My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
03-06-2023 Council Work Session Packet
LinoLakes
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2023
>
Searchable Packets
>
03-06-2023 Council Work Session Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/21/2023 10:16:08 AM
Creation date
3/21/2023 10:02:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
Council Document Type
Council Packet
Meeting Date
03/06/2023
Council Meeting Type
Work Session Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
170
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
1 <br /> <br />WS – Item 1 <br />WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT <br />Work Session Item No. 1 <br /> <br /> <br />Date: March 6, 2023 <br /> <br />To: City Council <br /> <br />From: Katie Larsen, City Planner <br /> <br />Re: Sign Ordinance Amendment <br /> <br />Background <br /> <br />City Code Chapter 1010: Signs regulates signs. In 2014, the City amended the sign <br />ordinance. Staff is proposing another amendment to the ordinance to reflect changes that <br />have transpired from a federal court case. Kristin Nierengarten, attorney with Rupp, <br />Anderson, Squires, Waldspurger, & Mace, will present the sign ordinance amendment. <br /> <br />Analysis <br /> <br />The main purpose of the revisions to the City’s sign ordinance is to bring the ordinance in <br />line the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, which determined that <br />content-based regulation of signs are generally impermissible and could violate the First <br />Amendment. In short, the court said that government can’t regulate signs based on the <br />communicative intent or message of those signs. The courts have signaled, however, that <br />concerns for safety can justify content-based sign regulations and that distinctions can be <br />drawn for on-premise versus off-premise signs and commercial versus non-commercial <br />signs. The sign ordinance revisions reflect this evolution in case law. <br /> <br />A secondary goal of revising the sign ordinance is to increase its clarity and readability to <br />ease administration and enforcement. This includes cutting down on unused definitions, <br />standardizing language, and addressing potential conflicts or unnecessary language. <br /> <br />For the most part, the revisions are geared toward maintaining the City’s original intent in <br />its sign regulation, while eliminating disallowed content-based regulations. <br /> <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br /> <br />The Planning & Zoning Board held a public hearing on February 8, 2023. Public <br />comments from representatives of Precision Tune Auto Care requested to increase the <br />size of dynamic display signs from 20sf to 50sf. Staff supported a change to 32sf. The <br />Board recommended approval of the sign ordinance with the condition that obscene signs <br />be addressed and that staff research dynamic signs and bring back information to the <br />Board at a later date. Obscene sign language has been added to the revised sign <br />ordinance under Section 1010.005 Prohibited Signs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.