Council Memo May 9 2022® 7A
• ® MEETING TYPE
City of Shorewood Council Meeting Item REGULAR
Title /Subject: CAMPAIGN AND NON - COMMERCIAL SPEECH SIGNS
Meeting Date: May 9, 2022
Prepared By: Marie Darling, Planning Director
Attachments: Planning Commission Memo from May 3, 2022
Correspondence Received
Ordinance 588
Resolution for Summary Publication
Background: See the attached Planning Commission reports for more information.
Last year, the Planning Commission reviewed various proposals for clarifying the city's
rules on campaign signs so they would be easier to explain to candidates and enforce.
In February of 2022, the City Council referred this item to the Planning Commission to
review potential amendments and hold a public hearing on the topic.
• What do the additional changes do? The amendments that are proposed are small,
targeted changes related to the existing campaign signage. The changes to code are
proposed to:
• Rename the campaign signs as non - commercial speech signs to align with state
statute and recent supreme court decisions
• Reduce the setback from the street for this type of signage
• Add a substitution clause to conform with recent supreme court decisions
This is accomplished by adding new definitions and removing the definition of campaign
signs, clearly defining the timeframe when election - related temporary signage may be
posted, adding the substitution clause which would allow non - commercial speech to be
substituted for other allowed sign messages and correct code references, terms or
grammar.
The City Attorney has reviewed the amendments and his recommendations were also
incorporated.
Summary of Public Notice and Testimony: Notice of the public hearing was
published in both official newspapers at least 10 days prior to the public hearing at the
• Mission Statement: The City of Shorewood is committed to providing residents quality public
services, a healthy environment, a variety of attractive amenities, a sustainable tax base, and
sound financial management through effective, efficient, and visionary leadership.
Planning Comi
resident spoke
meeting. Several letters were received (attached) and one
the meeting. The most common issues raised are summarized below.
Several of the letters mentioned concerns
that the City do
n't take away residents' rights to put a sign up in their yard advertising
an event or expr
assing an opinion. Staff responded that the right to place the signs in
their yards are n
ore finely permitted with the adoption of the substitution clause than
they are under tl
ie current ordinance.
Educate on the i
iew rules. An author raised a question about how the rules would be
explained to the
esidents. Staff responded that information would be provided to each
C andidate that fi
s for election and would include an article in the Shore Report for
information to t* residents.
Enforcement. A i author asked how enforcement would occur. Staff responded that
each election se 3son staff does get complaints regarding election signs. Staff
investigate each complaint and if violations are present, the staff has one of two
avenues for enfc rcement: 1) if the sign is improperly installed in the right -of -way or
public property, ve remove the sign; or 2) if the sign is improperly installed on private
property, we ser d a compliance letter and require the property owner to correct the
violation.
Financial or Budget Considerations: Outside of publication, there is no additional
impact to the budget related to this ordinance amendment.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the ordinance
Proposed Moti ns:
Motion to appro Ordinance 588 amending Chapter 1201 (Zoning Regulations) related
to campaign an non - commercial speech signs.
Motion to appro a resolution for summary publication of the ordinance.
Action on the or finance requires a simple majority vote and action on the summary
publication requites a super majority vote (4/5).
Next Steps and imeline: If the ordinance is adopted, staff would publish the
ordinance. Sta includes a summary of the sign regulations to candidates and would
also summarize Pf the new regulations in an upcoming Shore Report for residents.
•
•
•
•
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD 4A
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • 952.960.7900
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhaII@ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: May 3, 2022
RE: Teat Amendments for Campaign Signs and Non - Commercial Speech
At the April 5, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission made a procedural error in the public hearing
process. Consequently, the hearing must be held again. Attached is the staff report from the April 5
meeting for more background.
These are the changes since the last meeting:
1. The Planning Commission's recommended change to c. (General Standards) part 6 has been
included.
2. In section b (1) (d) Staff added "and size" behind number. Although there was nothing in the
proposed regulations that identified a minimum or maximum size or number for noncommercial
speech signs in the ordinance, staff added the additional language.
3. Staff placed the ordinance in formal format for City Council review.
Staff recommends the Commission hold the public hearing, consider the amendments with the public
testimony offered and provide a recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends approval of the
ordinance amendments. This item would likely move forward to the City Council on May 9, 2022.
Public Notice:
Notice of the public hearing has been published in the city's official newspapers at least 10 days prior to the
hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Memo from April 5, 2022
Correspondence Received
Draft Ordinance
�T u '
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE:
RE:
Attached for your re
amendments are pro
1. Add new
2. Remove i
3. Amend tl
clarify th
4. Add a so]
other non
5. Various s
These amendments
were made to the d
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD 4A
CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • 952.960.7900
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us
Planning Commission
Marie Darling, Planning Director
April 5, 2022
Text Amendments for Campaign Signs and Non - Commercial Speech
is the draft ordinance for campaign signs and non - commercial speech. The
I to accomplish the following:
W
efinitions for commercial and noncommercial signs.
e definition of campaign signs. •
regulations for campaign signs to: 1) rename them as noncommercial signs; 2)
time period when they are allowed in any number or size; and 3) amend the setback.
�titution clause to allow noncommercial speech to be substituted for commercial or
nercial speech.
amendments to correct terms or grammar.
discussed informally at the March 1, 2022 meeting and no additional changes
since that meeting.
Staff recommends thhiCommission review the ordinance, hold the public hearing, consider the amendments
with the public testi ny offered and provide a recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends
approval of the ordin nce amendments.
Public Notice:
Notice of the public
hearing.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commissic
Draft Ordinance
has been published in the city's official newspapers at least 10 days prior to the
Memo from March 1, 2022
•
•
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD 5A
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD, SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • 952.980.7900
www.d.shorewood.mn.us • cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Marie Darling, Planning Director
MEETING DATE: March 1, 2022
RE: Draft Text Amendments for Campaign Signs and Non - Commercial Speech
Last year, the Planning Commission reviewed several proposed amendments to City Code related to
noncommercial speech signs and campaign signs and forwarded recommendations to the City Council.
The City Council continued the discussion of the amendments indefinitely, which requires the review
process to start over. They asked staff to bring the topic back for their discussion at the February 14, 2022
worksession. The staff report and minutes are attached. Based on their direction, staff has revised the
amendments and brings them to your attention for discussion.
Attached to this memo is the information sent to the City Council and proposed draft language. Please
review the language and provide comments or concerns. Staff have tentatively set the public hearing for
the April Planning Commission meeting. In order to be adopted prior to the election season, the
amendments would need to be adopted in April.
Proposed Ordinance Amendments
The proposed ordinance amendments:
1. Add new definitions.
2. Remove the definition of campaign signs.
3. Amend the regulations for campaign signs to 1) rename them as noncommercial signs; 2) clarify
the time period where they are allowed; and 3) clarify the setback.
4. Add a substitution clause.
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Worksession Memo from February 14, 2022
Minutes from February 14, 2022 City Council meeting
Draft Ordinance
Title /Subject:
Meeting Date
Prepared By
Attachments:
At the January 24
necessary change
goal was to have
Below staff have
and staff recomn
State Statute:
2
MEETING TYPE
Worksession
Shorewood Council Meeting Item
Potential Amendments to City Code Chapter 1201.03 Regarding Rules
for Campaign and Other Related Signage
February 2, 2022
Marie Darling, Planning Director
Draft ordinance amendments
?022 meeting, the City Council directed staff to provide a review of any
to the zoning ordinance related to election signage. The Council's stated
iy changes to the ordinance completed prior to the election season.
,ed a summary of the current statute language, current city regulations,
ions on what is needed to improve the regulations.
Minnesota State Statute 2116.045 has specific language regarding noncommercial speech signs •
during state electioh years.
