02/09/1993 - City Council Special •
•
AGENDA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Eagan Municipal Center Building
Tuesday
February 9, 1993
5:00 p.m.
I. ROLL CALL & AGENDA ADOPTION
II. REVIEW OF THE SIGN.TASK FORCE
RECOMMENDATIONS.
•
III. PRESENTATION AND REVIEW OF DRAFT
1993 - 1997 CIP
W. OTHER BUSINESS
•
•
s MEMO TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1993
SUBJECT: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING/FEBRUARY 9, 1993
There are two (2) items scheduled for the special City Council workshop and they include
1) a review of the recommendations presented by the Sign Ordinance Task Force and 2) a
discussion and direction regarding the draft 1993 - 1997 Capital Improvements Program
budget.
SIGN TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Enclosed is a copy of a memo prepared by Acting Community Development Director
Hohenstein and a memo entitled"Advertising Sign Regulation"prepared by Project Planner
Eggers. Also enclosed are the findings of the Sign Ordinance Task Force and a letter from
Cheryl Casey, a memo from Larry Alderks, Gary Graves and Gary Morgan and cor-
respondence from Naegele regarding the issue. These documents are enclosed without page
number.
• DRAFT 1993 - 1997 CIP
Enclosed without page number is a revision to the 1993 - 1997 CIP for consideration by the
City Council. The memo prepared by the City Administrator addresses each part of the CIP
by including the direction given by the City Council at the December workshop, findings
prepared by the City staff and the public policy issues proposed for Council consideration.
It is anticipated that an hour to an hour and fifteen minutes should be allocated to the Sign
Task Force recommendations and the remainder of the evening to the draft CIP.
/S/ Thomas L. Hedges
City Administrator
TLH/jeh
•
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: CITY ADMINISTRATOR HEDGES
FROM: ACTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR HOHENSTEIN
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 1993
RE: BILLBOARD/ADVERTISING SIGN REGULATION
Attached you will find a memorandum from Project Planner Eggers outlining the outcomes
of the Sign Ordinance Task Force deliberations and the policy issues they present. The
memorandum covers the options available to the Council, the levels of billboard regulations
existing in other metropolitan area cities, legal issues, and summaries of reports by Task
Force members, including a majority report and a minority report submitted by members.
Staff polled the majority and received indications that all six members concurred with the
majority report as prepared by Sheryl Casey and all three. members of the minority signed
a letter expressing their position.
Members of the Sign Task Force and sign company representatives have been informed of
Tuesday's workshop and we expect that many of them will be present. We have cautioned
all concerned that the workshop is intended for Council discussion rather than any
presentations by the various parties.
The public policy issues before the City Council are as follows:
I. Does the Council wish to ban additional billboards in the City of Eagan as
recommended by the Sign Task Force majority?
II. If the Council does not wish to impose a total ban, to what extent do they wish
additional regulations placed on the characteristics and locations of such signs?
III. What public purposes the Council identifies to prohibit or permit billboard
advertising signs.
If the Council is able to address these policy questions, staff can prepare the administrative
details of City Code amendments to meet their policy direction. In staff discussions, it has
been helpful to utilize the four alternatives outlined in the conclusion section of Ms. Eggers
memorandum. This has allowed us to frame the issues without becoming deeply involved
in the details of the various levels of regulation.
•
It should be noted that as a separate action, the Si gn Task Force did suggest that the City
study the issue of on/off premise business signage presumably separate and apart from
billboard advertising signage. In general, this is a tangential issue to the main question
before the City, but it does bear in part on the issue of the effect of advertising signage on
community business advertising.
It is hoped that the combination of the Task Force reports and the staff summary will help
frame the issue for City Council consideration. If you have any further questions concerning
this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Actin Community Development Director
JH/js
attach.
•
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Jon Hohenstein, Acting Comm. Development Director
FROM: Kimberly Eggers, Project Planner
DATE: January 21, 1993
SUBJECT: Advertising Sign Regulation
Per your request for information relating to billboard ordinances,
I have gathered data from various Twin City Metro Area zoning codes
that specifically outline requirements and restrictions for
advertising signs. I have also included information pertaining to
legal cases of billboard regulation, a brief description of the
results of the Sign Ordinance Task Force Committee, and their
majority and minority reports.
