Loading...
5.1. SR 09-08-1997~.,~y of River Memorandum ITEl4 5.1. TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: STEPHEN ROHLF, BUILDING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 1997 SUBJECT: RECONSTRUCTED BILLBOARDS During a severe wind storm on July 1, 1997, twelve billboards or off-premise advertising structures blew down. The damage to each of these signs was photographed and a "redtag' indicating a permit is required prior to reconstruction of the structure was attached. The majority of the damaged billboards are on east Highway 10 and are non-conforming due to their proximity to other billboards on the same side of the highway. City staff also mailed notice of the status of these signs to the companies who own them. Since these actions were taken, seven of these non-conforming signs have been put back up without permits, in violation of the redtag and contrary to the sign ordinance that requires them to be on a mono-pole and without proper spacing. In other words, the sign companies are fiat out ignoring the city. Attached is a summary of the legal process provided by the City Attorney. If the city takes a stand to keep these non-conforming sign down, the billboard companies will likely contest our effort to enforce the city code provisions they have violated. Such a legal battle could become involved and costly. Staff does feel it is a battle we should fight, both because the sign companies ignored the rules and also to clean up the east Highway 10 corridor. Staff request a vote of the City Council to determine whether we pursue legal action against these sign companies. \\elkriverXsys\shrdoc\b&z\stever\ccbilbo.doc 13065 Orono Parkway · P.O. Box 490 · Elk River, MN 553~0 · TDD & Phone: (612) 441-7420 · Fax: (612) 441-7425 Sent by: DRB 612 291 9313; 09/04/97 11:52AM;Jet,taX #141;Page 3/4 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Kevin Johnson, City Attorney Re: Billboards Issue Date: September 4, 1997 II I III IIII As discussed in the attached memo from Stephen Rohlf, Building and Zoning Administrator, seven billboards that blew over and incurred extensive damage from the July 1, 1997 storm have been rebuilt by the sign companies that own them, Each of the billboards was reconstructed in violation of Section 900,22.7(B) of the Elk River City Code (Sign Ordinance), which requires issuance of a building permit prior to "alteration" of a billboard. Reconstruction of billboards falls within the definition oran alteration. The companies were notified of the permit requirement Both by "red tags" placed on the fallen billboards on July 7, and through letters dated July 11, 1997. Several, but not all, of the reconstructed billboards had previously received designation as "legal non- conforming uses" by the Building and Zoning Administrator when the City first promulgated its sign ordinance in 1987. However, pursuant to Section 900.22.5(B) of the City Code, a non-conforming sign may lose this designation if the sign is damaged by more than 50 percent. City stafftook pictures of the downed billboards and determined that each had incurred more than 50 percent damage. In addition, pursuant to Section 900.34.2(C), no signs may be rebuilt without being brought into compliance with the Sign Ordinance. And, pursuant to Section 900.34,2(A), signs which are non- conforming uses shall lose nonconforming use status after a three year amortization period, which has expired for all of the nonconforming billboards. The July 1 l, 1997 letter sent to the billboard companies informed them of the loss of nonconforming status and ordered the companies to remove the downed signs. The letter also indicated that the billboards could not be reconstructed without a permit. And, the letter indicated that the order to remove the damaged billboards could be appealed to the Gity Council under the appeal process in Section 900.40 of the Code. No appeals were filed and no permits were sought. Thus, all of the reconstructed billboards were rebuilt in violation of the City's permit requirements, and, concurrently, in violation of the state building code. In addition, some ortho signs were rebuilt despite loss of their nonconforming status. In sum, all reconstructed billboards were reconstructed illegally and in violation of city and state law. Staff is recommending that the Council authorize legal action to enforce the Sign Ordinance and pursue removal of the illegal billboards. In order to do so, it is recommend that the City send a certified letter to the owners of the reconstructed billboards restating the reasons why they were reconstructed illegally and ordering their removal within a specified period of days. If any of the Sent by: DRB 612 291 9313; 09/04/97 11:53AM;Jetff=~ #141;Page 4/4 Mayor and City Council Page 2 September 4, 1997 companies do not comply with the order, the City should bring a.n action in district court to obtain an order alloWing the City to remove the illegal billboards and assess the costs of removal to the companies. Minnesota case law exists on this issue and supports the ability of municipalities to amortize nonconforming signs over a three year period and require removal after the three period has expired. it& l',heg¢le Outdoor Adv. Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 162 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1968). Case law also supports removal of nonconforming uses after they have incurred extensive damage. See Henog v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins Co, 415 N.W. 2d 370 (MinnApp. 1987). However, there is always the risk that a court could rule against the City. Since it is possible, if not likely, that one or more of the billboard companies will contest the City's efforts, a decision to pursue legal action for removal of the illegal billboards should be made with the knowledge that it could result in lengthy, and potentially costly, litigation.