
21
3) The regulation reaches no further than necessary to ac- NONCONFORMING E SPECIAL
SE GNOS
complish the public purposes.
Obviously,a community cannot obliterate nonconform-
Communities defending sign regulations have justified ing signs through the simple enactment of a new set of sign
them on the basis of the two public purposes identified regulations. To do so without full compensation to the
above—traffic safety and aesthetics.Traffic safety is broadly owners is clearly a violation of the Fifth Amendment pro-
accepted as a reasonable ground for sign regulation by scription on government taking of private property for
courts. Some require proof of the traffic issues involved; public use without just compensation.At the same time,it
others, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have basically is doubtful that the objectives of the new regulation can ever
taken judicial notice of the traffic safety concerns of sign con- be achieved if nonconforming signs are allowed to remain.
trots. The technique most often used to address this problem is
Although some courts reject aesthetics as grounds for sign amortization.Amortization,as described in more depth at
regulation,most,including the U.S.Supreme Court,also ac- the end of Chapter 1, is the process of permitting the non-
cept these grounds for sign regulation.The aesthetic grounds conforming sign to remain for a specified period of time at
for regulation have some advantage in proof because,with the end of which the sign must either be modified to conform
any kind of reasonable study and findings,a community can with the ordinance or removed.
urge that"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"and run lit- A significant majority of courts have found amortization
tle risk of a court second-guessing the aesthetic findings. to be a constitutional means of addressing the problem of
Certainly,the design and structural classifications of signs nonconformance. However, in some states, state statutes
can be justified on both safety and aesthetic grounds.How- prohibit amortization of nonconforming uses, or noncon-
ever, justifying content-based classifications on aesthetic forming signs in particular.
and safety grounds is considerably more difficult and, in The basic legal issue is whether the amortization provi-
most cases,probably impossible.The issue that most plan- sions of a particular regulation strike the proper balance be-
ners and others drafting local sign regulations miss is that a tween public gain and private loss such that the
purple-and-orange-striped.political sign is every bit as governmental action either does not amount to a taking or
distracting to a driver and every bit as ugly to those who do the amortization period that allows the owner to recoup a
not like purple and orange as a purple-and-orange-striped portion(or all)of his investment amounts to just compen-
business sign at the same location. sation.The courts generally try to determine the reasonable-
The aspects of signs that affect traffic safety and aesthetics ness of amortization provisions—whether they are
are sign size,scale,height,location,material,lighting,color, constitutional,no matter how applied,and whether they are
and motion, or lack thereof—not content. Thus, any ra- constitutional as applied in a particular situation.In deter-
tional examination of the legal authority for sign regulations mining whether a provision is reasonable, courts look at
suggests that any distinctions among sign types based on several factors, including the type or nature of the sign,its
content are highly suspect on simple factual grounds.For ex- location,the extent to which the owner's business is affected,
ample,in City of Lakewood v. Colfax Unlimited Associa- the cost of the sign,its salvage value and depreciated value,
Lion, 634 P.2d 52 (1981), the Colorado Supreme Court its fair-market value, and its remaining useful life.
struck down the Lakewood sign code as unconstitutional There is no rule of law that dictates how long the amor-
because it found that the city had attempted to distinguish tization period must be.Periods ranging from three to five
between signs that allowed listing of identification,location, years have generally been upheld. In Major Media of the
product,and price information for a business,which were Southeast, Inc. v. City of Raleigh, 621 F.Supp. 1446
permitted in certain zones,and signs such as Help Wanted, (E.D.N.C.1985),Aff'd 792 F.2d 1269(4th Cir.1986),cert.
which were prohibited in those zones.The court said: denied,107 S.Ct.1334(1987),the court upheld a five-and-
We conclude that the relationship between the content regula- one-half-year amortization period. It rejected the owner's
tions imposed on commercial advertising . . . and claim that the regulation would destroy the company,noting
Lakewood's safety and aesthetic purposes is too attenuated to the extensive business the company had outside of the city
justify the resulting infringement of First Amendment of Raleigh.It also considered the fact that the owner's leases
freedoms.(634 P2d at 64) allowed for termination,without further obligation,in the
event that governmental action forced removal of the sign.