CONCLUSIONS
From this study, there appear to be four alternatives for the City
Council to choose from when making a decision concerning
billboards. They are as follows:
1. To maintain the existing sign ordinance.
2 . To further restrict advertising signs requirements by size,
height, distance from residential areas, and other such
criteria through the Conditional Use Permit process.
3 . To restrict billboards to specific areas within the City of
Eagan by limiting such sign to particular zoning/land use
designations within the city, or by creating PBA's (Permitted
Billboard Areas) similar to the City of Savage where
billboards are allowed.
4 . To ban additional billboards in the City of Eagan.
METRO AREA CITY REGULATIONS
Seven of the ten cities researched (Brooklyn Park, Burnsville,
Eagan, New Hope, Plymouth, Savage, and Woodbury) combine the above
options 2 and 3 in their ordinances to provide performance
standards.
The remaining three cities researched (Apple Valley, Minnetonka,
and Roseville) have effectively banned additional billboards from
their cities. The wording from their codes is outlined below.
i
CITY OF APPLE VALLEY
There shall be no permanent or temporary signs which direct
attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment
conducted, sold, or offered elsewhere than on the premises.
CITY OF BROOKLYN PARK
• Allowed in I-1 and I-2 (industrial) districts by -
Conditional Use Permit.
• Billboard shall be principal use on the lot on which it
is located.
• Lot shall meet minimum requirements for I-1 and I-2
districts.
• No billboard shall be erected within 300 feet of any
residential district.
• No billboard shall be located within a 1,320 foot radius
of an existing or approved billboard.
• Billboard signs shall not exceed one (1) square foot of
sign area for each lineal foot of street frontage, nor
shall sign area exceed 300 square feet on any side.
• Signs shall have no more than two (2) sides.
• Billboard signs shall be setback at least 50 feet from
front and rear property lines and at least 25 feet from
side property lines.
• Billboard signs may not exceed 25 feet above grade.
. • Billboard signs shall have a minimum height of 12 feet
from grade to the bottom of the sign.
CITY OF BURNSVILLE
• Allowed only in I-1 and I-2 (industrial) districts where
adjacent streets are intermediate arterial or principal
arterial roadways.
• Allowed only by Conditional Use Permit.
• Billboard sign applicant shall file with the City a
performance bond in the minimum amount of $10, 000 or a
letter of credit or cash bond in like amount to guarantee
compliance.
• Maximum sign size shall be 750 square feet.
• The maximum height to the uppermost portion of any
advertising devices shall be 45 feet.
• The minimum radius distance between advertising signs
shall be 2,000 feet.
• No billboard shall be constructed within 2,000 feet of
the City's corporate limits.
• The lot on which a sign is located shall be improved by
landscaping.
• Billboards are a principal use of property.
CITY OF EAGAN •
• Allowed in Business or Industrial districts by
Conditional Use Permit
• No sign shall be located nearer than 10 feet from any
property or dividing line.
• No advertising sign shall not be located nearer than 20
feet from any street, highway or railroad right-of-way.
• No advertising sign shall be located nearer to any other -
advertising sign than 1,000 lineal feet on the same side
of the street, or within 300 lineal feet of any other
advertising sign on the opposite side of the street.
• No advertising sign shall be located on a platted lot
which contains a Business Sign or within 300 feet of any
Business Free-Standing Ground Sign or Pylon Sign,
measured on the same side of the street.
• No advertising sign shall be located within 200 feet of
any residential zone, whether on the same or the opposite
side of the street.
• No advertising sign shall exceed 250 square feet in area,
except when adjacent to limited access highways in which
case the Council shall determine the maximum size after
reviewing applicable conditions including terrain, safety
factors, etc.
• No advertising sign shall exceed 40 feet, measured at lot
level, roadway level or a specified point between the two
levels as determined by the Council. The level used .
shall be based on visibility factors from the adjacent
roadway(s) .
CITY OF MINNETONKA
Outdoor advertising signs are not permitted in any zoning
district. Such signs which exist on the effective date
of the zoning code shall be considered as nonconforming
signs.
