My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2000_0508_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2000
>
2000_0508_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/28/2011 10:59:05 AM
Creation date
9/28/2011 10:53:29 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
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
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION <br /> DATE: 05108/00 <br /> ITEM NO: J-1 <br /> Depart ent Approval: Manager Approved: Agenda Section: <br /> ORDINANCE <br /> Item Description: A request by the City of Roseville for consideration and FINAL <br /> READING of an amendment to Section 1009 (Sign Regulations) <br /> and Section 1014 (Administration) of the Roseville Zoning <br /> Ordinance (PF #3190). <br /> 1.0 BACKGROUND of SIGN REGULATIONS REQUEST <br /> 1.1 Shortly before the end of the year, United States District Court Judge James M. <br /> Rosenbaum ruled that Roseville City Code Sections 1009.02 and 1009.03 are "null and <br /> void for violation of the Constitution of the United States", and permanently enjoined <br /> enforcement of the current Code (Case 99-CV- 15 15). The particular provisions in these <br /> Code sections analyzed by Judge Rosenbaum relate to the definition of signs, banners, <br /> and flags. Judge Rosenbaum also ruled that the procedural aspects of the ordinance are <br /> unconstitutional because the ordinance vests excess discretion in the determination to <br /> grant or deny a permit and because the ordinance fails to comply with the Supreme <br /> Court's procedural requirements to be used when making determinations involving First <br /> Amendment expression. <br /> 1.2 Because constitutional law and First Amendment issues, in particular, are extremely <br /> complicated and case specific, the City requested Judge Rosenbaum to be as specific as <br /> possible in identifying the problematic portions of the ordinance and in suggesting <br /> amendments that the City could consider in revising the ordinance. Judge Rosenbaum <br /> declined the invitation, allowing the City, as he puts it, to "attempt to draft lawful <br /> regulations, and allow [ing] judges to evaluate regulation, without themselves having <br /> been their author." <br /> 1.3 After further review of the decision and other materials, including sign ordinances from <br /> other cities within and outside Minnesota, staff recommended that the Planning <br /> Commission study possible amendments to the Roseville City Code regulating flags. <br /> Additionally, modifications to Code sections regarding the procedures used in issuing or <br /> denying permits are necessary in response to Judge Rosenbaum's ruling. <br /> 2.0 OPTIONS to CONSIDER <br /> Based on the ruling by Judge Rosenbaum, the following solution is proposed regarding <br /> modifications to the City's flag regulations: <br /> Planning File#3190(Sign Ordinance-Flag)RCA 05/08/00 1 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.