Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />~. .- <br /> <br />~ '-.". . <br /> <br /> <br />;yqUNG LA~J FIRM <br />.15,2000 2:07PM <br /> <br />1i 6516362118 <br />ROSE/COMM/DEV 4~~29~1 <br /> <br />02/25/00 09:03 B :01/05 NO:058 <br />NO. laSS P.2 <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION <br />DA TE: 02/09/00 <br />ITEM NO: 6C <br /> <br />Item Description: <br /> <br />Mal,ager Approved: Agenda Section: <br />PUBLIC HEARINGS <br />A request by the City of Roseville COl' consideration of an <br />an'lel,dmcnt to Section 1009 (Sign Regulations) apd Section 10.14 <br />V\d1ninis\1'atiol~) of th~ RoseviUe ZOl'l~g Ordin~e (PF #3190)..f . <br /> <br />Department Approval: <br /> <br />. 1.0 BACKGROUND of SIGN MCULA TIONS REQUEST <br /> <br />1.1 .Sho~'t1y 1>8f01'<' tbe 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 vio1ati01t ofthe Constitution of the United States", and permanently enjoined <br />enforcement of the CLUTent Code (Case 99..CV..lS15). The particular provisions in thtSC <br />Code sections anal)'ied by Judge Rosenbaum. relate ~o the definition of signs, baluters, <br />and flags. Judge Rosenbaum also ruled that the p1'ocedura1 aspects of the ordinanoe nre <br />w,constitutional because the ordinance vests excess discretion in the detenuination to <br />~ ,. grant or deny a pennit and because the ordinance fails to comply vvitlt the Supreme <br /><,_"I'-~~: . '." Court's pl'OQeciural requirentents to be used when making determinations involving First <br />., '. ':".,co/;{'A}nclld.ment expression. <br /> <br />- . <br /> <br />........ ',' i'~- .' <br />. n_,s:;.. <br /> <br />1.2 <br /> <br />Because cOJ1stitutionallaw and rirst Amendment issuesl in particular, are extremely <br />complicated and case speeific, the City requested Judge Rosenbaum to be as spedfic as <br />;;f.possible it, identifying the pl'oblet'nfttic pOl'tlOI~S of the ordinance and in sUiiestini <br />amendments that the City could consider in revising the ordil1a.nce. Judge Rose1~batut\ <br />declined the inyjtation, allowing the City, as he puts it, to "atteJnpt to draft lawfu1 <br />resuiations~ and allow [ing] judsc:s to evaluate regulation, without themselves having <br />beeu their author." <br /> <br />_ c. <br /> <br />.. . ~ <br /> <br />':'. <br /> <br />. .1.3 <br /> <br />Aftel' further review of the dedsion and o1her matetials, including sign ordinances from <br />oth~r cities within and outside MilU1esota, it is recommended that the .PhU111llll <br />Com1\,iss!on study possible amendments to the Roseville City Code regUlating flags. <br />Additionally, modifications to Code sections regardins the proccdw'es used in iS5uing 01' <br />denying permits are necessary in response to Judge Rosenbaum's ruling. <br /> <br />Z.O <br /> <br />OPTIONS to CONSIDER <br /> <br />Based 011 the ruling by Judge Rosenbaum, the following options could be considered <br />resvdins modifications to the City's flag reguJations: <br /> <br />P1annl111 rUe #3190 (Sign Ordinance. Flag) 02/09/00 Pag~ 1 of 2 <br />