HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 12-27 SMMAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
4:00 P.M. Thursday, December 27, 2007
Council Chambers, City Hall
Meeting No. 07-23
B. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
1. Acknowledgement of Maplewood Residents Serving the Country
C. ROLL CALL
Mayor's Address on Protocol:
"Welcome to the meeting of the Maplewood City Council. It is our desire to keep all discussions civil as we work through
difficult issues tonight. If you are here for a Public Hearing or to address the City Council, please familiarize yourself with the
Policies and Procedures and Rules of Civility, which are located near the entrance. When you address the council, please
state your name and address clearly for the record. All commentsIquestions shall be posed to the Mayor and Council. I then
will direct staff, as appropriate, to answer questions or respond to comments."
I U :19XV- luel
F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. A. Take from the Table Conditional Use Permit Application of Clear Channel Outdoor for
1790 Gervais Avenue, Tabled on December 10, 2007.
B. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit Resolution for same should it be Taken from
the table
2. Approval of Proposed Budget modifications to the adopted 2008 Budget.
3. Discussion of Dynamic Sign Ordinance Recommendations of Planning Commission and
Community Design Review Board.
G. NEW BUSINESS
1. Advanced Order of Tandem Axle Truck
2. Mayor's Report — No Written Report — No Action Required
Sign language interpreters for hearing impaired persons are available for public hearings upon request.
The request for this service must be made at least 96 hours in advance. Please call the City Clerk's Office at
(651) 249-2001 to make arrangements. Assisted Listening Devices are also available. Please check with the
City Clerk for availability.
F.-I M WIL'It
Following are some rules of civility the City of Maplewood expects of everyone appearing at Council
Meetings - elected officials, staff and citizens. It is hoped that by following these simple rules, everyone's opinions
can be heard and understood in a reasonable manner. We appreciate the fact that when appearing at Council
meetings, it is understood that everyone will follow these principles: Show respect for each other, actively listen to
one another, keep emotions in check and use respectful language.
TO:
Greg Copeland, City Manager
FROM:
Alan K8nLnJd, []tv Attorney
Tom EhStrand, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
Conditional Use Perm it--BiUUboard Height Increase
L{}C/\T|[)N:
1790 Gen/8i8 Court
DATE:
December 18.20O7
Agenda Item F1
Request
Tom McCarver, representing ClearChannel Outdoor, is requesting approval of a
conditional use permit (CUP) to increase the height of an existing billboard from 35 feet
LO50 feet. This billboard iS located along Highway 388t17S0Gerv8isCourt on the
Cooks Body and Mechanical property. Refer to the attachments.
Reason for the Request
In an October 22, 2007 settlement agreement with ClearChannel regarding Dynamic
Display billboards, the city council agreed k} grant S CUP k}C|eaMCh8nn8|k}increase
the height Ofthis billboard to 50 feet. In this agreement, the city council also agreed t0
allow the installation of two LE[) imaging, dynamic display sign ponS|3 on this billboard.
Code Requirement
This request requires 8 CUP for the following reasons:
~
Section 44-8380f the city sign code states that billboard height shoUbe|irnitedho
35 feet unless the city council grants a CUP for increased height.
The billboard is a legal nonconforming sign inLhaLitdOe8nOLn1e8tUl8s8s inQ
requirements: 1)itiS closer than 100 feet tO8 building (Topper VVOrld);2)itiS
closer than 3O0 feet to any part ofGn interchange (the Highway 388ndVVhUB
Bear Avenue inten:hang8);3\iLiS closer than 1O feet t0 the side lot line and; 4)it
ia closer than 10O feet to the on-site pylon sign. The billboard was installed prior
tn the current billboard restrictions and, therefore, i8 considered legal
nonconforming. Code requires 8 CUP to expand Vrenlarge anonc0nfOrnninQ
use.
DISCUSSION
As part of the October 22.2O0ClearCh8nne|Outdoor settlement agreement with the
city council, it was also agreed to amend the city's billboard regulations to allow
dynamic-display sign panels on the subject billboard.
