Laserfiche WebLink
<br />f , <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br />~~ILLS <br /> <br />CITY OF ARDEN HILLS <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: November 7, 2001 <br /> <br />TO: Mayor and City Council <br /> <br />FROM: Mike Cronin, Planning Consultant <br /> <br />SUBJECT: Case #01-23, Sign Ordinance <br />City of Arden Hills <br /> <br />Overview <br /> <br />Attached are two drafts for the amended sign ordinance. One draft, identified as "10/03/01 City <br />Planning Commission Recommendation" represents the recommendation of the Commission and <br />was basis for the Council's initial review of the Amendment at the October 15 Worksession. The <br />other draft, identified as "City Planning Commission Recommendation + ce', responds to the <br />questions and comments received from the Council at that Worksession. In this draft, the new <br />amendments and extensions are highlighted in italics. The amendments include: <br /> <br />1. Section IV Exemption ofreligious symbols <br /> <br />This exemption of regulation of religious symbols is in response to the recently adopted Federal <br />"Religious Liberty Protection Act". One of the objectives of the Act is some preemption oflocal <br />regulation of religious institutions and activities. How this intent Act will be interpreted and <br />effectively applied is not yet clear. Faced with this uncertainty, when adopting new ordinances <br />cities typically take one these paths: <br /> <br />a. Walk away from any attempt to regulate in this area. This was the staff's <br />recommendation to the CPC regarding religious symbols. <br />b. Accommodate the display of symbols, but propose reasonable restrictions on the <br />height and illumination if this provision is used to permit a religious symbol. This is the <br />recommendation ofthe CPC+CC draft. <br />c. Continue as before and wait fro interpretation or a challenge to revise the ordinance. <br />