PC Packet 07-19-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Not Approved (C) City of New Brighton requests a Zoning Code Amendment to Section 9-040(3)(H) relating to campaign signs. City Planner Gundlach reported this request is city initiated in that there is a discrepancy with regard to campaign sign regulations during state election years vs. local election years. The intent is to provide consistent standards for all elections and candidates. The changes impact Zoning Code Section 9-040 (3) (H).The relevant State Statute referenced is 211B.045. Also included is deletion of the word"campaign sign" and uses the same phrase the state uses, which is"noncommercial sign". Generally speaking,the proposed amendment provides for less regulation. The main issue is regulation of the allowed size of noncommercial(or campaign signs) signs as well as the number that can be placed on a single property. State Statute does not regulate the # of signs but City Ordinance does: 6 SF & 1 per street frontage. When there is a state-wide election, the City is legally obligated to follow the state rules—even for local elections. In this instance, during even numbered election years the City's ordinance cannot be enforced. The City ordinance can be enforced in non-state-wide election years, or odd years, however this creates confusion amongst candidates and doesn't provide for fair signing practices. The amendment eliminates the code language related to limiting the size and number of signs to be consistent with State Law, leaves in place the language concerning where those signs can be placed. From a practical standpoint, enforcement of campaign signs will not change in that rarely, if ever are complaints received regarding the size or # of signs. Staff Recommends the City Council adopt the ordinance provided amending Zoning Code Section 9- 040. Commissioner Meyers requested clarification on "street frontage". City Planner Gundlach explained a corner lot would have two street frontages, and an interior lot would have a single street frontage. Ms. Gundlach clarified that the state law does not limit the size of the campaign signs, making it impossible for the City to enforce their ordinance during a state election. Commissioner Meyers questioned the requirements near polling places. Ms. Gundlach stated generally the Election Judges self police their polling station. Commissioner Alvey asked if the City could reference the State statute. The City Attorney suggested it more appropriate to clarify the ordinance. Commissioner Shardlow expressed concern with the possibility of a campaign sign as large as a motor home. City Planner Gundlach noted we would be obligated to follow the state rules, but did note there are provisions in the code that would likely address the issue. Chairperson Howard expressed concern with the possibility of expansion of the number of signs and the size of the signs. Motion by Commissioner Alvey, seconded by Commisisoner Danger to close the Public Hearing. Motion approved 7-0, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:31 pm. Motion by Commissioner Shardlow, seconded by Commissioner McPherson to approve staff recommendation Motion approved 6-1 Ayes: Commissioners Alvey, Danger,_McPherson, Meyers, Nichols-Matkaiti and Shardlow Nays: Commissioner Howard 3