1991-10-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 1 I Council Meeting Minutes October 8, 1991 Page 5 Council Business. continued In April, the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union (MCLU) requested the City amend its current sign ordinance to bring into compliance with standards established by the Minnesota Court of Appeals. An amendment was developed and sent to MCLU and the resident for review. At that time, MCLU deemed it to be within constitutional requirements. On October 7, LeFevere received the MCLU's objections to being there is no need for a sign ordinance, and the other City ordinances should handle legitimate issues. The MCLU stated if there needs to be a sign ordinance, it should be limited to protecting safety and contain no size or number limitations. He said these statements are considered opinions rather than constitutional requirements, and go beyond constitutional requirements. LeFevere said it is Council's discretion to go beyond the proposed ordinance. The proposed changes were necessary to satisfy constitutional requirements. In his opinion, the current ordinance is unconstitutional and adjustments are needed to bring into compliance with requirements set forth in the City of Minneapolis court case. The original Minneapolis ordinance lacked legitimate statement of purpose and restricted alternative speech channels. For New Brighton to meet these objections would result in new and additional signs not previously authorized. LeFevere explained the proposed changes: a new entitlement was created to allow for signs devoted to free speech, subject to size and setback limitations; allowing additional signs during campaign periods devoted to both candidate issues and public opinion, subject to number and setback limitations; and allow commercial property and billboards to devote signable areas to commercial and free speech. He feels these changes satisfy the requirements set forth in the Minneapolis case. Deanna Brayton, 1540 Mississippi St., did not intend to create an argument with her neighbors or the City when she placed the signs in her yard. She feels the signs are not obscene, slanderous, oversized or ugly, and is defending her freedom of speech and expression. William Roath, MCLU, said MCLU feels there is no significant need for the ordinance. The MCLU Attorney who handled the case erred when stating the amendment was correct before review with the Board of Directors and the MCLU apologizes for that error. The Board feels speech is a fundamental constitutional right, and feels that the Council must choose the least restrictive alternative to protect public safety. Setback requirements are permissible to attain public safety, however, size and number restrictions limit free speech. If the City disagrees with this assessment, the MCLU requests deletion of the size and number restrictions and allow for all signs throughout the year. Council Busin~ss Amendment to Sign Ordinance Report 91 ~218