The city council adopted the proposed "Prohibited Signs" 8m8ndnl8ntLVUle Sign
Ordinance 0n December 1O.20O7 and publication was made on December 2O.20U7
which 8||ovxS for inSt8||8UVn of the two dynamic Sign panels per the October 22, 2007
agreement ai179UG8rvai8Court.
COMMITTEE ACTION
December 4.2OO7: The planning commission reviewed this request and voted tOtable
taking 8CtkJO on this matter Unb| after the council adopts 8 dynamic-display sign
ordinance. The Planning Commission proposes that it's review of this proposal is based
upon the adoption Of the Dynamic Display Sign ordinance.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
This item was tabled bv the City Council 0n December 1U
Deadline for City Action
The city's 8O-d8y review period for this proposal was 10 end On January 18.2O08and
was extended by the City Council on December 10, 2007, and notice to the applicant in
writing of an extension Ofbythe City n8vi8vv period under the [GqUinaOlmDtS of State
Statute Section 15.0S was given.
INA
1. Adopt @ motion to Take from the Table the Conditional Use Permit application by
Clear Channel Outdoor for billboard height increase Ed179OG9nxaiSCourt
2. City Council Motion to approve this conditional use permit bv adoption 8fthe
attached resolution specifying the terms and conditions required by City Code
and necessary to implement the City Council Agreement approved on October
22.2OUY with Clear Channel Outdoor.
Attachment 1
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, ClearChannel Outdoor applied for a conditional use permit to increase the
height of one of their existing billboards from 35 feet to 50 feet. This conditional use
permit is also for the expansion of a nonconforming use since the billboard is closer than
1OU feet Lo a building and 3O0 feet k]aninterchange.
WHEREAS, this permit applies to 1790 Gervais Court. The legal description is:
Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 257, Ramsey County, Minnesota.
Subject to those parts embraced within State Highway No. 36 and Gervais Court.
WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows:
1. On December 4, 2007, the planning commission held a public hearing to review
this request. City staff published a notice in the paper and sent notices to the
surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave
everyone at the hearing a chance to speak and present written statements. The
planning commission also considered reports and recommendations of the city
staff.
2. The city council reviewed this proposal and considered the Planning
Commission's action OD December 4,2O07. The council also considered public
testimony from the public hearing, reports and recommendations of the city staff
and those inattendance.
3. The City Council adopted 8n amendment nn December 1U,2U87tV the City's
Sign Code deleting descriptive language which identified "prohibited signs" as
signs that "change iD brightness OrCO|Or."
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above
described conditional use permit because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and operated to be
in conformity with the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of the surrounding
area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, nnGL8h8]S equipment 0rmethods
of operation that would be dangerou3, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or
cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare,
SnnVK8, dVgt, odor, funn8s, water Vrair pV||ution, drainage, water rVn-off,
vibration, gSD8nG| unsightliness, 8|eCtriCG| interference 0r other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would
not create traffic congestion or unsafe aooeSS on existing or proposed streets.
G. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including
Stn8eLS, police and fire prote{tiOn, drainage structures, water and sewer systems,
schools and parks.
7. The use would not cr88L8 excessive additional costs for public facilities or
services.
8. The use vvOu|d nn8xnniz8 the pneG8n/aUVm of and incorporate the site's nadVn8|
and scenic features into the development design.
9. The use would cause nnininn8] adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to compliance with the following conditions (additions are underlined
and deletions are crossed out):
1. The proposed height increase shall follow the approved plan and shall take place
within one year Vf this approval. The city council may extend this deadline one
additional year 8a provided byordinance.
The city shall issue a sign permit b] increase the height ofihisbiUUVard8ndaddihe[wx}
proposed dynamic-display sign panels upon the approval of this Conditional Use Permit
R|8S0|VLi0n.
The Maplewood City Council approved this resolution on 2007.
