My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC WORKSESSION 01292008
StAnthony
>
City Council
>
City Council Work Session
>
2008
>
CC WORKSESSION 01292008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/23/2016 10:44:00 AM
Creation date
11/23/2016 10:39:48 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
131
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
STAFF REPORT <br />To: Mayor and City Council <br />Michael Morrison, City Manager Report No.: <br />From: Kim Moore - Sykes, Assistant City Manager 0/ 2 <br />Date: January 29, 2008 1 <br />Subject: Proposed Revised Sign Ordinance <br />Background, Staff attended an LMC workshop on sign ordinances presented by the League's attorney, <br />Paul Merwin. Mr. Merwin reported that the courts have held that several municipal sign ordinances have <br />provoked freedom of speech objections, with the City of Hopkins being the latest example from Minnesota. <br />By regulating signs in their community, the Courts found that the City of Hopkins inadvertently limited <br />speech without demonstrating a substantial governmental interest in doing so. The Courts have long held <br />that traffic safety and aesthetics are usually the only two governmental interests that cities may assert with <br />sign ordinances. <br />The League attorneys stated that cities may regulate signs and enforce a sign ordinance as long as that <br />enforcement has a neutral effect on speech and is based on other factors rather than the message content of <br />a sign. A sign ordinance that governs activities to protect governmental interests should be objectively <br />based on time, place and manner and unrelated to the speech content of a sign. The attorney stated that if <br />the sign has to be read to determine how it is regulated, then it is being regulated based on speech and that <br />regulation is likely unconstitutional. <br />They also stated commercial and non - commercial speech enjoy different levels of protection under the <br />Constitution. As such, they cautioned that cities should not favor commercial speech over non - commercial <br />speech in the development or enforcement of their sign ordinance. <br />As a result of this workshop and the Hopkins example, Staff was asked to review and revise the City's sign <br />ordinance to make it compliant with State and Federal law. Attached is a revised draft of Chapter 14, based <br />on the City of Hopkins' model sign ordinance. This draft has also been sent to American Legal Publishing <br />for their review per their editor, Mr. Nathan Clark's request. <br />Requested Action: Council review. <br />Attachments: <br />Draft of revised Chapter 14 <br />LMC Sign Ordinances and the First Amendment White Paper <br />F: \Staff Reports\2008 \012908 Sign Ordinance STAFF REPORT.doc <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.