Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City of Arden Hills <br />City Council Work Session for March 21, 2016 <br /> <br />P:\Planning\Planning Cases\2016\PC 16-011 - Sign Code Updates\Memos_Reports_16-011 <br />Page 1 of 2 <br /> <br />DATE: March 21, 2016 <br /> <br />TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers <br />Sue Iverson, Acting City Administrator <br /> <br />FROM: Ryan Streff, City Planner <br />Joel Jamnik, City Attorney <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Update on the signage decision made by the Supreme Court <br /> <br /> <br />Requested Action <br /> <br />Discuss the Supreme Court Decision (Reed vs. Gilbert) regarding signage. <br /> <br /> <br />Background <br /> <br />City Attorney, Joel Jamnik will provide an oral review during the City Council Work Session on <br />March 21, 2016, of the decision made by the Supreme Court regarding signage and how this <br />decision may affect the City’s Sign Code. <br /> <br />Briefly, the U.S. Supreme Court recently found a local sign code unconstitutional because it <br />regulated signs differently based on the content, or message, of the signs. The Town of Gilbert, <br />Arizona, adopted a sign code that prohibits the display of outdoor signs without a permit, but <br />exempted 23 categories of signs, including ideological signs, political signs, and temporary <br />directional signs. <br /> <br />Temporary directional signs included any sign intended to provide direction to a “qualifying <br />event.” A qualifying event was defined as an “assembly, gathering, activity, or meeting <br />sponsored, arranged, or promoted by a religious, charitable, community service, educational, or <br />other similar nonprofit organization.” <br /> <br />AGENDA ITEM 1G <br /> <br /> MEMORANDUM <br />