Agenda Item F1 Attachment
FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGING AND
COMMUNITY CENTER SIGN AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES BY
AND BETWEEN CITY OF MAPLEWOOD AND CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC.
Agreement made this ay of October, 2007 by and between the City of Maplewood
("City ") and Clear Channel O tdoor, Inc., a Delaware corporation ( "Clear Channel ").
WHEREAS, Clear Channel, Inc. acknowledges that it has erected, constructed or
otherwise caused to be operational a "Dynamic Display" sign face (as hereinafter defined) in the
City of Maplewood; and:
WHEREAS, City staff has indicated to Clear Channel that it believes Clear Channel's
dynamic display sign face may be in conflict with a provision of the Maplewood Code; and:
WHEREAS, several cities in Minnesota have studied the effect of Clear Channel's
installation of so- called "Dynamic Displays" and:
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has determined that engaging in litigation regarding
the employment of these "Dynamic Displays" would be counterproductive based on the
experience of other cities similarly situated and which have settled and determined the presence
of such "Dynamic Display(s)" do not constitute a problem; and:
WHEREAS, the City does hereby commit to amend that portion of the Maplewood Sign
(zoning) Code to clarify that off - premise billboards are not prohibited from incorporating a
technology that allows sign surfaces to change their sign faces in color or illumination with
technology that may include illumination manipulated through digital input or other methods that
allow the sign surface to present a series of images or displays that do not blink, flash or flutter
but that do, by definition, change in color and/or illumination; signs that will fit the definition of
"Dynamic Display(s)" as shall be further- defined; and:
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of utilizing Clear Channel's "Dynamic Displays" to
display community and public service announcements; and:
WHEREAS, Clear Channel is agreeable to displaying community and public service
announcements for the City and to further provide the City with a "Galaxy Pro 20mm LED
Display" for the Maplewood Community Center at Clear Channel's sole expense and cost as a
condition precedent to the City council's approval of a "Dynamic Display" ordinance in
conformity with this agreement and respective of Clear Channel's previously activated
"Dynamic Display" located at Highwood and I -494.
Agenda Item F1 Attachment
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Clear Channel agrees to reserve no less than five (5) hours (2250 eight - second
spots) per month per "Dynamic Display" in Maplewood for community and public service
announcements, provided that such announcements cannot be resold and cannot be used by or on
behalf of any for - profit enterprise. The City shall be solely responsible for the design and
development of all advertising copy, which shall be subject to Clear Channel's review and
approval. The City must provide Clear Channel reasonable advance notice for any requested
announcement. Advertising time not used by the City in any month will be forfeited, and will
not carry into another calendar month. Clear Channel shall have discretion to deliver this service
on one or any combination of its "Dynamic Displays." The City may delegate to another
governmental entity a portion of the time for community and public service announcements, but
such delegation shall not make the delegatee a beneficiary of this paragraph or otherwise entitle
that entity to bring an action to enforce this paragraph. Such enforcement rights shall at all times
remain with the City. Clear Channel's obligations pursuant to this paragraph are contingent
upon Clear Channel receiving the permits described in paragraph 3 below.
2. Clear Channel agrees to purchase and install a Galaxy Pro 20mm LED Dynamic
Display for the Maplewood Community Center ( "Galaxy Pro Sign "). The design and
specifications of the Galaxy Pro Sign are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Clear Channel agrees to
purchase and install the Galaxy Pro Sign no later than ninety (90) days after Clear Channel's
receipt of the permits described in paragraph 3 below. Clear Channel agrees to remove and
dispose of the existing City sign located at the Maplewood Community Center. Upon
installation of the Galaxy Pro Sign, Clear Channel shall transfer to the City all warranties
obtained from the manufacturer. The City shall be solely responsible for all messaging
associated with the Galaxy Pro Sign, as well as all maintenance and upkeep. Clear Channel
agrees to provide adequate training for City Staff for operation of the Galaxy Pro Sign, Clear
Channel makes no warranties or representations whatsoever to the City regarding the Galaxy Pro
Sign and the City shall look only to the manufacturer for any claims or causes of action
respecting the Galaxy Pro Sign. Clear Channel agrees to provide the City with a - W_ year,
maintenance contract for the Galaxy Pro Sign upon installation. Clear Channel's obligations
pursuant to this paragraph are contingent upon Clear Channel receiving the permits described in
paragraph 3 below.