It is hazardous(if not fatal),in a legal sense,for a planner Using the exact same analysis,the court in Georgia Out-
or public official defending sign regulations to testify that the door Advertising,Inc.,v. City of Waynesville,690 F.Supp.
regulations were adopted to maintain traffic safety and com- 452(W.D.N.C.1988),ruled that a four-and-one-half-year
munity appearance when this witness is unable to relate amortization period was insufficient.It ruled that the amor-
those public'purposes to sign prohibitions that are based on tization period allowed for in the ordinance, which pro-
sign content. hibited all billboards, did not prevent a taking of the sign
In short,-in a well-litigated case,an attorney for the owner owner's property requiring just compensation.Another fact
of a sign that falls into one of the less preferred,more heavily leading to the ruling was that the sign owner's lease did not
regulated classes of signs can challenge local sign regulations allow termination and, in fact, required payment of rent
by showing that the classifications in the regulations bear lit- beyond the amortization period.The court also decided that
tle or no rational relationship to the stated purposes of the the sign owner's business might be destroyed by the regula-
regulations. For totally separate reasons, the multiple tion.It was significant that the city offered no evidence that
classifications of signs based on content complicates the en- the ban on billboards would further its interest in protecting
forcement and administration of sign regulations as well. the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens.
22
Prohibitions of portable signs as a
solution to the problem of"visual
-�jj D AI R blight"in a community have been
L7 V i P1 upheld by the courts.This sign,
i ;COLLARED C ON TA C_TS_F-OR like many portable signs, is more
-- I than just ugly—its-message is
f "lost"due to missing letters, a
missing decimal point, colliding
C1BA VI����NTS
---FREE-- - i letters,and confusing terns.
The courts in many states follow the same reasoning and 844 F2d 172(4th Cir.1988),a challenge to a Durham,North
consider the same factors mentioned in this and previous Carolina, regulation prohibiting all commercial, off-
paragraphs.An ordinance using an amortization period of premises advertising signs and containing a five-and-one-
from three to five years,depending upon replacement cost of half-year amortization period was remanded by the Fourth
the sign,was attacked in Art Neon Co.v. City&County of Circuit Court of Appeals(the same court that upheld the Ra-
Denver,488 F.2d 118(10th Cir.1973),cert.denied,417 U.S. leigh provision in Major Media) for findings of fact con-
932(1974).The court ruled that replacement cost was an un- cerning every aspect of the challenger s business—especially
reasonable basis upon which to give differing treatment to how each aspect would be affected by the ordinance.The
nonconforming signs. The court left intact the five-year district court had granted summary judgment approving the
period for all nonconforming signs and upheld the or- amortization period.The appellate court reminded the par-
dinance,except for the provisions requiring different amor- ties that the compensation required by the Fifth Amendment
tization periods based upon replacement costs. need not be paid in advance of or even contemporaneously
In Modjeska Sign Studios,Inc.,v.Berle,373 N.E.2d 255 with the taking, but only that a reasonable provision for
(NY 1977),the court viewed two issues as being paramount compensation exist.
in considering amortization provisions.The first concerns It is unclear at the time of publication what the ultimate
the length of the period in relation to the owners investment position of the Fourth Circuit,which has been friendly to
j in the sign.The second is whether the loss to the sign owner sign regulation, will be on this issue. The city won in the
is outweighed by the public gain to be achieved.In consider- lower court on a motion for summary judgment.The Court
ing loss to the owner,the court considered the amount of the of Appeals was clearly more sympathetic to the sign com-
owner's investment,whether or not the owner had realized pany's position than to toss it out of court without a trial(the
the investment, and the extent and nature, if any, of lease effect of a grant of summary judgment).It is also clear,how-
1 commitments,including the existence of an escape clause for ever, that the appellate court viewed the takings claim as
the sign owner.7 premature. However, the court considered the case, par-
' The objective of the courts is to strike a reasonable balance tially on its merits; apparently, the court perceived (un-
between the public and the private interest by preventing doubtedly correctly)that it would ultimately have to rule on
substantial losses to the owner but not requiring that the en- the issue anyway.
tire investment be recovered.A regulation containing amor- The critical factor in an amortization provision is clearly
tization provisions that are aimed at this balance and that its reasonableness in striking a balance between the interest
do, in fact, strike within its range will usually be upheld. of the general public and the interest of the affected owner.
Planners and public officials preparing or reviewing new An ordinance that prescribes a specific time period,contains
sign regulations should consider a provision that allows the an enumeration of the factors to be considered,and allows
local governing body to vary from the express amortization for some exception in cases of extreme hardship or substan-
iprovisions in cases in which strict application would result tial loss to the owner will most likely pass muster in the
in a substantial loss to the owner.Such a provision may pre- courts and still effectively further the interest of the public
j vent needless litigation or at least prepare each side to frame expressed in the new regulation.
the issue and fully set forth the pertinent facts.