CITY OF NEW HOPE
• Advertising signs shall be located in General Business
Districts only.
• No more than one back to back advertising sign shall be
constructed upon one lot or tract of ground. No
advertising sign shall be constructed on a lot or tract
of ground already improved by a building.
• The total area of a sign shall not exceed 350 square
feet.
• The maximum height of any advertising sign shall be 25
feet from the ground.
• Advertising signs shall be located no closer than 1, 000
feet from each other on the same side of the street.
• Advertising signs shall comply with the minimum setback
requirements for the General Business District except 0
that they shall not be located closer than 100 feet from
any residentially zoned property.
IIM CITY OF PLYMOUTH
• Advertising signs shall be allowed only along County Road
169, State Highway 55, and I-494 with a maximum setback
of 350 feet from the centerline of the right-of-way of
said county road, highway or interstate.
• The total surface area shall not exceed 300 square feet -
per face, or be less than 110 square feet in area
including border, trim and projection, but excluding base
and apron supports and other structural members.
Advertising signs fully visible from I-494 may be
increased in area to no more than 750 square feet, and an
additional 10% for cut-outs or message extensions.
• Maximum height shall not exceed 36 feet above the
established grade of the site upon which the sign is
located. Maximum length of any sign shall be no more
than 50 feet.
• The minimum distance between advertising signs shall be
based on the posted speed limit of the highway.
• No advertising sign or structure shall be located closer
than 200 feet from the boundary of any urban residential
district, park, playground, school or church on the same
side of the street; or 200 feet from any structure
located within single family residential district located
on the same side of the street.
• No advertising signs shall contain more than two signs
per facing.
• Advertising signs shall be erected on single poles. No
advertising signs shall be erected on or above the roof
of any building.
• Allowed by Conditional Use Permit only.
CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Advertising signs shall not be permitted in any district
in the City of Roseville. No person shall maintain or
erect an advertising sign on property controlled by him.
CITY OF SAVAGE
• Allowed by Conditional Use Permit only.
• No additional billboards shall be permitted in the City
of Savage, except that the owner of the billboard in
existence may relocate the sign area of that billboard to
a new structure within the Permitted Billboard Area
(PBA) . Such a relocation to or within the PBA shall be
subject to the following conditions:
a. For each square foot of area removed outside
the PBA, one square foot of new sign area may
411 be constructed.
b. For each one square foot of area removed
outside the PBA, one square foot of sign area
may be constructed within the PBA until
January 1, 1997. After that date, no sign
area may be transferred into the PBA from
outside the PBA.
c. All advertising signs outside the PBA must be
removed on or before January 1, 1997. Any
signs remaining may be removed by the City at
the owner's expense.
d. The City shall keep a record of all signs
removed and built, and shall maintain a
current balance of available sign area.
li • Billboards shall be permitted only within 500 feet of the
centerline of the east/west portions of Highway 13 and
Highway 101 within certain areas (outlined in ordinance) .
• No billboard may be constructed on a residentially zoned
parcel or a parcel containing a residential use.
• Maximum sign area shall be 750 square feet, except on
developed parcels of 100 feet or less in width, the
maximum sign area shall be 400 square feet.
• Maximum height of the sign above the grade of Highway 13
or 101, or the grade at the base of the sign, shall be 40
feet.
• Signs shall be constructed on a single steel pole.
• No signing other than the advertising sign shall be
installed on the sign structure.
• The sign owner shall be responsible for maintenance of
the structure and shall not allow the structure to
deteriorate or present an unsightly appearance.
CITY OF WOODBURY
• Nonaccessory free-standing signs (billboards) shall be
permitted on a temporary basis on undeveloped property
abutting I-494 and I-94.
• The maximum height is 20 feet.
• The maximum sign area is 300 square feet per facing and
not to exceed two facings. Double-faced signs shall be
attached back to back.
• The minimum distance between signs is 1, 000 feet, except
for residential development directional signs which may
be permitted by special use permit.
• The minimum setback from street right-of-way lines shall
be 50 feet.
• The distance from street intersections shall be no closer
than 500 feet to the intersection of two or more streets
or highways, such distance being measured from the
intersection of street or highway center lines.