3. It is the City's intention to proceed with a revision to the Maplewood Code
clarifying that Dynamic Displays are not prohibited. It is Clear Channel's intention to proceed
with applications for sign permits for three (3) additional Dynamic Display sign faces, one being
located on the structure at Highwood and 1 -494 and two being located on the existing structure at
Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue. Clear Channel's application for the permits for the
structure at Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue will require the City to grant conditional use
permits to increase the 35 foot height limitation in the Code to 50 feet. The permit applications
will also require that the Dynamic Display signs be permitted to change no more frequently than
once every 8 seconds operating up to 24 hours a day every day of the year.
4. Clear Channel agrees to incorporate its "Dynamic Display(s)" in Maplewood into
the State of Minnesota's "Amber Alert" network, and to operate such Dynamic Displays under
2
Agenda Item F1 Attachment
the same "Amber Alert" terms generally in place between Clear Channel and the State of
Minnesota's Department of Public Safety, which currently provides that Clear Channel will post
timely messages within its digital display network in the applicable area.
5. Upon adoption of the amendment to the City's Sign Code clarifying that Dynamic
Displays are not prohibited in the City of Maplewood, Clear Channel and the City agree to abide
by the following standards and procedures regarding the brightness and illumination on Clear
Channel's "Dynamic Displays" (Signs) in the City of Maplewood:
a. No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility.
b. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a
motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with
the driver's operation of motor vehicle.
C. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
d. All "Dynamic Display(s)" operated by Clear Channel must be equipped
with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness in response to
ambient conditions. The signs must also be equipped with a means to
immediately turn off the display or lighting if it malfunctions and the sign
owner or operator must immediately turn off the sign or lighting when
notified by the City that it is not complying with the standards in this
section.
e. The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from
one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special
effects.
f The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves,
without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any
other sign.
6. The City agrees it will not enforce against Clear Channel any future ordinance,
rule, regulation or other law which limits the right of Clear Channel to operate its hereinbefore
described "Dynamic Display(s)" consistent with the terms of this Agreement, except to the
extent such future ordinance, rule, regulation or other law reasonably relates to safety.
7. The City further agrees that upon execution of this Agreement and performance
on the part of Clear Channel, pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Agreement, the City will not pursue
any action, criminal or civil, against Clear Channel for the operation of its sign face currently
being operated at Highwood and I -494 within the City of Maplewood.
8. This Agreement, including all rights and obligations provided for herein, shall be
binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties, whether by way of merger, consolidation,
operation of law, assignment, purchase or other acquisition, including subsequent purchasers
from Clear Channel. 9. The City and Clear Channel reserve all rights, remedies and
defenses regarding "Dynamic Display" signage should the City not grant to Clear Channel the
permits referenced in paragraph 3 above. In such event, the City shall be allowed to pursue any
remedies available to it and Clear Channel shall be allowed any defenses available to it. This
Agenda Item F1 Attachment
Agreement shall not be used to establish or defend any legal action related to the operation of
Clear Channel's existing "Dynamic Display" should the City not revise its Ordinance as
indicated above.
City of Maplewood
By:
Its. I' l
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.,
a Delaware corporatio
B �
Its: Y(
0
Agenda Item F1
DRAFT
a MAI = a i W 0 1 44,10101 a 1!1 0
oll=
a. Conditional Use Permit— Clear Channel Outdoor Billboard Height Increase (1790 Gervais Ct.)
Senior Planner Tom Ekstrand presented the staff report.
