Laserfiche WebLink
10. Create a specific license for the installation of dynamic signage, with an <br />agreement form for the applicant to sign agreeing to the regulations for <br />operation. This clause includes permission for the City to arrange interruption <br />of electrical service to the sign in the event of a violation. We believe that this <br />will facilitate enforcement of violations more effectively than the general <br />ordinance enforcement. <br />In addition to these elements, there are a few items in the Minnetonka ordinance that <br />we have intentionally not included. <br />Self-contained messages. Minnetonka created a specific limitation saying that <br />individual message displays must be self-contained, and not dependent upon the next <br />message to complete the communication. This is probably not necessary with a longer <br />display interval (it is probably not necessary even at the 20-minute interval chosen by <br />Minnetonka). As such, we have not included that language. <br />Limitation to freestanding signs. We did not include this limitation in the drat ordinance. <br />Wall signage in Little Canada is limited based on the size of the building wall. With a <br />minimum 10 inch letter size, it would appear that few wall signs would accommodate <br />these types of signs. However, if one were to be proposed, it would not seem to be <br />incompatible with the sign regulations so long as the other requirements (such as the <br />Architectural Guidelines) were met. <br />Limitation on percentage of sign area. We did not include this limitation, based on our <br />recommendation that the display is allowed to change only once per day. If the sign is <br />permitted to change more often, this limitation may be applicable. <br />Other SIAn Ordinance Changes. Apart from the electronic sign regulations, we have <br />reviewed the sign ordinance for its general consistency with accepted allowances for <br />regulation of signs. Recent conflicts have highlighted the potential that some <br />ordinances have shown in regulating content, a highly suspect area of regulation. <br />There appear to be five potential areas in Little Canada's ordinance that might raise <br />these concerns. <br />First, the ordinance distinguishes between on-site and off-site signage. This distinction <br />is not uncommon, and should be able to meet any challenges since even though the <br />content of the sign is at issue, off-site advertising clearly creates additional distractions <br />not inherent in general property identification. <br />Second, the ordinance regulates "Holiday signs", primarily from the standpoint of <br />allowing them in excess of the basic sign regulations. Since the regulations do not <br />permit any site identification -they are restricted to a holiday message only -these <br />signs may be subject to some challenge based on the idea that the City is allowing <br />signage by content. As such, we would recommend that these be redefined as "Holiday <br />displays" and allowed outside of the sign regulations. <br />Third, the ordinance regulates real estate signage by permitting additional signs on a <br />property related to sale or rental of real estate. Again, this is a content-based regulation <br />that would not permit other signs on similarly-situated properties. We have suggested <br />