211
.045 NOXCONa ERCL4L SIGNS =NIMO\.
1 noncommercial signs of any size may be posted in any number beginning
46 d
ys before the state primary in a state general election vew until ten days
follo
ving the state general election. Municipal ordinances may regulate the size
and i
umber of noncommercial signs at other times.
During the defined
:ime-period above, no City may limit the number or size of campaign signs.
Shorewood Code
In an attempt to cc
Statute, Shorewoc
regulations (Sectit
11.b.(1)(d)ofCi
the above include
.anguage:
(d) Every campaign sign must contain the name and address of persons
responsible for the sign, and that person shall be responsible for its
iply with State
removal. Signs shall be permitted on each lot for a period of 100
s current sign
days prior to and ten days after an election. All campaign signs or
1201.03 SUbd_
other noncommercial speech signs may be posted from 46 days
before the state primary in a state general election year until ten
Code) related to
days following the state general election, pursuant to M.S.
e following:
§ 211B.045. Signs posted both during and after this [ime,period are
subject to all other applicable requirements in this subdivision. At
any time, the city shall have the right to remove signs that are
prohibited under this subdivision, and assess a fee as provided from
time to time by ordinance. Campaign signs or other noncommercial
speech signs shall not be located closer than ten feet from any street
surface, and shall not be placed in front of anv property without the
consent of the property owner
J
Page 2
• Improvements Proposed:
1.
Remove the defined term "campaign sign" from the code and replace with noncommercial
speech sign (with a new definition). Campaign sign is a term that regulates content, which
is no longer allowed in sign regulations. Noncommercial speech sign is viewed as a
content neutral label and is consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
2.
Use the same time period for all elections consistent with state statute, 46 days prior to
primaries until 10 days after the election.
3.
Remove the fee for removal of signs as it would be difficult to determine who would need
to be charged and staff typically does not try to assess the cost of removing the signs.
4.
Keep the distance requirement from the edge of the street to protect the use of the street
and adjacent boulevard for drivers and pedestrians.
5.
Add a substitution clause to allow any noncommercial speech to be substituted for other
noncommercial speech signs or commercial signs. This would allow noncommercial
speech signs in lieu of other allowed signs outside of the election time period defined in
statute.
Staff provided some optional draft language on the issues outlined above.
Next Steps
The amendments that were previously in front of the City Council at their July 26, 2021 meeting,
were continued indefinitely. To reconsider any amendments, a new public hearing would need to
• be held at the Planning Commission.
To be in place prior to the next election, the city would need to have the ordinance approved and
published prior to May 1, 2022 to avoid any conflicts with the current language in the code that
indicates signs are permitted 100 days prior to any election.
As the City Council considers sign regulations, it is important to note that due to the United States
Supreme Court's ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S.Ct. 2218 (2015), a city may not restrict
expression based on its content (e.g., distinguishing between garage sale signs, wedding signs,
campaign signs), but still may regulate signs on a reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions. Following Reed, cities have regulated the following:
• Rules regulating the size of signs.
• Rules regulating the locations in which signs may be placed.
• Rules distinguishing between lighted and unlighted signs.
• Rules distinguishing between signs with fixed messages and electronic signs with
messages that change.
• Rules that distinguish between the placement of signs on private and public
property.
• Rules distinguishing between the placement of signs on commercial and residential
property.
• Rules distinguishing between on- premises and off - premises signs.
• Rules restricting the total number of signs allowed per mile of roadway.
• • Special rules for government signs.
Page 3
Direction:
Staff requests dire(
1. Does the City
2. Are the amen
the sign code
lion on the following:
,ouncil find amendments to the regulations are warranted at this time?
ments shown adequate or would the City Council find other amendments to
ire needed at this time as well?
•
•
• CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2022 6:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CONVENE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING (Held via interactive
tech nology/videoconferenci ng)
Mayor Labadie called the meeting to order at 6:01 P.M.
A. Roll Call
Present, Mayor Labadie; Councilmembers Johnson, Siakel, Gorham, and Callies; City
Attorney Shepherd; City Administrator Lerud; Planning Director Darling, and
Director of Public Works Brown;
Absent: None
B. Review Agenda
Siakel moved, Gorham seconded, approving the agenda as presented.
• Roll Call Vote: Johnson, Callies, Siakel, Gorham and Labadie voted Aye. Motion passed 5/0.
2. SIGN ORDINANCE
Planning Director Darling stated that staff was directed to provide a review of any necessary
changes to the Zoning Ordinance related to election signage at the January 24, 2022 meeting.
She noted that included in the packet was language from the State statute as well as the
Shorewood City Code. She explained that what staff is hoping to accomplish is to strip down the
proposal just to the most important issues to minimize any impact that changes to the signage
may cause. She stated that staff would like to move the ordinance towards content neutrality and
have a clear time period for enforcement of election signage and add a substitution clause to
allow more opportunity for non - commercial speech signs outside of the election time period. She
reviewed the improvements that staff are proposing as outlined in the staff report. She noted that
a new public hearing would need to be held by the Planning Commission before any changes
could be adopted. She stated that in order for this to be in place prior to the election, the ordinance
would need to be approved and published prior to May 1, 2022.
Councilmember Callies stated that she had already spoken with Planning Director Darling
regarding some of her questions. She stated that overall, she agrees with what is being proposed
and thinks it is helpful to have this meeting prior to the public hearing so the Council can try to
winnow down what is being considered by the Planning Commission. She noted that in her
opinion, a distance of ten feet from the street surface is too much for many neighborhoods in the
City. She stated that she would like to see the City stick with the five foot distance that is located
elsewhere in the ordinance for non - commercial speech signs. She stated that she understands
why the City wants to have consistency for all types of elections, however, she thinks it is too
drastic of a change from the current language. She reviewed the time period between the primary
• and general election for the school board and noted that 46 days for the other type of public
CITY OF SHORI
FEBRUARY 14,
Page 2 of 6
elections is not
between the prir
that she would Ii
where signs like
City was doing a
Planning Director
to alter that par-tic
situations and ga%
paved roadway, u
account shoulder:
days, as long as i
before every prm
substitution clause
can substitute out
the permitted or li!
two square feet, s
square footage all
for the address sic
City Attorney She
mechanism that I
especially in light c
v. Gilbert and not
regulation but the
from the road. He
that the City is cor
WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
ally keeping it the same for the type of elections because the time period
ry and general election for some, is longer than that time period. She stated
to keep it at one - hundred days as it is in the current ordinance. She asked
appy Birthday' or'Black Lives Matter' would ft into the ordinance and why the
ibstitution clause.
arling stated that regarding the setback being too large, the City has the ability
lar setback. She stated that she thinks five feet may be too close in some
the example of situation where there are improved shoulders adjacent to the
less they alter the setback to be from the improved roadway which takes into
She stated that regarding the time period for signage being one - hundred
is clearly written and can be enforced so it does not allow one - hundred days
y and every election, she thinks that would be acceptable. She explained the
which allows any sign that is allowed in any district to be substituted, so you
he non - commercial speech message for whatever the allowed message is on
ed sign. She gave the example of address signage as one that is allowed at
most of the 'Black Lives Matter' or "Blue Lives Matter' signs would ft into that
wance, so they would be allowed to have that on the property as a substitute
herd gave a brief explanation of the substitution clause and noted that it is a
:lps the City address some of the issues that arise in the sign ordinance
recent case law. He referenced the most recent Supreme Court case of Reed
d that what needs to be considered is that there can be no content based
ity can have reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions, such as setback
tated that there are things in the Code that still need to be worked on to ensure
plying with the content neutrality issue.