Commissioner Trippler suggested tabling this item for review until the dynamic sign code
amendment is adopted by the city council and it is known how the code will be modified.
Commissioner Hess agreed with Mr. Trippler's suggestion to table. Mr. Hess said the sign's
size and location on the freeway entrance of Highway 36 is a safety issue.
Commissioner Boeser said this item is scheduled for consideration by the city council at the
same meeting the dynamic sign code amendment is being considered by the council. Mr.
Boeser suggested the sign code amendment should be scheduled for consideration before the
conditional use permit request.
Commissioner Desai said he does not think this issue should be in front of the planning
commission again. Mr. Desai explained the city council has already completed a legal
agreement with Clear Channel on this sign issue and he feels the settlement agreement has
made this issue a done deal.
Commissioner Trippler referred to the city's legal agreement with Clear Channel and asked
Clear Channel's representative to comment on the agreement pertaining to if the settlement
agreement will be void if the sign code is not modified.
Tom McCarver, representative of Clear Channel, explained the request for a conditional use
permit to increase the height of the existing billboard sign an additional 15 feet. Mr. McCarver
said the Federal Highway Transportation staff have reviewed this sign height increase proposal
and have reported there are not any safety concerns.
There were no comments from the public; the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Trippler moved to table this request until after adoption of the Dynamic Display
Sign Code by the city council.
Commissioner Hess seconded Ayes — Desai, Fischer, Hess, Pearson, Trippler,
Walton, Martin
Nays — Boeser, Yarwood
The motion passed.
MINUTES
MAPLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL
7:O0p.[n.. Monday, December 1O
Council Chambers, City Hall
yN8{tinQ N0. 22
J. AWARD OF BUDS
I ON
K. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1' Conditional Use Permnit — Cb*mrChmmmeUOutdmm Umcremnse—
1790 Gervais Court
a. Senior Planner, Tom Ekstrand gave the report and answered questions of the council.
b. City Attorney, Alan Kantrud answered questions of the council.
Councilmember Rossbach said under City Code Section 44-1096 A CUP hearing shall not be
held until the council has received written recommendations or reports from city staff, the PC,
CDRB. C0UDCi|OlROlbe[ ROSSh8Ch said the council doesn't have this information SO the COUOd|
should not be reviewing this item.
The Mayor and City Councilmembers stated they were disappointed that the planning
commission and community design review board minutes were not provided in the packet or
g iven /0 the council before this eveni �meeting bz review for this agenda item.
Mayor Longrie asked if anyone wanted to speak regarding this item.
Jeremy Yarwood, Representative from the Planning Commission said the planning commission
and the community design review board passed and recommended a change LO the sign code
that allows dynamic display signs. Ue said the council should ask the staff why that agenda item
wasn't put on the agenda this evening and why these two sign issues were put Vn the agenda.
The reason the PC tabled this item was because the change in the sign height is clearly
connected to a sign that is going to have a dynamic display and the city doesn't have an
ord in place yet to govern the dynamic display that would be placed on said sign.
Therefore, the PC felt it was inappropriate tnpass the CUP until the city council has had the
chance tO review the dynamic display O[din8DCG8Dd[n@k8sUr8th8tvvGSiDp|@C8b9f0r8thS
planning commission addresses the CUP. He said he didn't feel it was appropriate for the council
to vote on this item until the planning commission had made a recommendation. He said any
reasonable interpretation of the ordinance can only come to that conclusion.
Cound|memb8rRoaSb@ch moved to table the AduDdOnOf the Resolution soeGif-v the terms
appFeved A-A Q-C-PU-41-4eF 22, 2Q(4, I.A.441h. C-- 1 2-1hIA-IRAH9 1 1 Qu4-jGQ4:--untiI the city council has received
a recommendation from the planning commission, community design review board and
staff prior to considering the conditional use permit. Councilmember Rossbach further
moved that the city tell Clear Channel Outdoor that the city will be taking a 60-day
extension for this request under State Statute Section 15.99 because the council is in
violation of the ordinance without the pertinent information.
