PCAgenda_08Apr22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

j~AGUE o~ CONNECTING & INNO'V'ATING • j~/~INNESOfiA SINGE 1913 CITIES REGULATING DYNAMIC SIGNAGE Executive summary Cities have authority and responsibility to regulate dynamic signs as appropriate for each community. There is no single correct approach to regulation. Because the regulation of signs involves the First Amendment, courts hold sign regulations to a higher standard than most land use regulations. Cities still have considerable discretion to regulate, as long as they do so reasonably and without regard to sign content. Introduction In the fall of 2006, a number of Minnesota cities were surprised by the appearance of large electronic billboards akin to giant television screens. These signs are the next generation of sign displays with the ability to feature changing images and movement-known collectively as dynamic signs. Attempts to regulate them resulted in litigation in at least one community- Minnetonka. In developing a regulatory response, Minnetonka partnered with the League of Minnesota Cities to commission a study, conducted by SRF Engineering, on the impact of such • dynamic signs on traffic safety. This memorandum discusses the legal framework of regulating dynamic signage in light of the recent litigation and study. Regulatory framework While the federal and state government can enact and have enacted laws regulating signs, those regulations only provide minimum standards. Courts have explicitly recognized that cities have the ability to regulate signs, including dynamic signs, more restrictively. There is no uniform system of regulation that cities must follow. Each community is different and has different needs that local ordinances may reflect. Such regulations must meet the same basic legal tests for all sign regulation. Most city land use decisions get a very deferential standard of review known as rational basis review. Under this level of review, city decision will be upheld if they have any rational basis. Because sign regulations implicate free speech rights which are protected by the First Amendment, they are subjected to higher levels of scrutiny. The highest level of scrutiny, called strict scrutiny, applies when government tries to regulate based on the content of speech. The only content-based sign regulation that courts have upheld is treating off-premise signs (billboards) differently than on-premise signs that advertise the business on the same property. One distinction that may seem like it is content based, but our federal court of appeals has said is • not, is a ban on dynamic signs with an exception for time and temperature displays. The court held LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES iss vHn-~srnr~vE.wfar rya t651) ~S1-100 e+u~ {bs1) ~i iz9e INSURANCE TRUST a~ r~-uk ~ a~sa~a---~o~ ~ou.~ tBtx~I ~-11~ w~wwwla~co~