Councilmember C Ilies stated that she finds the substitution clause a bit confusing, not because
of the way Plannit g Director Darling has written it, but because it is a confusing principle. She
noted that the CitN could be put at risk if it did not have the ability to substitute this type of sign
and understands t iat it is a good thing to have and feels it is of benefit to citizens.
Councilmember G orham stated that he was also confused by the substitution clause because
from reading it, it ppeared that you could substitute a campaign sign for a 'Black Lives Matter'
sign which means t would then be restricted by the timeframe. He stated that it looks like it refers
to a different subd vision so you have to do that bit of digging to understand it. He stated that he
would like to see tl ie distance be closer, such as five feet. He asked about Section 3, Subd. C.(3)
where it states, No portion of any sign shall be located within five feet of any property line, except
as permitted in b. (l)(d) of this subdivision.' He stated that this says five feet, but the subdivision
it references says len feet and noted that he felt this was a strange way to word it.
Councilmember S akel stated that she agreed that there are a lot of situations in the City where
ten feet does not make sense. She asked if there could be a distinction between a County
roadway versus e side street. She stated that for the most part, five feet, in Shorewood, seems
to make sense an I would like to see if there would be a way to differentiate between the type of
street for five feet ersus ten feet. She gave the example of a sign in her yard being back ten feet
and explained tha it would never be seen. She stated that she agreed with the comment made
by Councilmembe Callies regarding school board election signs going from one - hundred to forty -
six days and and stands why the City would want to align that number.
I
•
•
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
• Page 3 of 6
Mayor Labadie stated that she agrees that there are portions of the City where ten feet would
make signs not visible. She asked if Public Works Director Brown had any concerns from a Public
Works standpoint with a five foot setback versus a ten foot setback. Public Works Director Brown
stated that the City could specifying a setback from a corner because that is typically where you
get into most site distance issues. He suggested that there be something similar to the
landscaping ordinances where there is a site triangle requirement at the intersections.
Mayor Labadie stated that she does not want to get to the point where the City is out actively
policing signs and has become an enforcer. Councilmember Siakel stated that the City has not
done this in the past and noted that she was not sure why this issue has become such a big deal.
She stated that she understands updating the ordinance because of some of the things such as
the Supreme Court decision, but does not think this should be punitive. She stated that if
someone wants to be able to put up a sign in their yard, she feels they should be able to do that.
Councilmember Callies asked about the statement made earlier by Planning Director Darling
when she talked about distance from the improved roadway versus the street surface. She stated
that, to her, that sounds like the same thing. She stated that she believes that there have been
complaints in every election so she understands the City has to have something in the Code, but
in her opinion, the less said, the better.
Mayor Labadie stated that this came about because of complaints during the last election. She
explained that she would like this ordinance to get to the point where anyone can understand it
clearly. She stated that she feels the current language was not easily understood, which is where
• Councilmember Callies explanation that 'less is more' would be beneficial.
Councilmember Siakel asked what the specific complaints were and suggested that perhaps the
discussion needed to focus on those specific areas. She stated that if the goal is to simplify it and
make it easily understood, she would say that saying something has to be five feet from an
'improved road surface' is probably confusing for most people.
Public Works Director Brown stated that they did check on some signs based on complaints that
were received and explained that all the complaints they received were based on setback
concerns. He stated that he thinks road surface is adequate language and is easy for anyone to
check.
Planning Director Darling stated that during the last election, the City had complaints in two
different areas of the City where signs were placed so close to the road and in such number that
the callers were frustrated by having an overwhelming amount of signs right up to the street. She
explained that in previous years the complaints were, in general, about too much signage and
noted that what the City can enforce, is setbacks.
Councilmember Johnson stated that he did not see any regulations for overall non - commercial
speech signs size. Planning Director Darling explained that during the election period, the City is
not allowed to regulate the size of signs or the number of signs. Mayor Labadie suggested that
the Council take a look a defining the edge of the road and determine how far back they would
like to go.
Councilmember Callies stated that based on the discussion, she feels the Council has consensus
• to have signs be allowed five feet from the edge of pavement. Public Works Director Brown noted
CITY OF SHOREWpOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 20 2
Page 4 of 6
that the City has t ree gravel roadways so there may need to be some provision made for those.
He stated that if a roadway is unimproved then it would be from the edge of the aggregate
surface. Council ember Callies stated that she believes the Council also had consensus on
allowing one -hun ed days for other types of elections, such as school board.
Councilmember
a good time to al
most of the state
setback and allov
sense, although
substitution claus
addressed the cc
signs outside of tl
put up any kind c
that he feels this
commercial signs
he believes it is i
would ask that th
significant way b(
is, is unfathomab
has raised the is
prohibits signs in
does not allow sig
can put up signs
with signs and ex
it a misdemeanor
Mayor Labadie
comments on r
3kel noted that she sees Mr. Yelsey's hand raised and stated that this may be
w public input. Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, stated that he agrees with
ents made by Councilmember Callies. He stated that he feels the five foot
ig one - hundred days for elections other than the State mandated ones makes
would prefer a three foot setback. He stated that he does not like the
and does not feel it is stated dearly. He stated that the Council has not yet
cern that caused many citizens to be unhappy which was what happens to
election period. He stated that there is no language that clearly says you can
signs that you want, in your lawn, with minimal or no restrictions. He stated
> free speech and would suggest that there be language that says for non -
:)utside of the election period, here is what you are able to do. He stated that
:gal for the City to call out holiday signs or illumination of holiday signs and
f be treated as any other non - commercial signage and not to restrict it in any
ause that is also free speech. He reiterated that the substitution clause as it
and would encourage the City to create simple language. He stated that he
ie of right -of -way several times and it is still there because the City actually
ie right -of -way. He stated that the City allows mailboxes and plantings, but
s and suggested that language also be corrected and make it clear that people
the right -of -way with a setback. He stated that theft has also been an issue
ained that he would love to see a clause that addresses that issue and makes
i the City. He stated that the City may also want to limit hate speech.
City Attorney Shepherd or Planning Director Darling to address Mr. Yelsey's
-way, hate speech, theft, holiday signs, and the three foot setback.
Planning Director arling explained that, in general, staff would want to preserve the right -of -way
for the purpose it was created for, which would be things like drainage projects and allow no
private improverni ints. She noted that mailboxes have to be allowed in order to allow for mail
delivery. She stat id that improvements in the right -of -way require permits but signs are generally
not something the City would issue permits for.
Councilmember allies stated that it appears as though non - commercial speech signs are
allowed in the righ -of -way as permitted, which seems to address Mr. Yelsey's concern. Planning
Director Darling a cplained that staff wrote this section to allow them during the election period,
but not at any otl ier time. City Attorney Shepherd stated that Council may want to make a
distinction betwee i non - commercial speech signs during the election period versus others.
Mr. Yelsey stated there is encroachment and right -of -way language included in the Code that
says you cannot i lo what Councilmember Callies just stated can be done. He stated that the
language conflicts and is confusing because it says nothing can be put into a right -of -way other
than a mailbox an landscaping. He stated that most people do not know how large the right -of-
way is on their pr erty from the roadway.
•
City Attorney Sh pherd stated that staff can look at other language that is purported to be
conflicting with th right -of -way provision in the sign ordinance because the City does not want •
CITY OF SHOREWOOD WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2022
Page 5 of 6
• people to be confused about the restrictions or lack thereof. He stated that to address Mr.
Yelsey's comment related to hate speech, that would be considered a content based restriction.
He stated that tonight's discussion certainly addresses the election related provisions of the sign
ordinance but as he noted earlier, there are other provisions of the sign ordinance that need
amendment. He stated that the substitution clause is sort of a preservation clause that is
recommended by the League of Minnesota Cities and preserves the ability of the residents to
have non - commercial signs when there is otherwise conflicting regulations in the Code. He
explained that he thinks it is important to have in the Code, but noted that staff could take a look
at 'wordsmithing' it a bit to make it a bit more clear.
