Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/06/1999

Home

Z.B. June 10, 1999 -- Page 3 subject to regulations that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommer- cial speech. There was no question Schultz's commercial speech was lawful, and her sign wasn't misleading. It was also clear, though, that the city had a legitimate interest in regulating commercial signs to maintain the nature and character of residential neighborhoods. The appeals court undervalued the relationship between the city's goals and the ban on home-occupation signs. There was no doubt that signs or bill- boards on a person's property, by their very nature, could be considered an aesthetic harm. Unlike oral speech, signs took up space and obstructed views, distracted motorists, displaced alternative uses for land, and posed other legiti- mate problems. The city wasn't concerned about the content of the message on commercial signs; it was concerned about the visual characteristics of such signs. The city left open ample means for home business owners to pass their commercial messages on to consumers by advertising, sending direct mail, or having a sign in a commercial area. The city's ordinance didn't have to be the least restrictive means to achieve its interest, which meant the city didn't have to prohibit all signs from residen- tial areas to support the ban on commercial signs. The types of signs the city allowed in residential areas were consistent with the character of residential neighborhoods, and were different from home occupation signs because they were either noncommercial, informational in nature (such as street signs), or temporary signs (such as garage sale or real estate signs). City of Rochester Hills v. Schultz, Supreme Court of Michigan, No. 110294 (1999). see also: Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 &Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed. 2d 341 (1980). see also: Metromedia Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 101 S. Ct. 2882, 69 L.Ed. 2d 800 (1981). Conditional Use m Company wants to house tigers, cougars, and leopards in agriculture zone MINNESOTA (4/20/99) -- The Center For Endangered Cats ,,vas a for-profit provider of exotic cats, such as tigers, cougars, and leopards, for educational and entertainment purposes. The cats appeared in lectures, theme parks, sports shows, and television programs. The number of cats housed on the premises varied, and at times, the Center had as many as 25 cats. The Center had operated since 1989, but in 1996, it moved to a rural, agri- culturally zoned part of Forest Lake Township. The Center's owners thought the use was permitted because one of the permitted uses in agricultural zones was "Animals--Commercial Training." The township disagreed and told the Center it had to apply for a condi- tional use permit allowing it to operate as a nature center. The Center applied 5/