• Proximity to uses permitted in residential districts and
new construction shall be not closer than 1, 000 feet to
any residential structure, any publicly-owned land, or
any other use or structure permitted in any residential
district.
LEGAL ISSUES
•
In addition to examining zoning codes from metro area cities, court
cases and legal decisions were also examined. The legal issues
involving the regulation of billboards have been explored and
reviewed with our City attorney's office. The following is their
summary:
The regulation of billboards (signs) is a permitted function
of a municipality so long as that regulation does not impact
noncommercial speech. The First Amendment to the United
States Constitution prohibits legislation which abridges the
freedom of speech. Thus, all regulation of speech, which
includes signage, must not be done based upon the content of
the message. Thus, traditionally regulation of signs has been
done in a content neutral manner (i.e. time, place and
manner. )
When cities go beyond regulating the size, height and location
of signs, they can quickly become involved in some very
difficult legal issues. Areas that have resulted in a large
number of lawsuits are outright bans on all or specific
categories of signs in a community, strict regulation of
portable and temporary signs, amortization and controls that
conflict with the Federal Highway Beautification Act.
The leading case involving the effects of the regulation of
signs is Metro Media. Inc. v. City of San Diego, 453 U.S. 490
(1981) . IN Metro Media, the City of San Diego had enacted a
nearly total ban on billboards within the City limits. The
U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ordinance on the basis that
the ordinance regulated the content of signs. However, a
majority of justices agreed on several key points which
strongly support local sign regulation. As with other media,
the court noted that the government has a legitimate interest
in controlling the non-communicative aspects of the medium.
The court found no doubt that traffic safety and the
appearance of the city are substantial government goals, and
focused its question as to whether the ordinance directly
advances the governmental interest in traffic safety and the
appearance of the City of San Diego.
The Metro Media Court upheld the traditional sign controls of
size, shape, color and so forth used by local municipalities.
Moreover, it made clear that off-premise commercial signs can
be strictly regulated. However, as evidenced by the large
number of lawsuits involving billboards, regulation of signage
must be based upon a legitimate state interest and the
ordinance itself must be designed so as to reasonably advance
the defined interest.
I
SIGN ORDINANCE TASK FORCE •
The Sign Ordinance Task Force was created in June of 1992 upon
direction of the Eagan City Council. The main objective of the
task force was to evaluate business and environmental concerns and
make a recommendation as to changes in existing City Code
regulations that govern outdoor advertising signs.
The make-up of the committee included three residents from the City
of Eagan, three representatives from the Chamber of Commerce, and
one member each from the City's Advisory Planning Commission,
Economic Development Commission, and Advisory Parks, Recreation,
and Natural Resources Commission. Also included at the meetings
were representatives from three outdoor advertising sign companies.
After several volatile meetings, it was decided by a vote of 6-3 to
recommend that the City Council not allow any additional billboards
in the City of Eagan. Majority and minority reports are attached.
The submitted minority report is presented in its entirety; due to
the length of the submitted majority document, only a summary of
the report is provided here. Additional attachments to the report
are available upon request.
•
1706 Beacon Hill Road
Fagan. MN 55122
November 17 , 1992
Eagan Municipal Center
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan. MN 55122
Re: Majority Report of the Eagan Sign Task Force
Dear Members of the City Council and City Staff :
On behalf of the majority of the members of the Eagan Sign
Task Force . I am writing to summarize our findings that led
to a r; to 3 vote to prohibit new billboards in Eagan .
':(tins to prohibit billboards : Paul Abbott and Linda Nelson .
Chamber of Commerce : Debra McMartin . Economic Development
commission : Jonathan Widem, APRNRC; Ann Uzendoski and Sheryl
Casey . Residents . Voting to allow additional billboards :
s;ary Graves , Planning Commission ; Gary Morgan , Chamber of
• Commerce ; Larry -\lderks . Resident .
At our last task force meeting we also discussed and a
majority agreed to recommend that the issue of retail
signage he revisited through the creation of a new sign task
force .
