Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Off Premise Signs topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning commission denies Franklin Outdoor Advertising CUP after debate over county's sign cap

Crow Wing County Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment · February 20, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After extended testimony from the applicant, property owners and counsel, the Crow Wing County Planning Commission voted 3-2 to deny Franklin Outdoor Advertising's request to relocate an off-premise billboard, citing the county's 1995 ordinance and the board's judgment that approval would produce a "net gain" in off-premise signs.

The Crow Wing County Planning Commission denied a conditional use permit request Feb. 20 from Franklin Outdoor Advertising to relocate an off-premise billboard to a Brainerd-area parcel, concluding the relocation would create a net gain of off-premise signs and conflict with Article 40.7 of the county's sign ordinance.

Chris, planning staff, reviewed the application and the county's 1995 ordinance, telling the board the rule calls for no net gain in off-premise signs and that the existing CUP on the Schroeder parcel runs with the land. Franklin representatives argued the company owns the sign structure and cited industry practice and case law treating billboards as personal property: "We own the sign," said Steve Anderson of Franklin Outdoor Advertising. Franklin's attorney, Megan Rogers of Larkin Hoffman, told the board several regulatory sections operate distinctly and observed in Minnesota precedent that "billboards are personal property as a matter of law." Property owners who had terminated a lease at the Schroeder site said they were blindsided by Franklin's CUP application and warned relocation would prevent them from using their existing CUP as they had expected.

The board asked the county attorney for legal guidance. Stephanie Shook said her review led her to the view that the conditional-use permit controlling sign placement is the controlling instrument and that approving another CUP in the current circumstances would be a net gain. After discussion and a motion to deny based on the staff findings, the commission voted 3-2 to deny Franklin's CUP request; the chair announced the motion passed by roll call. Board members and staff suggested the dispute could prompt an ordinance clarification and noted the matter might be appealed to secure a judicial interpretation of the sign-cap provisions.