Mayor Labadie asked about the issue related to theft of signs. City Attorney Shepherd stated that
he thinks theft of signs can be prosecuted as any other theft under State law. He stated that theft
is not called out in the Code, but does not think it needs to be in order for it to be prosecuted.
Public Works Director Brown noted that the City has had incidents of theft that the SLMPD has
been involved in and noted that he believes that they were prosecuted as a misdemeanor.
Mr. Yelsey explained that he has had many signs stolen and noted that the owner of the sign is
often the political party and sometimes it is the property owner. He stated that it would be nice to
have a clause in the Code that clearly states it is a misdemeanor just to help preclude people
from doing that. Councilmember Siakel noted that most people who are stealing signs are most
likely not reading City Code. She stated that it will go back to going to the police department and
filing a complaint.
Mr. Yelsey explained that many times it is kids doing the stealing and feels their parents need to
isknow that this is a serious crime and not just fun and games like taking a pumpkin at Halloween.
Guy Sanschagrin, 27725 Island View Road, stated that he would like to touch on theft and
vandalism of signs. He explained that he had many signs stolen and vandalized during the last
election. He stated that he feels it is not just the 'law' but also what is done to communicate,
enforce, and encourage people to follow the law. He stated that he is challenged by complaint
based enforcement. He also gave the example of the Birch Bluff area and noted that he did not
think any of those properties would be able to have signs on them because the hedges are right
along the roadway even with a five foot rule. He stated that he feels Shorewood can do better
than it did during the last election. He stated that it should not just be about enforcement and the
law but should be about everyone coming together as a community to have a fair and just election.
Councilmember Siakel stated that anybody who has run for office has had some situation where
a sign has disappeared and does not think that is unique to one candidate or one election. She
stated that she would encourage people that want things to change, to start with themselves.
Mayor Labadie asked Councilmember Siakel to comment on the comment made regarding
hedges in the Birch Bluff area. Councilmember Siakel stated that she feels the comment made
by Mr. Sanschagrin is probably accurate, which is one of the reasons that she suggested five
feet from the roadway. She explained that ten feet would make it very difficult for anybody on
Birch Bluff and many other streets within the City. She noted that Mr. Yelsey brought up some
points that probably should be discussed and suggested that the Council divide this topic and just
focus on campaign signs tonight and cover the other points at a later time.
Councilmember Callies stated that she agreed that there should be two discussions and that
• tonight can focus on the campaign signs in order for that to be completed prior to the election.
CITY OF SHORI
FEBRUARY 14,
Page 6 of 6
She stated that
date.
Councilmember
belongs in City C
perhaps it is son
discouraged. Me
Report would be
offense. She sta
Code language.
WORK SESSION COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
Council can then deal with the other items that need to be updated at a later •
xham stated that the misdemeanor language does not feel to him like it
le because it is not within their control of how it is enforced. He suggested that
thing that is noted in the Shore Report or the newsletter that theft activity is
r Labadie stated that she also felt a letter in the Sun Sailor and /or on the Shore
good idea to remind people that vandalism and theft of signs is a punishable
i that she feels this may be a more appropriate route than modifying the actual
he asked about the timeline for making these changes_
Planning Directorl Darling stated that she feels that there will be enough time to make these
changes prior tot a election season, if the public hearing is held in April.
3. ADJOU
Siakel moved, Jq ihnson seconded, Adjourning the City Council Work Session Meeting of
February 14, 202 2, at 6:58 P.M.
Roll Call Vote: E iakel, Callies, Johnson, Gorham, and Labadie voted aye. Motion passed 5/0.
ATTEST:
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
•
•
Marie Darting
• From: Alan Yelsey <a.yelsey @gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2022 1:59 PM
To: Dustin Maddy; Ken Huskins; Marc Riedel; cholken @ci.shorewood.mn.us; Todd
Eggenberger; Marie Darling
Subject: Shorewood Sign Ordinance
Hi Planning Commission Members:
I believe on Tuesday you will be considering on your agenda the issue of signs again. I believe with certainty that if any of
you wish to discuss the issue of signs with me, a member of the public, you are encouraged to do so, and speaking
individually with a member of the public is not a violation of Minnesota open meetings laws. It is part of your role as
representatives.
However, not enabling me to fully participate in your Tuesday hearing with Zoom is a violation of Minnesota Human
Rights Laws. I have asked for Zoom as a disability accommodation and the City has received and accepted my request.
Since I am not sure if my electronic participation will be disallowed, which is illegal, I am sending this short email
containing many but not all of my thoughts. There are about 400 residents of Shorewood with various disabilities that
make the Zoom accommodation necessary if they are to physically or safely participate in public hearings.
SIGNS
I agree with a 5 foot setback and I praise and acknowledge Commissioner Eggenberger for his willingness to modify his
•original opinion.
1 agree with the designation of non - commercial signs and the 100 days prior and 10 days following (this includes 46 days
before primary) signage language that is completely consistent with State Election Law. THE LANGUAGE SHOULD
INCLUDE BOTH "SIGNS OF ANY KIND MAY BE POSTED IN ANY NUMBER OR SIZE DURING THE ELECTION PERIOD ".The
State requires no limit on size during the election period.
BUT, THERE REMAIN A FEW MAJOR PROBLEMS THAT WILL NOT RESOLVE THEMSELVES WITHOUT YOUR HELP.
Problem 1) We all see that residents post on their property signs of all kinds: commercial, non - commercial, political,
celebratory, holiday, religious celebration, school activity driven etc. throughout the year. These signs are approved by
the homeowners and are in yards throughout the year. Most residents have absolutely no problem with these signs as
forms of expression protected by free speech. IF THE CITY SIMPLY ADOPTS THE STATE MANDATED TIME PERIOD OF
UNRESTRICTED NON - COMMERCIAL SIGNS DURING THE PROTECTED ELECTION PERIOD, IT IGNORES THE RIGHT OF
CITIZENS TO SMALL UNRESTRICTED NON- COMMERCIAL (AND COMMERCIAL) SIGNS OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTED
ELECTION PERIOD, AND THAT WILL SIMPLY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE OR CONSTITUTIONAL. RESIDENTS PLACE HUNDREDS OF
NON - COMMERCIAL AND COMMERCIAL SIGNS ON THEIR LAWNS OUTSIDE OF THE PROTECTED ELECTION PERIOD. WE
WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY LANGUAGE THAT IGNORES OR RESTRICTS SMALL SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNNECESSARY TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS HOLIDAY SIGNS
There is no legitimate reason for the City to prohibit any "small sign" approved by the owner within the setback limit.
This is already the DEFACTO practice throughout the City and it was without issue until the City decided there is an issue
when no one else believes there is an issue. Period. Commercial or non - commercial, Illuminated or not illuminated.
Religious or non - religious. However, because of State mandate, we can agree that "candidate or political party campaign
signs" follow the state law BUT need not be allowed throughout the year since most residents do not wish to have
campaign signs visible throughout the year for various reasons and restricting those signs has not been successfully
• challenged constitutionally. So, the only exception to leaving people free to do what they wish with small signs of all
kinds on their own property is to exclude campaign /political party signs except during the State protected period and
the 5 foot setback. No ne
for the incoherent and highly restrictive substitution clause. Free speech should be
embraced and supported I
y the City.