Seconded by Counci|memberHjelle. Ayes — CoUnci|member Hje|le.Juenenann.
Rossbach
December 1O.2OO7. City Council Meeting
Nmvs— Mayor Longhe
Mayor Longrie said she understands that the city needs an articulated reason to ask for an
extension or to table this. The applicant is rHqU8SdnQ approval from the council to n8iS8 the height
of this sign bv15feet. When the council reviews a CUP the council looks at whether this request
will change the existing or planned character of the surrounding area, which this doesn't because
there iS8n existing billboard there already. Her concern iS the agreement between the city and
Clear Channel Outdoor regarding other billboard signs in the city and how this decision could
impact other legal concerns.
City Attorney, K@ntrud said he would be present at the planning commission and community
design review board meetings regarding this item.
Councilmember Rossbach requested @ p. m.
The Council meeting resumed at 10:00 p.m.
Seconded by Councilmember Cave.
1. Off-Sa
1690 McKnighl
a. Citizen Servi(
and answere
Liauors at 1690 McK
atimg Liquor License
Road ahead
�~.. .
rOfHillsi
is of the council.
BE
mer and Manager — Hillside Liquors
e gave the report.
rs, 1690 McKnight Road, Maplewood, addressed
Seconded by Mayor Longrie. Ayes — All
4. Priory Public Improvements, City Project 07-24 Resolution Accepting Feasibility
Study and Ordering Public Hearing
Public Works Director, Chuck Ahl presented the report.
Councilmember Juenemann moved to approve the resolution Accepting the Report and Callinq
for a Public Hearing for the Priory Public Improvements, City Proiect 07-24.
RESOLUTION 07
ACCEPTING REPORT AND CALLING FOR PUBLIC HEARING
December 1O.2OO7. City Council Meeting 2
Agenda Item F2
IME=
From: Bob Mittet, Finance and Administration Manager
11111 ill 111 111 111 1 K
0 = ;
0 rem X4 I IN211
. 0
On December 10, the City Council received an updated Proposed 2008 Budget and staff
recommendation for approval. Discussion during this meeting focused on the reduction of
three positions made up of a Business Licensing Specialist and two Planners. The
Council approved the 2008 Budget subject to reinstatement of these positions with cuts to
be made elsewhere.
Department heads offered up alternatives during the Council meeting including, but not
limited to, a 3% across the board reduction in non-personnel costs to elimination of vacant
positions intended to be filled. On Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 1 requested the
department heads to provide me with any opportunities that they have for budget
reductions. The six department heads provided me with a joint response on Friday,
December 14. For a variety of reasons, only a few of the suggestions could be
implemented.
Business License Specialist $64,719
Two Planners 190,582
Fees for Service Correction 42,100
Total $297,401
Deducts:
Replace Terminated Fire Fighter with new -7,942
December 20, 2007
Eliminate Vacant MCC Position
-34,855
Eliminate Vacant Public Works Position
-76,498
Eliminate Vacant Parks Position
-70,795
Fill Vacant Position at Lower Starting Rate
-24,298
Eliminate Vacant Maintenance Position
-29,350
Reduction in Elections Supplies
-3,000
Unused Vehicle Allowance
-2,430
Travel & Training
-75,345
Personnel calculation errors
-2,879
Total
-$327,392
Net Decrease in 2008 Expenditures -$29,991
The recommended reductions will reduce the total 2008 Budget to $39,725,850, a
decrease of $29,991 from the level proposed and adopted by the City Council on
December 10, 2007.
2
Agenda Item F3
f
REPORT SUMMARY
Applicant: City of Maplewood
Request: Dynamic Display Signs Ordinance Amendment
Discussion
Meeting Date: December 27, 2007
Project Description: On October 22, 2007, the city council approved a
settlement agreement with Clear Channel for the installation of a LED sign face
on their billboard located on 1-494 and Highwood Avenue, which the city attorney
has indicated may be in conflict with a provision of the Maplewood sign code.
