Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
EDA delays sign-ordinance action, asks staff to revive previous draft and business-impact comparison
Summary
EDA members agreed to table a full sign-ordinance review until the next meeting, asked staff to supply the prior draft and a business/code comparison (Dayton vs. neighboring cities), and endorsed retrieving prior EDA work on digital-signage allowances and geography-based differences.
The EDA reopened discussion of the city’s sign ordinance and a proposed Balsam Lane sign design but voted to table substantive action while staff gathers prior drafts and comparative analysis.
What happened: Staff presented two vendor options for a Balsam Lane sign (real brick and faux brick) and noted the city's sign standard. Members then spent an extended period reviewing how the current sign standard differs from an earlier EDA draft and how planning-commission edits changed language, especially around digital signage and highway vs. local rules.
Board direction: The EDA voted to table the sign-ordinance review until the next meeting and asked staff to include the prior EDA draft, the planning-commission version, and a short “business vs. code” comparison showing how a sample of Dayton businesses would be treated under Dayton’s rules and under neighboring cities along the I‑94 corridor.
Why it matters: Members said the issue affects business recruitment and highway-facing frontage (Dayton Parkway/I‑94), and they asked staff to highlight inconsistencies and technology changes since the original draft was prepared.
Next steps: Staff will compile the earlier draft, add a comparison to regional codes (Rogers, Maple Grove, etc.), and include a packet that clarifies where the planning commission made changes. The EDA will revisit the ordinance at its next meeting.
Provenance: topicintro SEG 714 (Balsam Lane sign discussion begins); topfinish SEG 1063 (motion to table and vote).