Problem 2) As I have presc
ited to the City 3 times, the current City code says NO SIGNS or anything else but mailboxes .
and planting may be place
I in the City right of way. The code says one must seek and pay for a permit to place
something else in the righi
of way. As you know, the right of way generally extends beyond 10 feet from a roadway edge
(sometimes well beyond 11
feet) and residents do now know or understand the right of way metrics in front of their
homes. SO, PUTTING A SIC
WITHIN 5 FEET OF A ROADWAY IS TECHNICALLY ILLEGAL IN SHOREWOOD WITHOUT A PAID
PERMIT. A SIMPLY MODIF
ATION SHOULD ADD THAT SMALL EASILY REMOVABLE SIGNS OF ANY KIND MAY BE PLACED
IN A PROPERTY RIGHT OF I
VAY BEYOND 5 FEET FROM THE ROADWAY AND MAY NEED TO BE MOVED OR REMOVED
WHEN THE CITY HAS WOR
THAT NEEDS TO ACCESS THE RIGHT OF WAY OR NEEDS TO CLAIM THE THAT PORTION OF
RIGHT OF WAY FOR UTIL17
ES.
Commercially zoned prop
protected election period
I am trying to think this tf
small signs outside of the
ARTIFICIAL AND NOWDEP
I hope you will agree and
legal right during the Tue!
Thank you.
Alan
Alan Yelsey
26335 Peach Circle,
612.616.5430 cell
a.veisey @email.com
should also be allowed to place small signs (commercial or non - commercial) during the
also during the year. Many already do this!
as simply and effectively as possible. Let people express themselves through all kinds of
ted election period. WE ALREADY DO AND WILL NOT ACCEPT UNNECESSARY
RESTRICTIONS ON FREE SPEECH.
happy to discuss this with any of you individually. I plan to try to use Zoom which is my
public hearing. I hope to be able to offer my comments then.
MN 55331
u
E
Marie Darling
• From:
Sandie Thone
Sent:
Friday, April 8, 2022 1:37 PM
To:
Marie Darling
Subject:
FW: Violations of State Law
am
From: Alan Yelsey <a.yelsey @gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 11:20 AM
To: Sandie Thone <SThone @ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Greg Lerud <GLerud @ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Debbie Siakel
<DSiakel @ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Patrick Johnson <PJohnson @ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Paula Callies
<pcallies @ci.shorewood.mn.us >; Nathaniel Gorham <NGorham @ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Jennifer Labadie
<ILabadie @ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: Violations of State Law
I am astounded by your continuous blatant disregard for Minnesota Law. Each and every violation
will be brought to the attention of the State and its courts and the media.
1) You deliberately violated State Human Rights Laws by refusing my request and right for
disability accommodation through fully participative Zoom technology at the Planning
•Commission public meeting held on April 5, 2022 and the City Council special meeting held on
April 5, 2022. You will be charged with these and other similar violations, which harm not just me
but many other people who would benefit from Zoom accommodation.
2) You deliberately violated various Constitutional Provisions and State
Laws by refusing to do the following:
STATE LAW SAYS:
"All noncommercial signs of any size may be posted in any number beginning 46 days before the state
primary in a state general election year until ten days following the state general election. Municipal
ordinances may regulate the size and number of noncommercial signs at other times."
The City of Shorewood has refused to include the required language stating there is NO restriction on
the size of signs during the protected election periods. Your language is illegal and does not fully and
legally communicate the state mandate. You must include the exact language from the State ordinance
which includes size without restriction during the protected period.
It is illegal and discriminatory to call out specifically and limit holiday signs. Holiday signs are
constitutionally protected and may contain religious content or intent that may not be restricted or treated
differently than other non - commercial signs. Further, many residents prefer to place holiday lights and
objects on their property for timeframes well beyond 30 days. That is their right.
•You use the terms "public signs" and "temporary signs" without defining them and without
distinguishing them from other public signs or temporary signs. Under general provisions, the language
does not distinguish ordinances in this section from ordinances in other sections directed toward residential
properties. YOU AG
BAN NON - COMMERCIAL SIGNS (depending on the meaning of "public
signs" OUTSIDE OF I
FIE PROTECTED ELECTION PERIOD WHICH IS ILLEGAL,
UNCONSTITUTION
AND WILL PROVOKE OUTRAGE WITHIN THE CITY (see, general •
provisions, 4). FURT
R, (general provision 5a) says "THE TEMPORARY USE OF SIGNS SHALL
REQUIRE A PERMIT
. That language is clearly in conflict with other language and will provoke outrage
when read by the publi
.
Your sign ordinan
language does favor commercial over non - commercial speech, which is
unconstitutional, and r4
n be easily be corrected not with the absurd substitution clause but by allowing
small temporary comm
rcial signs to be placed by homeowners on their property along with non -
commercial signs. Res'
lents place hundreds of commercial signs on their property today without incident.
Finally, you refus (
to alter the language in City code that says NOTHING but mailboxes and plantings
may be placed without
he Right Of Way, when clearly the 5 foot sign distance from roads permits
residents to place signs
in the right of way, if they even knew where their right of way was.
3) Unless y u pause the Smithtown Ponds Project and allow us
to hire at your =1Xpense a 3rd party consultant during your April 25,
2022 Council Meeting, you will be immediately charged with fraud
and malfeasal
reasonable ju:
Alan
Alan Yelsey
612.616.5430 cell
a.yelsey @email.com
26335 Peach Circle,
since there is no environmental, scientific or
ration for the scope, cost and over - engineering.
MN
0
•
Marie Darling
• From: Sandie Thone
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 1:34 PM
To: Marie Darling; Jason Carlson
Subject: FW: Proposed sign ordinance
FYI
From: Craig Parsons <craigaparsons @hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, April 8, 2022 12:32 PM
To: Sandie Thone <SThone @ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: Proposed sign ordinance
Sandie:
I have reviewed the proposed sign ordinance and my initial reaction is that this appears to be a lot of wasted
effort for what I perceive to be a non - problem. To be honest I can't tell in reading this if a "noncommercial
speech" sign is allowed outside of the election periods described. I see no reason to limit these signs at all for
any reason so I oppose this ordinance of that's its intent.
Thanks.
•Craig Parsons
26540 W 62nd
•
Marie Darling
From:
Sandie Thone
Sent:
Wednesday, April 13, 2022 8:53 AM
To:
Marie Darling, Jason Carlson
Subject:
FW: Question about the proposed sign ordinance
Just an FYI.
Have a great day!
Sandie
From: Ashley Shelby <boo
fmoons @gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 20!2
6:28 PM
To: Sandie Thone < SThone
ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: Re: Question abOL
t the proposed sign ordinance
Hi Sandie,
Thank you so mi
ch for clarifying! This helps a lot!
Cheers,
Ashley
•
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 12
53 PM Sandie Thone < SThone @ci.shorewood.mn.us> wrote:
Hi Ashley,
No it is confusing— I am
th you. So the Subdivision (13) Substitution Clause in the Ordinance allows far those types of
signs (Sports team player
r Graduate signs, etc.) to be put into your yard.
I hope that helps!
Have a great dayl
Sandie Thone MHRM,
MCAIC
•
City Clerk /Human Re
urces Director
1
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
• 952.960.7911
sthone,a@ci.shorewood. mn. us
From: Ashley Shelby <bookofmoonsPRmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 202212:24 PM
To: Sandie Thone <SThonePci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: Question about the proposed sign ordinance
Hi Sandie,
• I just read through the proposed ordinance regarding signs and had a quick
question. I'm a little confused about the restrictions on the non - commercial
signs. It seems like signs such as those handed out by Minnetonka High
School sports teams to their varsity players, featuring the school logo, the
sport, and the athlete's name, for families to put in their yards, are falling
under the same umbrella as temporary non - commercial signs, such as
campaign signs, which appear to have specific time restrictions. Would the
signs for sports organizations that are not being displayed at public sports
facilities (such as baseball fields) but are designed to be used by families be
subject to the same time -frame restrictions as campaign signs? I'm assuming
not but because I didn't identify anything specific singling out those kinds of
signs, I was worried they were being swept up with the campaign sign
restrictions. I just didn't see on first glance an exception for that kind of
non - commerical sign, though I did read the section on sports signs in public
areas.