One condition of the agreement commits the city to amending the sign code to
allow for LED sign faces (dynamic displays) for off-premise signs.
Council Direction: The city council approved the settlement agreement and
requested that the planning commission and the community design review board
(CDRB) review and make a recommendation on the proposed dynamic display
sign code amendment.
Discussion: The Planning Commission and Community Design Review Board
reviewed and gave their recommendations for approval of the proposed dynamic
display sign ordinance amendment for off -site billboards. Their
recommendations are provided in the attached memo for the City Council's
review and discussion together with an alternate draft ordinance.
TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager
FROM: Tom EhStnand--SmnkorPlonner
SUBJECT: Dynamic Display Sign Code Amendment Discussion
DATE: December 20
Clear Channel has operated a billboard sign at 1-494 and Highwood Avenue for many
years On8n ongoing legal nonconforming use status. |n December 2U08. Clear Channel
installed an LED sign face to one of the faces on this billboard without specific
authorization from the city.
On October 22.20O7. the city council approved a settlement agreement with Clear
Channel for the inGiSU8tk]n of the LE[) sign f8C8, which the oUv attorney has indicated
may be in conflict with a provision of the Maplewood sign code (Attachment 1). In
summary the agreement requires that the city waive it's right for future litigation of the
sign, cornnniL L8 amend the sign code to allow for LE[) Sign faces (dynamic displays) for
off-premise aignS, o0nnrnit h0 issuing a sign permit for the installation of second
dynamic display sign face on the 1-494 and Highwood Avenue billboard sign, and commit
tV issuing 8 conditional use permit tV increase the height and install two dynamic display
sign faces On the Highway 3S and White Bear Avenue billboard sign. |n return, Clear
Channel will install a dynamic display freestanding sign (Attachment 2) for the
cVnnrnUn|tv center and connrniL t0 8||Ovvin0 five hours per month of community and public
service message tO the city on one of the four dynamic display sign faces.
Request
The city council approved the settlement agreement and requested that the planning
commission and the community design review board /C[)FlB\ review and nn8k8 G
recommendation on the proposed dynamic display sign code amendment.
October 27,2000, the city issued 8 sign p8nnitk}Ckear[|hannEAhJrth8pUrpVS8Vf
allowing Clear Channel to replace the head structure of their billboard located at 1-494
and HighvvoodAvenue.
December 12.20UG. the city was notified that the north-facing sign f8CeOfthebiUbo8nd
located at 1-494 and Highwood Avenue had been converted to a light-emitting diode
(LED) sign face.
December 29.2008. city staff sent G letter to Clear Channel indicating that Clear
Channel was not authorized bvthe city [0 replace the existing sign face with a LED sign
face, that the replacement of the sign face was a violation of the city's sign code, and
was not authorized in the sign permit which allowed for maintenance of the billboard sign
only. The letter required Clear Channel tO submit 8 variance application for city council
approval to retain the sign, or remove the sign face by February 27, 2007.
October 8.2OO7. the city council held o public hearing for the first reading Ofthe
prohibited sign code amendment proposed by the city attorney in regard to the Clear
Channel settlement. The city council referred the prohibited sign code language tothe
planning commission and the CDRB for consideration and input and further requested a
recommendation of the commission and board on a dynamic display sign code
ordinance.
October 0,20O7 community design review board had preliminary review Cfthe
prohibited and dynamic display sign code amendments and tabled the item for additional
time to further review the information.
October 18, 2007, the planning CVnnrnisSk}n had preliminary review Vfthe prohibited and
dynamic display sign COdG8OlmDdQDSOtaGOdtabhedUlSitRnlforGdditiOnG|dnl8bOfuhh8r
review the information.
October 22.20D the city council approved the settlement agreement with Clear
Channel.
