12-14-2005 Council Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

There have been a number of responses to this issue in the Twin Cities area. The most common are listed below: 1. On site signage — don't discriminate between commercial and political speech — if the ordinance allows a real estate sign, change the language to allow a generic sign of that size, regardless of message. 2. Other on -site signage — this approach would also be true for informational and /or directional signs. The "least restrictive means" would be to regulate only the size and location, irrespective of the message. 3. Where the City allows off -site signage, the ordinance must NOT discriminate by message. Therefore, if (for example) real estate signs are allowed off -site, the ordinance should arguably have to allow any type of sign message. Again, the "least restrictive means" would be to regulate only the size and location, irrespective of the message. 4. An ordinance may be able to restrict commercial signs to relating to the premises on which they are located, but this type of regulation puts us into the higher level of review. 5. Apply an overall maximum size for any sign — 200 square feet regardless of location, property, etc. Require smaller signs by location, zoning district, street visibility, on- or off -site, etc. This regulation is intended to thwart an over -sized billboard if other regulations are found impermissible by a Court. For Little Canada, the City has a number of categories that a billboard operator such as the one in Hopkins and Eden Prairie might attempt to challenge. Many of the signs listed as "Permitted and Prohibited Signs" in Section 903.110 B.1. classify expressly permitted signs by the content: Public Signs, Identification Signs, Political Campaign Signs, Holiday Signs, Construction Signs, Real Estate Signs, Directional /Informational Signs, Garage Sale Signs. Other potentially content -based signs include "Grand Opening" signs in 903.110.C.11 and "Temporary Outdoor Sales Events" signs in 903.110.C.12 Of particular concern would be Real Estate, Directional, and Garage Sale Sign sections which expressly permit off -site sign locations. The theory from the Hopkins case would be that since the ordinance permits real estate signs to be off -site, but presumably prohibit other types of commercial advertising off -site, the ordinance distinguishes by content, impermissible unless it can meet the test generally described above. It is unlikely that one type of off -site advertisement (House For Sale Pt-) could be justified over another (Used Cars For Sale►). If the City wishes to keep these regulations in place, an effort would be necessary to identify the "compelling interest" at play and the "least restrictive means" of regulating that type of sign. The City Attorney would be key in this effort.