1991-10-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 1 I I Council Meeting Minutes October 8, 1991 Page 6 Council Business. continued Filinda MacDonald. 1503 Mississippi, said opposition is directed at the amendment, not Ms. Brayton. She is not opposing the sign or its contents, but opposes its ugliness and requests the size restriction not be lifted. She presented a petition signed by 38 neighbors: 23 oppose amendment, 3 in favor of free speech, and 13 unable to contact. She feels the sign is inconsiderate, unprofessionally done, counter productive, and a public safety hazard. Don Cartwright, 2182 Lakebrook Drive, does not have a problem with Ms. Brayton's beliefs. but feels the sign creates visible pollution. Beverly Helmbrecht, 1497 Mississippi, said the signs cause people to slow down which creates a public safety hazard. Larry MacDonald, 1503 Mississippi, lives across the street from the sign and feels the sign and the amendment violates his freedom of privacy. Bob Crosson, 2209 Long Lake Road. supports free speech, but feels the MCLU want to abolish all laws in the country. He feels the neighbors should have been notified of the impending amendment. Mattila said City Code requires publication of a public hearing notice in a legal publication, New Briahton Bulletin, for an ordinance amendment. The Planning Commission held the hearing on September 17, and no residents were in attendance. However, a Bulletin representative attended the hearing and wrote an article in the newspaper. LeFevere said aesthetics alone do not justify infringement on free speech or expression of ideas. Public health, safety and welfare form the basis for sign regulations. To ensure for a well-informed electorate, sign regulations are relaxed during the campaign season, however, public safety regulations remain in effect during the campaign season. To prohibit public opinion lawn signs, the City would need to prohibit all signage in residential zones. If Council wishes to grant greater free speech rights, he recommends the amendment be adopted and further studied. In his opinion, the ordinance is unconstitutional and unenforceable and exposes the City to potential liability. Gunderman feels there is an apparent need for resident input on the issue and suggests the amendment be sent back to the Planning Commission. Williams said holding another public hearing may raise false expectations and feels he must accept LeFevere's advice of the unconstitutionally of the current ordinance. Council Business Sign Ordinance Amendment Report 91~218