! In Naegele Outdoor Advertising,Inc.v. City of Durham, THE COURTS AND GENERAL SIGN REGULATIONS
I 7.See also Metromedia.Inc., v. City of San Diego 610 P.2d 407(Cal. Sign regulations addressing matters such as size,setback,
i 1980),rev'd,on other grounds;453 U.S.490(1981),upholding an amor-
structure, height, and number of signs are almost always
tization period of one to four years based upon the cost of the sign,less to upheld in the courts as being well within the police power of
jpercent for each year it stood prior to the enactment of the ordinance. local governments. Such regulations are content–neutral
23
i
i
time,place,and manner regulations;regulation of these fac- ercise of the police power. This challenge was denied; the
tors is unrelated to speech and the effect on speech is inciden- court ruled that the city could find that projecting signs of
tal to the furtherance of the public interest in traffic safety three feet or less were less a threat to public safety than those
and aesthetics. which extended more than three feet.The distinction was
Legal challenges to the structural regulation of signs are upheld as both a valid exercise of the police power and as one
rare.The structural regulation of signs, like the structural reasonably related to the promotion of safety and aesthetics.
regulation of buildings,is well within the police power.The Local officials charged with drafting and enforcing sign
concern of sign owners is that they be permitted to have signs regulations should be clear as to the purpose of size restric-
in the first place.Given permission to place a sign,the owner tions and should adopt only those reasonably related to that
will usually comply with structural requirements. It is im- purpose.Within these bounds,their authority to control size
portant that a community regulate in accordance with the will not be questioned by the courts who are,as a guiding
applicable building codes and equally important that it en- principle, reluctant to interfere with the substantive deci-
force structural regulations. Its legal authority to do so is sions of local legislatures on topics in which local officials
unquestionable. have expertise as well as authority.
The regulation of sign size and location upon a particular Note that the discussion in this section assumes that the
piece of property (as opposed to regulations based on regulation of structure,size,and location is content neutral,
distinctions between on-and off-premises sites)is-also well applying'equally to all signs similarly located.
within both the general police power and the zoning power
granted to local governments.Such regulations may be chal- CONCLUSION
lenged in some circumstances, but they are generally ac- In short,the law supports local governments in regulat-
cepted. For example, the sign owners in County of ing signs. Many courts accept both traffic safety and
Cumberland v. Eastern Federal Corp.,269 SE2d 672 N.C. aesthetics as valid grounds for sign regulation.The U.S.Su-
App. 518 (1980), did challenge the size restriction placed preme Court has found that traffic safety is so clearly an
upon advertising signs as being in violation of their First issue in sign regulation that no proof on the issue is even nec-
Amendment rights.The court,however,held the regulation essary.
to be a reasonable restriction upon the time,place,and man- Local governments have faced the greatest difficulty in
ner of expression, and upheld, without discussion, the defending sign regulations in cases in which they have
county's power to employ such a restriction. regulated similar signs with different messages differently,
The court was concerned only that the regulation did not without having a valid aesthetic or traffic safety reason for
attempt to censor the content of the message or to impose a doing so. Attempts to regulate billboards as off-premises
prior restraint upon the expression.The only qualification signs have been particularly difficult to defend and are prob-
upon the power of government to regulate the size of signs ably unconstitutional in almost every case because of the
is that the regulation must be reasonable.What is reasonable practical effect of such regulations in eliminating most non-
depends upon the circumstances of a particular situation. commercial messages.
The law is concerned that the regulation be reasonably The other sign regulation that is most likely to result in a.
drawn in order to promote the stated purpose,whether that legal challenge is a requirement for the removal of noncon-
purpose is safety, or aesthetics, or both. forming signs.Some states prohibit such a provision in local
In VFW Post 4264 v.City of Steamboat Springs,575 P.2d regulations;where state law allows amortization provisions,
835,195 Colo.44,(1978),app.dismissed 439 U.S.809,99 the primary issue in the courts is how long a period of amor-
S.Ct.66,the Colorado Supreme Court upheld an ordinance tization is reasonable.
that limited the size of signs that projected into or over public With the exception of those two difficult legal area the
property.The regulation was challenged on First Amend- courts have been very supportive of local sign regulations
ment grounds and upheld as a reasonable time,place, and and have had little difficulty in sustaining limits on size,
manner restriction.It was also challenged as an arbitrary ex- height,location,and design of signs.
24