When considering how and to what extent billboards should he
regulated , the Task Force considered :
- The experiences of other communities
- The effect of billboards on Eagan business ( both
industrial and retail )
- Eagan ' s Mission Statement and its residents
- Property tax consequences
- Long-term legal issues
We thoroughly researched this issue and discussed all of the
information contained in this report . For your information
I am also enclosing a bibliography of the •documentation
along with the documentation itself that was generated . It
shows that any additio al billboards in Eagan would provide
virtually no benefit t� the city or its constituents . but
would result in some very real negative consequences . I
would like to expand on the following points :
THE EXPERIENCES OF OTHER COMMUNITIES
Seven years ago the City of Bloomington was in the same
situation as Eagan today , being- asked by billboard companies
to approve more advertising signs . Bloomington approved
these signs and now regrets their action . Despite promises .
of giving preference to and promoting local brsiness , only
4% of the signs in Bloomington advertise In
fact . Bloomington feels �i�ns lost
sendohusinessover
towhat ' s
neighboring
advertised . 28% of the
communities and 68% of the advertising tried
Bloomington/non- location specific .
to remove the billboards , the cost was 5100, 000-5150 , 000 per
I billboard ( cost figures provided by MN-DOT ) because of the
"Just. Compensation Provision" of the National Highway
Beautification Act . oThe City Council
TemporarysC'sew in
the position of being forced provision .
Permits in order to avoid triggering this p
Most Netter planned . quality image communities in the Twin
10 These communities
' it billboards .already l_rohib Valley
lei'
rictus area o .Wayzata. Golden 1
include : Edina . Mendota Heights .
i among others . apple Valle• and Minnetonka are the most tit .
t . Other cities such as
recent suburbs added to this lssas a dumping ground for
find themselves Paul and Savage fi
advertising .
THE EFFECT OF BILLBOARDS ON EAG•AN BUSINESS
Eagan ' s corporate community ( Eagandale Industrial Park )
which is a main economic strength of Eagan , and
opposes any new billboards . Both Opus Corp oration dblic
Rasmussen Business College have been very vocal and pu
in their opposition . They feel that allowing billboards •
conflicts with and defeats Fagan' s development et andmaintain
landscaping standards . Opus Corporation
an attractive . high quality ivisual image into order
erptoagentice
corporate business too� alues .
aesthetic and propert.t
There is also no benefit to- Eagan ' s retail business . Any
limited advertising would he more than offset by signs that
send residents to adjacent cOrpbusiness( torBurnsbilleoands
rent in Eagan advertise to send o
Apple Valley ) . while there are real concerns for some Eagan
r.
retailers , additional earetailesignageerequirements is
Possible changes in specific
a better approach .
Local business representatives were repeatedly asked to
attend the Task Force meetings , but only one ( Cherokee Steak
House ) wrote a us a seeking
city . overall . there •
by local businesses for more billboard signage .
Two out of the three Chamber of Commerce
�'otedet°nproh 'estand
the Economic Development representative
Ilinew billboards . In short . the image and environment of
Eagan far outweighs any limited advertising .
THE MTSSION OF THE FITS' OF EAGAN AND ITS RESIDENTS
Eagan' s !fission ralls for the city to represent its citizens
first . Eagan residents overwhelmingly oppose any new
hil1170ards . In a random telephone survey of 100 residents .
72% favored a change in the sign ordinance to prohibit
billboards . Prohibiting billboards is an action that.
"maintains environmental integrity, attractive neighborhoods
and community pride" as well as works to "foster an image of
quality" and "mitigates impacts on the environment" . Eagan
is a beautiful city and its natural environment is a major
st'ength • Billboards are contrary to these qualities . -
PROPERTY TAX CONSEQUENCES
Billboards are classified as personal Property ( equipment )
and therefore exempt from property taxes . According to the
County Tax Assessor ' s office . land with a billboard is
considered unimproved and the value is for practical
purposes unaffected . No property taxes are generated for
either the city of county . In fact . because of the high
rental income ( S25 . 000 annually in Bloomington ) received by
landowners for their unimproved property , there is strong
disincentive to ever develop the property - eventually
resulting in lower total tax revenues . This , coupled with
the negative image that billboards create , economically
hurts the community .