0
►a
Apologies if I'm : -eading this all wrong. I just wanted to touch base before
submitting a corr. ment and wasting everyone's time if I'm commenting on •
something that isn't actually an issue. Thanks!
Ashley Benites
25000 Yellowsto e Trail
www.ashlevshelbv.com
www.ash1eyshe1by.cc m
3
•
u
Marie Darlin
isFrom: Marie Darling
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2022 9:19 AM
To: Kara Widhalm
Subject: RE: Question on proposed Shorewood ordinance relating to signs
•
No, they are not subject to the time restrictions for election signage, but they will be subject to the five foot setback
from property lines and any other restrictions on the signs that they replace.
wave DadtWP
Planning Director
952- 960 -7912
mdarlino@ci.shorewood. mm us
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
MN Data Practices Notification: Pursuant to MN Data Practices Chapter 13 all government data including email
communications is presumed to be public unless there is a specific state statute, federal low, or temporary classification
that classifies it otherwise.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us
From: Kara Widhalm <ksflook @gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 9:19 PM
To: Marie Darling <MDarling @ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: Re: Question on proposed Shorewood ordinance relating to signs
Hello Ms. Darling,
Thank you for your reply and the updated information on this amendment. It is very helpful to understand the context
of this amendment, including the need to update the ordinance to conform with the supreme court decision.
Will non - commercial signs that are unrelated to elections /campaigns still be subject to the timing restrictions listed in
(1)(d)(i), which were time periods related to election days?
•Thank you -- I really appreciate your help.
Kara
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 9
Sorry for the delay in
The campaign signs am
be back at the Planning
is a small targeted amei
in Shorewood's code pr
a few years back.
Public, integral and holi(
changing, so they aren't
AM Marie Darling <MDarlineCdci.shorewood.mn.us> wrote:
ng, I didn't get a copy of your email. •
ents are not scheduled to be discussed at the City Council meeting on April 25. They will
nission on May 3 for public hearing and likely forwarded to the City Council on May 9. This
it to specifically correct conflicting language within the current campaign sign regulations
the next election and to add a substitution clause to conform to a Supreme court decision
signs are defined in the zoning regulations (1201.02 of City Code). These definitions are not
uded in the ordinance amendments.
The definition of non-comi
iercial speech is purposely broad to allow signs for many types of messages that are not
commercial in nature, inch
ding high school graduation signs, dance signs, athletic association signs, positions on social
issues, etc. Shorewood's ci
irrent regulations do not specifically allow for noncommercial speech signs. A decision in a
Supreme Court case a few
lears back requires all cities to allow non - commercial speech signs for any other allowed
sign in a zoning district. T
City is adding a substitution clause to conform to that ruling and allow anyone to put up a
noncommercial speech sig
i in lieu of any other signs that are already allowed including, but not limited to, "owner
occupant signs" or "holida
signs ".
•
Holiday signs are not a prc
3osed addition to the code, they are already specifically allowed. They are signs no greater
than 32 square feet that ai
e allowed to be placed for 30 days in recognition of any federal, state or local holiday.
A copy of your letter and
me know if you have any
Planning Director
952- 960 -7912
response will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Please let
er questions.
•
City of Shorewood
• 5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
•
MN Data Practices Notification: Pursuant to MN Data Practices Chapter 13 oil government data including email
communications is presumed to be public unless there is a specific state statute, federal low, or temporary classification
that classifies it otherwise.
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
www.ci.shorewood.mn.us
From: Kara Widhalm <ksflook @¢mail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 6:59 PM
To: Planning <plannin¢@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Sandie Thone <SThone @ci.shorewood.mn.us>
Subject: Fwd: Question on proposed Shorewood ordinance relating to signs
Hello,
I never received an answer to my email below
Thank you,
Kara Widhalm
---- - - - - -- Forwarded message --- - - - - --
• From: Kara Widhalm <ksflook @amail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2022, 17:30
Subject: Question on prop sed Shorewood ordinance relating to signs
To: <sthone @cishorewoo .mn.us>
Dear Ms. Thone,
I reviewed the redlined ordinance regarding signs that is to be discussed at the April 25 City Council meeting and have a
few questions: I
1. "Public signs" and "integ }al signs" are not clearly defined in this ordinance; is there a definition available for these
terms? I
2. The definition of "nonc mercial speech" signs appears to be broad enough to include signs expressing support for
an idea, group (e.g. sports earn) or individual not running for political office or related to elections. Is this correct?
3. Why would "noncommercial speech" signs that are unrelated to elections be subject to timing restrictions related to
election events? I
4. What constitutes a "holi flay sign "?
Thank you for your time aril your assistance.
Kara Widhalm
---- - - - - -- Forwarded messai
From: City of Shorewood
Date: Fri, Apr 8, 2022, 10:C
Subject: Shorewood ordin;
To: <ksflook @email.com>
relating to signs
4
•
•
•
John Amst
• From: John Amst 0ohn(damst.net] L2LLL��REWOor) AY :i 2 ZOZ2
Sent Monday, May 02, 2022 12:06 PM
To: 'John Amst' Cc: Pat Amst
Subject: Comments regarding Revision of Sign Ordinance did we send this in
Ms. Thone / City Clerk and Council.
Per the request for submission of comments regarding the revised sign ordinance, below are
our concerns / comments
regarding the proposed red -line version included in the Council packet.
First, please know that we support a revision of the ordinance to reflect and clarify the current
management of sinage within our city.
For council consideration:
1. Assigning specific time - frames to a duration signs may be installed implies there is
oversight.
•How will the city track those time frames, such as 30 days? Will there be a process in
place?
How will instances of non - compliance be handled?
Who will be responsible for consistent enforcement?
2. Which category do garage sale, neon foam Red -Cap Boy with "drive slow' flag, "drive
like your kids live here" signs or "graduate" signs, among others fall?
3. Will the City automatically remove any signs in violation, of the ordinance, in a timely
manner?
4. Has a process been defined as to how this ordinance will be enforced? That is, who will
be accountable for enforcement and oversight?
5. What step will be taken for resident education regarding the changes and process for
enforcement?
Again, we support the changes and the enforcement of this improved ordinance.
Our questions are based on years of experience with signs placed in the roadways as personal
•attempts to impede or calm traffic (while literally being plowed and swept around), decrepit
garage sale signs sitting week after week, personal signs placed close to the streets, instructing
drivers how to beha
enforcement. None
Thank you for forwa
John & Patricia Arnst
5480 Teal Circle
coupled with a resident's inability to "inspire" any city action toward
this contributes to the beauty or overall living standards of the city.
ing this information to the council.
•
•
•
r':FU 0 r YUZL
Dear Council Members and Members of the Planning Commission,
I am a Shorewood resident and am unable to attend the May 3rd Planning Commission meeting, as
well as the May 9th council meeting regarding the proposed changes to the sign ordinance.
However, I would like to voice my opposition to the changes and ask that my letter be included in
the agenda packet. I have also sent a copy of my letter, to members of the City Council, as well as
Mayor Labadie.
Any restriction on speech, no matter its scope, should be undertaken with trepidation and great
reluctance. This reluctance is a foundational feature of our democracy- -both at the national level and
within our own communities. When we propose such restrictions to speech, there must be a
compelling reason to do so. I believe this is a value most Americans share, regardless of political
affiliation. I do not believe the City has demonstrated any compelling reason for an invasive
government regulation to its citizens' right to express themselves. That failure is deeply troubling to
me. I have read that "distraction" has been floated as a reason for these proposed changes, yet
residents of Shorewood have not been presented with any accident studies showing that signs in the
right -of -way cause distracted driving. Are such studies available from our local police department or
other public safety agency? Are there a significant number of instances where drivers swerved off
the road, caused an accident, drove through a stop sign, or couldn't see well enough to execute a
driving manuever safely? If so, we have not been given an opportunity to examine that data.
