09-13-07 Planning Comm. Agenda - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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