LONG-TERM LEGAL ISSUES
Eagan is a prime billboard location . with its highway
frontage and high traffic levels , billboards are highly
visible . If Eagan ' s sign ordinance continues to allow for
billboards . they will be very difficult to administer and
control . Once approved , they are very expensive to remove .
Old billboards on county roads in Dakota County cost
taxpayers 58 . 000 �l4 , 0 00 apiece to remove . As previously
t
stated this cost will be between S100 , 000-5150 , 000 along
prime freeway frontage . The easiest , most direct and
effective -
ve way to control billboards is to prohibit them.
Several local communities have prohibited new construction .
copies of their ordinances have been obtained in order to
pattern ours after a successful example .
in summary , the majority of the Eagan Sign Task Force found
IIM that allowing any new billboards provided no benefits to
Eagan business , would cheapen the City resulting in a lower
quality image and development , and have possible large
consequences for any future change . The negatives far
ontwei h any possible advantages .
•
„P hope the , it,: council i will concur Inn ' me to •Permanent i
III
prohibit anti• new billboards within Eagan . Speakins for
the r s i t was u pleasure and honor
or , he Tasl. r �r e member. P
serve our community . I f '-ou have any questions or comments .
please contact. us .
Sincerely,
•
Skt_ Qa..A.k.L6-
Sheryl Casey
Eagan Sign Task Force
•
111
•
BILLBOARD DOCUMENTATION TO THE SIGN TASK FORCE
I . CITY OF BLOOMINGTON EXPERIENCE
- Evaluation of Local Business Ads on Billboards in
Bloomington
- Planning Department Report to the City Council
- Legal Analysis of City' s Authority to Prohibit &
Remove Billboards
- City Resolution & Letters to US Congress to Change
"Highway Beautification Act"
- Resident Opposition (ANSR Survey)
II . EAGAN BUSINESS OPPOSITION
- Opus Corporation
- Rasmussen Business College
li III . EAGAN RESIDENT OPPOSITION
- Telephone Survey Results
Iv . FAGAN ' S AUTHORITY TO PROHIBIT BILLBOARDS & OTHER CITIES
- Ewan Attorney.' s Legal Analysis
- Sample Ordinance Wording from Twin City Suburbs
Prohibitting Billboards
- Eagan Survey of Suburban Sign Ordinances
- Sample Ordinance (Apple Valley )
- Scenic America Sheet
V. PROPERTY TAX RAMIFICATIONS
- MN Department of Internal Revenue Letter
• - Phone Conversation with Scott Nelson , Manager -
Dakota County Assessor' s Office
III
- City of Eagan' s "Finding of Facts" for Denial of Adam
Billboard Applications
VII . CITY OF EAGAN MISSION STATEMENT
VIII . NEWSPAPER REPORTS CONCERNING BILLBOARDS
IX . SUMMARY , OVERVIEW SHEETS
- 4/28/92 Letter to City Council & Planning Commission
- 9/2/92 Billboard Summary
411
•
-
City of Eagan
City Council
3830 Pilot Knob Road
Eagan, MN 55122
Dear Mayor and City Council members,
We would like to thank you for allow us to serve the
community by serving on the Sign Task Force. As a member of
the Minority voting we would like to indicate to you our
support for the use of Billboards in the City when proper
controls are in place. Attached you will find a summary of
our thoughts on ways to properly control Billboards in the
City.
Through the meetings of the Sign Task Force we were able to
review to some great lengths the material regarding this
issue. It is our opinion that the City can not only
properly control the Billboards, but also offer the
community an opportunity to upgrade some of the existing
Billboards.
Although Eagan is not a Giant Retail Center it should be
still within our desire to benefit our• retail establishments
with the use of Billboard advertising. It is our opinion
that in most cases additional business signage will not
provide the improved retail visibility or benefit that many
members were looking for. The thought of increasing
business signs for local businesses can be of worse
consequences than Billboards. It seems ironic to us that
the battle cry for some of the members went from, "No sign
is a good sign! ", to a chant of "More signs for our
community businesses!"
It is our hope that the City council will properly lead the
community in determining the value of Billboards in our
City. You, as well as us recognize the benefits and
liabilities of an issue such as Billboards if not properly
controlled. It is with good intentions that we leave you
with these control measures to ensure the continued growth
and vitality of Eagan.