Is appearance a reason for these changes? Do city officials not like the way non - commercial signs
look? As public servants who have dedicated your careers to democratic governance, I am sure you
• know that one of the hallmarks of American democracy is that it is wonderfully messy --mot cannot
and should not be sanitized.
I maintain that the city has shown no compelling reason for this sign ordinance change, and I think
this lack of justification should give the members of the Planning Commission, as well as the
members of the City Council pause, particularly if they believe, as I trust they do, that the role of
local government is not to impede speech and citizens' tight to enjoy their community, but to
facilitate it. Restrictions to speech and other foundational rights often come in the form of these
kinds of changes, which is why it is so important to examine the language and the reasoning of this
proposed ordinance change so closely.
Based on the language, which is exceedingly opaque, the restrictions seek to sweep all non-
commercial signs under the same umbrella as campaign signs. Because there is no language
differentiating campaign signs from other non - commercial signs, something that feels intentional,
citizens will have their freedom of expression curtailed in a substantial manner. This ordinance
would in many circumstances make a "Bee - Friendly Yard" a violation. No 'Black Lives Matter"
signs. No "I Support Ukraine" signs. No "I Support Our Police" signs. The City indicates that these
rules will apply only to right -of -way, but it is obvious to anyone who drives through our wonderfully
varied community that many, many homeowners use the tight -of -way for their signs because their
homes are built very close to the street or behind privacy fences. Taking away their right to put non-
commercial signs on the tight -of -way would essentially deprive them of that avenue of speech while,
at the same time, other homeowners, whose homes are set farther from the road, would enjoy this
• avenue with more freedom. This non - uniform impact of the ordinance on Shorewood citizens is
another problematic feature.
So the question
•
Further, this kind
of ordinance could lead to the same difficulties communities across the country
have experienced
in the uneven enforcement of the ordinance, based on the political and social
leanings of the er
forcernent agents. For example, in Selah, Washington, the city was sued for
selectively remov
ng Black Lives Matter signs, citing their sign ordinance, but leaving other signs up
that were in viola
'on of the ordinance up tips:; / wwwa aktrinews.com /lawsuit- selah- officials-
removed -si n -s
> >ortin - lac - 've -m r- m -cio -streets/). In fact, I've already seen this
happen in our co
unity --on my street, in fact Black Lives Matter signs were removed from the
public right -of -w
y at the comer of Yellowstone and Country Club Lane, but a homeowner on
Yellowstone was
t1lowed to keep his Trump signs on the right -of -way in front of his house and
across Yellowsto
a on the other right -of -way for the entire 2020 election season. I'm sure the
opposite can hap
oen as well.
So the question
comes: Can the city commit to fair, consistent enforcement of this restrictive
ordinance? What
steps will it take to ensure fair enforcement? Will it rely only on complaints or will
it have agents deAicated
to monitoring city streets and removing signs that are in violation of the
ordinance? If the
City chooses only relies on complaints from citizens, then it seems to me the
ordinance
is unnecessary, since it is clearly not an important enough violation for the city to
proactively enfor
e. As you can see, even just engaging in this hypothetical question is enough to
reveal how untie(
essay and burdensome this new restrictive language is. Fait and consistent
enforcement, wh
ch seems to me to be the way the ordinance could legally be enforced, would place
a substantial enfc
rcement burden on the City, likely require an employee to enforce it I have seen
no information fi
tim, the City that it plans to assign enforcement duties to a city employee. Again,
we go back to thi
likelihood of uneven enforcement, which may open the City up to legal action, •
such as what unf
olded in Selah, Washington. As public servants, you must know that issues relating
to restriction of
eech are highly litigious in comparison to other issues, and could potentially cost
the City (and
ayers) money in lawsuits.
I also ask you to
onsider how vague, and therefore broad, the definition of "non - commercial signs"
is here. Election
s are lumped in with non - election related signs. Further, the lack of definition
leaves certain sig
Ls open to the subjective interpretation of —who, I'm not sure. For example, some
people think BIa
lives Matter signs are election - related when to other people the sign is a literal
statement of fact
like The Sky is Blue. If there is an interpretation aspect, then human judgment
comes into play,
nd when human judgment comes into play, biases, opinions, and preferences
motivate decisio
making and enfotcement Again, I go back to the why - -why is this ordinance
necessary? Why
uld the city feel that restricting speech, even under the guise of setbacks and
"keeping the roa
ays clear," is of such import that it must be codified but not important enough to
have an employe
dedicated to enforcing it? Why would the individuals who wrote the ordinance
choose to be so
oad in their definitions of non - commercial signs? What is the justification? And
are the changes '
portant enough to be worth the potential trouble they cause?
I drive past signs that bother me every single day. During election season, I drove past that house on
Yellowstone that had Trump signs in the right-of-way. I knew the homeowner was in violation of
the existing orclit ance. However, I did not call it in to complain. It would never have occurred to me
to do so, as I ha zero interest in curtailing that individual's right to speech. Further, I had zero
chance of driviN off the road because I saw the sign. Seeing it did not affect my ability to safely
drive. •
• In summation, I believe this ordinance is unnecessary and deeply problematic. If passed, I suspect it
will create headaches for the City, and for taxpayers, for years to come, as people in the community
fight for their right to express themselves without being unduly limited by governmental bodies. I
ask as you contemplate this sign ordinance that you think about whether you have been given a truly
compelling reason for the proposed changes, and whether those reasons rise to the very high
standard required by any restriction on speech in this country. Curtailing your constituents' right to
freely express themselves within the community itself should be something done only in the most
extraordinary of circumstances, such as imminent danger. There is no imminent danger in a non-
commercial sign. There is great danger in restricting speech, even or especially when it is presented
as minor or "common -sense changes." As I said earlier, restrictions to speech and other
foundational rights often come in the form of these kinds of minor - seeming changes but
fundamentally erode our rights. I urge you, as guardians of our local democracy, to be vigilant in
protecting those rights. They're your rights, too.
I'm very grateful to have been given the opportunity to express my thoughts.
Ashley Benites
25000 Yellowstone Trail
•
•
ORDINANCE 588 •
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
VOOD CITY CODE CHAPTER 1201 (ZONING REGULATIONS)
RELATED TO SIGNS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA, ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: AM NDMENT. That the Municipal Code of Shorewood, Minnesota, Chapter
1201 Section 1201.01 (Definitions), is hereby amended as set forth below by adding the
underlined languabe and deleting the strikethreugh language as follows:
1201.02
+.s
sss
rr•
*ss
SECTION 2: A
1201, Section 1
underlined lang
Section 1201.03
trw
b.
IDMENT. That the Municipal Code of Shorewood, Minnesota, Chapter
03 Subd. 11. (Signs), is hereby amended as set forth below by adding the
and deleting the siriket#reugh language as follows:
11 Signs.
' and prohibited signs.
•
\J
• (1) Permirredsigns. The following signs are allowed without a permit, but shall comply
with all other applicable provisions of this chapter:
•
•
(a)
Public signs;
(b)
Address signs;
(c)
Integral signs;
21 1B.045. Signs pested both dufing and after this time peried are subjeet t6
all Other ftpplieOble FeqU rements On this ...d.. iyis:et. At a t;t..e the eity
shall have the right te remeve signs that are prehibited under this subdivisiefl,
and assess a fee as pFe.:ded from t, to fifne by OFdinanee !`e....paign signs
ethernoncemmere veh signs shall net be located elesef than ten Feet f fem
any st_eet suFfaee and ..hall ..et be plaeed in ffent of any .repo...y without the
(d) Temporary noncommercial speech signs, subject to the following;
(i) Signs may be posted in any number or size during the following times:
A. State general election years: 46 days before a state primary until ten
days following the state general election pursuant to MS. § 211B.045.
