2005-075
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-75
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PREAMBLE TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE NO.
2005-956 DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING THE REPEAL OF THE
ORDINANCE NO. 2005-954 AND ALL PREVIOUS ORDINANCES REGULATING THE
CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SIGNS IN THE CITY
OF HOPKINS AND APPROVING THE PREAMBLE TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE
NO. 2005-955 DECLARING AN EMERGENCY NECESSITATING THE ADOPTION OF
A COMPREHENSIVE, CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND ORDINANCE REGULATING
THE CONSTRUCTION, INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF SIGNS IN THE
CITY OF HOPKINS.
WHEREAS, the City Council previously has adopted ordinances regulating the
construction, installation and lnaintenance of signs located in both commercial and residential
areas of Hopkins (the "Sign Ordinances"), and;
WHEREAS, a lawsuit was filed against the City of Hopkins (Advanta2e Media, L.L.C.,
et at v. City of Hopkins, U.S. Dist. Ct. File No. 04-04959, hereafter, the 4'Lawsuit") challenging
the constitutionality of the Sign Ordinances and, on July 29,2005, U.S. District Court Judge
Michael Davis issued a preliminary injunction in the Lawsuit preventing Hopkins from enforcing
the Sign Ordinances while the inj unction ,vas in place, and;
WHEREAS, as a result of the injunction, Hopkins was without any regulation regarding
the size and location of signs, the number of signs that might be permitted on a property and the
types of materials frOlll which signs can be constructed, and;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 3.03 Subd. 4 of the Hopkins Charter, the City Council
on August 3, 2005, adopted Ordinance No. 2005-954, an emergency interim ordinance to
regulate the construction, installation and maintenance of signs in Hopkins while a
comprehensive, constitutionally sound sign ordinance could be drafted, and:
WHEREAS, the City Council has revIewed proposed Ordinance No. 2005-955, an
en1ergency ordinance adopting a new ordinance to regulate the construction, installation and
maintenance of signs in the City of Hopkins, and the City Council hereby adopts and approves
the prealllble of Ordinance No. 2005-955 which declares that the lack of a comprehensive,
constitutionally sound sign ordinance constitutes an emergency, and;.
WHEREAS, the City Council Inakes the following additional findings regarding the need
for a cOlnprehensive, constitutionally sound sign ordinance:
1. A sign ordinance is intended to establish a comprehensive and balanced system
of sign control that accommodates the need for a well-maintained, safe, and attractive
community, and the need for effective communications including business identification.
1t is the intent of the proposed sign ordinance, to promote the health, safety, general
welfare, aesthetics, and in1age of the community by regulating signs that are intended to
comlnunicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals by authorizing:
a) signs which establish a high standard of aesthetics;
b) signs which are cOlnpatible with their surroundings;
c) signs which are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a manner that
does not adversely ilnpacL public safety or unduly distract motorists;
d) signs that are proportioned to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with,
principal structures;
c) signs which give preference to the on-premise owner or occupant; and
f) signs which create and maintain high quality business and industrial districts.
2. A sign ordinance is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public
health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community so the construction, location, size
and maintenance of signs be controlled. To accomplish such goals, the City Council
iinds that:
a) it necessary to repeal its pnor sign ordinance and to enact a new content neutral
sign ordinance. The City does not intend to re-enact the prior sign ordinance.
b) signs have a direct in1pact on and relationship to the image of the community;
c) the manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the public
health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community;
d) strong, well-nlaintained neighborhoods protect people's investments in property
and foster a positive economic development climate;
e) an opportunity for viable identification of community businesses and institutions
must be established;
t) the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public streets and
property is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs that unduly
divert the attention of drivers;
c Hnpclvll\l"mcrgRcsRl.:pcal - 2 -
g) installa60n of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of
buildings, walks or other stnlctures lTIay constitute a hazard during periods of high winds
and an obstacle to effecti ve fire- fighting and other emergency service;
h) uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic
attractiveness of the con1n1unHy and thereby undermine economic value and growth;
i) uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs which are
con1n10nly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way or are located at
driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of traffic.
