Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Signs topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates temporary-sign rules and enforcement; staff to draft targeted revisions
Summary
Council discussed enforcement challenges under the recent sign ordinance and directed staff to draft focused temporary-sign changes (for example, limiting the number of temporary signs per intersection) and to review a Little Falls ordinance as a model.
After extensive council discussion, Dayton staff were asked to draft targeted changes to the city’s temporary-sign rules and to review other municipalities’ approaches.
Councilmembers described recurring problems with weekend placement of multiple temporary signs—developer signs, event signs and private signs—particularly at major intersections. Several councilmembers said enforcement under the existing ordinance is administratively difficult and can appear arbitrary if staff act on some signs but not others. One member noted legal constraints on regulating sign content and suggested limiting regulation to size, number, and placement.
Staff suggested several options: (1) adjust off-premise sign allowances and tie event advertising to a permitting process; (2) allow development agreements to limit builder signage on public rights-of-way; and (3) consider a short-term suspension of strict enforcement while the council considers rule changes. Council directed staff to review Little Falls’ sign ordinance (a model that had withstood legal challenge) and to prepare a simpler temporary-sign amendment for council consideration. No formal ordinance change was adopted at the meeting.
Council indicated a preference for a narrow, implementable change—examples discussed included limiting temporary signs to one per intersection per developer or creating an event-permit structure for off-premise advertising. Staff said they will return with draft language and enforcement recommendations for council review and public hearing.