Code or closer than five feet from the street, as measured from:
A. The curb of apavedroedway
B. The Mod street surface for those Mem without cabs or shoulders
The edw of due agg ate surface for wavel streets or Those paved streets with
improved gavel shoulders.
(e) Holiday signs, displayed for a period not to exceed 30 days and no larger than
32 square feet in area;
(f) Construction signs. The signs shall be confined to the site of the construction,
alteration or repair and shall be removed within two years of the date of
issuance of the first building permit or when the particular project is
completed, whichever is sooner as determined by the City Building Official or
his or her agent. One sign shall be permitted for each major street the project
abuts. No sign may exceed 50 square feet;
(g) Real estate sale or rental signs. Signs must be removed within 14 days after sale
or rental of property. Signs may not measure more than six square feet in
Residential Districts, nor more than 20 square feet in all other districts. There
shall be only one sign per premises. Comer properties, however, may contain
two signs, one per frontage. Lakeshore lots may contain two signs, one in the
rent and one facing the lake; •
(h) nformational /directional signs shall not be larger than three square feet and shall
onform to the location provisions of the specific district;
(i) wner- occupant signs. One residential name sign, not to exceed two square feet
n area, identifying only the name of the owner or occupant of a residential
c. General
(1) All s+ns shall comply with the Minnesota State Building Code as maybe amended.
(2) Whet electrical signs are installed, the installation shall be subject to the State
Buil ng Code as may be amended.
(3) No p4rtion of any sign shall be located within five feet of any property line, except as
pe -rm ted in h. (1lbofthis subdivision.
{34(Aj_No signs other than er.:t,= mental -public signs and pelitwal earnpaiyii
11011c( mmgrcial speech signs as provided in b.(1)(d) of this subdivision, shall be
erect or temporarily placed within any street right -of -way, er upon public lands,
or ea ements of rights -of —way. Any unauthorized signs located in public right -of-
way c r on public property shall be considered abandoned and are subjecttoimmediate
remo al and disposal without notice. •
t4a(s) Te wary signs.
(a) a temporary use of signs, searchlights, banners, pennants and similar devices
all require a permit. The permit shall be valid for ten consecutive days. The
tmit shall be prominently displayed during the period of validity. Only two
t mporary permits may be granted for any property within any 12 -month
riod. Temporary signs shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. Any new
siness that has applied for its permanent business sign may, at the same time,
ply for a temporary business sign to be displayed for no longer than 30 days,
until the permanent sign has been erected, whichever comes first. The
t mporary business sign shall be professionally prepared and shall be no larger
t ian the approved permanent sign.
(b) A conditional use permit may be granted to nonprofit athletic associations,
contracted with the city pursuant to Section 902.06 of this code, for the display
temporary business sponsorship signs to be placed on certain ball field
nces on public property, provided that:
i) A nonprofit athletic association under contract with the City may display
signs only on facilities that have been reserved for its use;
ii) Signs may be displayed only in a community park, as defined in the
Shorewood Comprehensive Plan;
iii) Signs may be displayed only on outfield fences, facing into the ball
field, and situated so as to minimize view of the signs from adjacent
residential properties;
•
E
•
•
(iv) All signs must be professionally made, using durable weather resistant
material, painted or colored dark green on the back side of the sign;
(v) Signs are limited in size to no larger than 42 inches in height and seven
feet in length;
(vi) There shall be a minimum spacing between signs of seven feet;
(vii) The maximum number of signs per ball field is 15;
(viii) The nonprofit athletic association is responsible for maintaining the
signs in good repair. If a sign become detached, torn, or vandalized, the
association must repair or replace them immediately or the sign will be
summarily removed by the city;
(ix) The nonprofit athletic association is responsible for any damage to the
fence on which it is displayed that is caused by installation or display of
the sign;
(x) The conditional use permit is subject to review and recommendation by
the Shorewood Park Commission;
(xi) The nonprofit athletic association must obtain an annual license from the
city and enter into a license agreement setting forth the conditions of
approval and the duration of the approval. The association shall pay an
annual license fee as established by the City Council from time to time.
The association shall have no vested right in obtaining licenses from
season to season; and
(xii) It shall be the responsibility of the nonprofit athletic association to
obtain a temporary sign permit for each sign to be displayed on ball field
fences, prior to erecting the sign.
(so) No sign or sign structure shall protrude over a public right -of -way, except as
Mrmi tied in h_ ( I ) (d) of this subdiN ision
(67) All signs which require a permit shall display, in a conspicuous manner, the
owner's name, permit number and date the sign was erected.
(7_8) All height restrictions on signs shall include height of sign structure and be
measured from lot grade.
(89) In the case of a two- faced, freestanding sign, where the two faces of the sign are
parallel and face in opposite directions, only one face shall be used in computing
the allowable area of the sign.
(01g)Any sign now or hereafter existing which no longer advertises or identifies a
business conducted, service rendered or product sold on the premises shall be
removed by the owner, agent or person having the beneficial use or control of the
building or structure upon which the sign may be found within 60 days from the
date of vacancy.
(101 1) The regulations contained herein shall not apply to traffic signs or the flag,
separate emblem, or insignia of a nation, political unit, school or religious group, or
integral signs. There shall be no more than one United States flag and no more than
three other non - commercial flags. Nor shall these regulations pertain to a sign
inside a building, provided the sign is at least three feet in back of the inside of the
exterior wall and is readable from the inside of the building.
(1) 12) All signs requiring a permit from the city shall be subject to review and approval
by the Zoning Administrator.
I( 3)
newspape
ADOPTED BY TF
day of May, 2022.
ATTEST:
SANDIE
This Ordinance shall take effect upon publication in the City's
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA this 91"
CITY CLERK
0
JENNIFER LABADIE, MAYOR •
•
• RESOLUTION 22 -047
CITY OF SHOREWOOD
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
STATE OF MINNESOTA
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PUBLICATION OF
ORDINANCE 588 REGARDING CITY CODE ORDINANCE
AMENDMENTS RELATED TO CAMPAIGN AND
NONCOMMERCIAL SPEECH SIGNS
WHEREAS, at a duly called meeting on May 9, 2022, the City Council of the City of
Shorewood adopted Ordinance No. 588 entitled "AN ORDINANCE APPROVING
AMENDMENTS TO SHOREWOOD CITY CODE CHAPTER 1201 (Zoning Regulations)
RELATED TO SIGNS "; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted a lengthy ordinance amending City Code Chapter
1201 which amends definitions and regulations for campaign and non - commercial speech
signs, and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this summary is to inform the public of the intent and effect of
the ordinance but to publish only a summary of the ordinance with the full ordinance being
on file in the office of the City Clerk during regular office hours and available on the city's
website;
• NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SHOREWOOD:
The City Council finds that the above title and summary of Ordinance No. 588 clearly
informs the public of the intent and effect of the Ordinance.
The City Clerk is directed to publish Ordinance No. 588 by title and summary, pursuant
to Minnesota Statutes, Section 412.191, Subdivision 4. Such summary is to be
substantially the same as the attached form.
A full copy of the Ordinance is available at Shorewood City Hall and on the city's
website.
ADOPTED by the Shorewood City Council on this 911 day of May, 2022.
Attest:
Sandie Thone, City Clerk
\J
Jennifer Labadie, Mayor