Res ectfully,
hart lder "
L
Gary Graves
• Gary, organ.
Eagan Billboard Task Force •
Minority Report
Submitted by
Larry Alderks, Gary Graves, Gary Morgan
January 1993
Below are some items that if put into place could allow
the city to continue the use of billboards in the city
limits. Depending on the selection of parameters put
in place, the city can not only control the billboards
but also encourage replacement of some existing
billboards. Please consider the following items in
controlling the billboards in the city.
1. There shall be a ceiling on the number of billboards
as well as the number of faces in the city limits.
Currently there are xx signs and xx faces. The
ceiling should not create a monopoly for any one
sign company. Currently there are 14 poles that
contain 26 sign faces.
2 . The billboards are to be located only on Freeways.
(Highways-Federal or State-limited access highways.
Specifics should be worked out with staff for
clarity)
3 . Billboards should be on only Commercial or
Industrial zoned property.
4 . Each billboard permit should have a sunset
provision. The sign permit should be for no more
than 5 years before it needs to be brought up to
code or inspected or retrofitted.
5. If the property where the billboard is located is
rezoned the billboard must re-apply for the site.
If the billboard is determined to not conform the
cost of the removal of the billboard shall be bore
by the billboard owner. Removal must be made
within 120 days.
6. Each new billboard will require landscape features.
Recommended landscape shall be trees of not less
than three inches and low level shrubs, medium
height shrubs and other appropriate plantings or
landscape features. This landscape plan shall have
approval of city staff. (Consideration could be
given to escrow accounts for the performance of
the landscape. )
• 7. Distance From any residential lot line shall exceed
300 feet.
8. Distance between Billboards shall be at least 1000
ft.
9. Maximum height shall be measured from the
'freeway' road surface (90 degree angle to the road -
center line) . Road surface shall not include ramps,
bridges, elevated road surfaces, or bridge approach
areas. Maximum height from the road surface shall be
40.
10. Maximum Square footage of the shall not exceed 672
ft (14x48) . Any extensions to the billboard shall
not exceed 15% of the billboard area and shall not
be in place for more than 120 days.
11. Billboard illumination shall not be directly
visible on neighboring property. Illumination
fixtures shall be downward facing and not shine
directly onto neighboring property.
12 . Penalties for not complying shall be clearly
stated in the ordinance.
13 . Setback from the right-of-way shall be a minimum
of 20 feet.
14 . Billboards shall not be permitted on lots which
already contain a business sign unless spacing and
distance requirements are met.
15. Billboards shall not be located within 300 feet of
any business sign. The concern is that the
billboard does not block the view of neighboring
business signs.
We would like for the city to consider the use of
Billboards districts (proposed by Naegle August 5, 1992)
if the City also feels that different areas of the city
t billboard requirements.
need different quirements.
Thank you for considering the use of quality controlled
billboard use in the city of Eagan.
(NAEGELE)
Naegele Outdoor Advertising Company
•
CITY OF EAGAN
SIGN COMMITTEE TASK FORCE
AUGUST 5, 1992
SUGGESTED BILLBOARD REGULATIONS
A. BILLBOARD DISTRICTS
1. 494/35E North of Yankee Doodle Road
2. Hwy. 77 Between Diffley and Cliff, East Side
3. Cedarvale, South of 13
B. SITE CHARACTERISTICS, DISTRICTS ONE AND TWO
Spacing, 1000 ft./300 ft.
Size, 850 sq. ft.
Height, 40 ft. on developed parcels, 25 ft. on •
undeveloped parcels.
Setback, 10 ft. in rear yard, building setback in
others
Use, Acessory use in rear yard of developed parcels
C. DISTRICT THREE
Develop a new package of on and off premise sign
controls to promote visibility of businesses in this
district. Consider defining the district, rather than
the parcel as the basis for on or off premise
• designation, and not allow off premise. The shared
signs could be managed by an individual, a company, the
merchant's association or the City.
•
1700 West 78th Street • Minneapolis.MN 55423-3590
ti12/S69-19Q0 • FAX#512/S69-70S2