This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also adversely impacts a logical flow
of information;
j) comn1ercial signs are generally incompatible with residential uses and should be
strictly lirnited in residential zoning districts;
k) the right to express nonconlmercial opinions in any zoning district must be
protected, subject to reasonable restrictions on size, height, location and number;
1) studies have shown off-premise signs affect property values. For example, a
study in Pittsburgh, P A found propel1y values rose as lTIuch as 255 percent after the
removal of nearby billboards'
nl) studies have shown cities who have adopted stricter billboard controls and/or bans
on new billboard construction have shown steady growth in certain businesses. For
example:
1. In WillialTIsburg, V A, sales for eating and drinking establishnlents grew from
$48 million in 1988 to $81 million in 1992, three years after billboard controls
were toughened. In 1991 alone, total retail sales rose 44 percent despite an
. .
ongOIng recesSIon.
2. In Raleigh, NC, sales for eating and drinking establishments rose from $243
million in 1989, before billboard control, to $307 million in 1992, after controls
were introduced, a rise of nlore than 25 percent.
3. The total retail sales in Houston, TX, grew over 100 percent frOlTI $9 billion in
1981, the year after the Houston City Council prohibited new billboard
constnlction, to about $19 billion in 1992. For eating and drinking establishments
alone, the total rose frOlTI $908 lTIillion in 1981 to $2.1 billion in 1992.
n) Sign control is good for touriSlTI. For example:
e c.Hopclvll\EmergResRepeal - 3 -
1. Vermont took down its last billboard in 1975. From 1976 to 1978, tourism
revenues increased by over 50 percent. According to Christopher Barbieri, past
President of the Vermont Chamber ofComnlerce, "Although there was some
initial sensitivity that renloving billboards might hurt tourism, it has had the
opposite effect. Tourism is up for all businesses large and small."
2. Vermont County Store founder Lyman Orton said: "The billboard ban provided
not only a level playing field for all of us, it opened the roadways to scenic vistas
and created more than compensating publicity. The absence of billboards in
Vermont is the best bi llboard for all of the tourist business."
3. Many prime tourist destinations all prohibit new billboard construction even as
their tourism revenues keep rising: Palm Springs and Big Sur, California; Key
West, Florida; Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts; Kitty Hawk and Nags Head,
North Carolina; South Padre Island, Texas; Santa Fe, New Mexico; Aspen and
Boulder, Colorado; Holland, Michigan; and Portland, Oregon.
4. Alaska, Hawaii, Maine and Vermont all prohibit billboards statewide and still
draw people fronl around the world to their scenic wonders. The Hawaii
Department of Transportation commented that "Tourism is important to the
economy of our state and the state's business community understands the need to
protect and preserve the beauty of the islands."
0) It is irnportant to protect the right of business to identify its prenlise and advertise
its products through the use of signs without undue hindrance or obstruction.
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed proposed Ordinance No. 2005-956, an
emergency ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2005-954, and repealing Hopkins City Code
Section 570, the sign ordinance in effect on July 29, 2005, which was originally adopted by
Hopkins Ordinance No, 86-569 on November 18, 1986, and the City Council hereby adopts and
approves the preamble to Ordinance No. 2005-956 which declares ythat the lack of a
c0111prehensive, constItutionally sound sign ordinance constitutes an elnergency.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby resolves that the lack of a comprehensive,
constitutionally sound ordinance regulating signs in the City of Hopkins constitutes an
emergency and adopts and approves the Preambles in proposed Ordinance Nos. 2005-955 and
2005-956 and declares that the lack of a conlprehensive, constitutionally sound sign ordinance
constitutes an elnergency.
c I [OpCIVII\[ melgl\e~Rcpeul - 4 -
August 16, 2005
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:
------
C' IlopCl vll\EmergRes Repeal - 5 -
~-~
Eui~axwell, Mayor
August 16, 2005
Date