COM 0454.020 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Sl9 N.W'.2d 243 Page 2 (Cite as: Sl9 N.W.2d 243, X244) parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the an opinion or other point of view. • • Sec. 9- trial court ruled in favor of the City. We affirm. 030 (Definitions), paragraph (o). FACTS The trial court concluded, and the parties agree, that as amended, the ordinance allows a resident to The material facts of this case are not in dispute. post one sign on its property '245 year round, In March of 1991, appellant placed two signs in the whether i[ be an opinion sign or a campaign sign. Cront yard of her home in New Brighton. One of During the political campaign season, a resident is [he signs, which was approximately 2 feet by 4 fcet allowed to post additional signs, up to one sign per in size, expressed criticism of a decision by a district ballot issue and per ballot candidate. The additional court judge in an animal cruelty case. The other signs may be usod to express either a campaign sign, approximately 1 foot by 1 1/2 feet, expressed message or an opinion message. Said another way, her opinion on other issues related to the treatment the amended ordinance allows one noncottrmercial of animals. opinion sign to be posted year round and additional, campaign and/or noncommercial opinion signs Appellant received a letter dated April 5, 1991, during the election season. from the New Brighton city planner informing her that the signs violated the New Brighton sigrt In addition to the public safety concerns cited in ordinance and directing her to remove them. the original ordinance, the amendments also list the Appellant complied with the City's directive and following purposes of the regulation: took down the signs. [T]o preserve the residential chazacter of residential neighborhoods; to preserve order and Appellant complained to City officials, asserting cleanliness; to avoid the appeazance of clutter; to that the ordinance is unconstitutional. On October protect property values; to avoid litter and [he 22, 1991, the ordinance was amended by the city growth of weeds around signs; to reduce the council. Appellant subsequently initiated this action traffic hazazd caused by distractions to motorists challenging certain portions of the amended and impairment of sight lines; to ensure that the ordinance as violative of the coastimtional right of city remains an attractive place to live and work; free expression. to reduce administrative burdens; and to protect the health, safety, welfare, morals, convenience As originally written, New Brighton Code Section and wmfort of the public. 9-040, pazagraph (c)(8) allowed for one campaign sign per candidate and issue to be posted only ISSUE during the election season. There was no provision in the ordinance allowing fot opinion signs at any Is the sign ordinance, as amrnded, constitutionally time of the year. 1'he purpose statement of the valid? ordinance cited concerns of public safety. ANALYSIS As amended, Section 9-040, pazagraph (cx16) of the sign ordinance allows a resident to post oce [1] The parties agree that this appeal is limited [o "nos-commercial opinion sign" on its property, at an assertion of facial invalidity of the oMinance any time [FNl). The portion of the ordirance (other initial claims for relief have been disposed allowing campaign signs during campaign aeasoa of). was amended to include the following sentence: "Any sign permitted by this paragraph may be used, On appeal from summary judgment, the reviewing in lieu of other uses permitted by this paragraph, as total must determine whether there are any genui>K a Non-Commercial Opinion Sign.' Ody this issues of material fact and whether the trial court amended ordinance is at issue. erred in its application of the law. Offerdahl v. University of M[nn. Hosps. & Clinics, 426 N.W.2d FTI1. A 'noncommercial opinon sign' tt defined 425, 42'7 (Mim.1988). The determination of the as '[al sign which does not advertise products, constitutionality of a statute is a question of law goods, businesses or services and which expresses which this court reviews de novo. See Hibbing Copr. ° West 1996 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works