November 13, 2007, the CDRB reviewed the prohibited sign code amendment and the
dynamic display sign VndinGnc8nnod8ked8ftHrLheEGg8nordin8nce (Attachment 3). The
C[)RB tabled the item for additional information including receiving a copy of St. Paul's
proposed dynamic display sign Code 8 SUrnno8ry ofK88p|evvOod's existing bi||bO8rds,
and the Clear Channel lighting study referred tOby Clear Channel in their testimony k}
the board.
November 20,2O07, the planning commission tabled the prohibited sign Code
amendment and dynamic display sign ordinance iD order bJ allow the CORB time to
make a recommendation on the amendments.
November 27, 2007, the CDRB recommended approval of prohibited and dynamic
display sign code amendments (Attachment 4).
December 4, 2007, the planning commission recommended approval of a prohibited
Sign C0d9 amendment and dynamic display sign ordinance as rSCO[nnlend8d by the
board with minor revisions. Planning Donl[niSSi0O minutes are not available for city
council review 8L the writing 0f this report.
COMMITTEE REVIEW
Ad the November 27.20U7 community design revevvb08rd(C0RB)andtheDeoernber
4, 2007 planning commission nl8eUngs, the board and CVnnnniSsk]n r8v8vv8d the
additional information requested by the board during their November 13 meeting
including St. Paul's proposed dynamic display sign ordinance, Maplewood's existing
billboard sizes and locations, and lighting SLVdi8G. Following is G summary ofthat
information and review:
St. Paul's Proposed Dynamic Display Sign Code
Attached iS the proposed St. Paul dynamic display sign COd9@n1Rndm9Ot (Attachment
5\. The St. Paul planning commission has recommended approval 0f the code
amendment, with the St. Paul city council's first reading of the ordinance scheduled for
2
December 12 |n summary, their code amendment would allow the installation 0f
1 Squ8[8 foot Of dynamic display billboard Sign h3C8 for every 8 square feet Of illuminated
and M square feet 0f non-illuminated sign faces the applicant removes (it should be
noted that St. Paul has 300 billboard signs within their city |innita). The code amendment
as proposed also requires that the dynamic display signs meet the following
n]qUir8nn8ntS:
1 Located within 330 feet [f|-S4or|-35E and designed L0b8 read from the
highway.
2. Located at least one mile from any other dynamic display billboard Sign face.
3. Located at least 1.000 feet from 8 residential window.
4. Located only one side of a billboard can contain a dynamic display sign face.
5. Alpha-numeric copy that iS at |88St 15 inches high.
0. |nn8Qes that are static and remain constant for 12seconds.
7. Equipped with 8 nn8chGniSnn that automatically adjusts the sign's brightness in
response h0 ambient conditions.
K8ao8vvood's existing billboard ordinance was adopted in1982 and permits billboards GS
1. Within commercial zoning districts.
2. Maximum size Of450 square feet.
3. A nn8xirnUrn height of35feet.
4. Located 8tleast 20O feet t0 another billboard.
5. Located 3t least 1UO feet to8 commercial building.
0. Located at least 200 feet to r8Sid9nU8| district or 500 feet to residence.
y. Located at least 300 feet to an interchange.
8. Located at least 500 feet to 8 park.
S. Located 8t least 10 feet to8 property |in8.
Maplewood has five billboards (refer to billboard map — Attachment 6), all of which were
constructed prior LV the city's billboard ordinance. All five billboards are considered legal
nonconforming billboards because they exceed at least one of the billboard ordinance's
requirements for size O[setbacks. The following iSG listing Of the five billboards located
within the city limits:
|-484 and 0Qhvv0od Avenue (2714Hi hvvoOdAvenue):
G. Southwesterly corner Of0ghvvOOd Avenue and Century Avenue, adjacent
t0 |-494.
b. Zoning District: Zoned Business Commercial
C. Existing Use: Business and Single Family Home
d. Lot Size: 2.1 Annae
e. Billboard Height: 35 feet
f. Billboard Sign Face Size: 14 feet bv5O feet (7OO square feet)
9. Setback Issues: 150 feet to residential window
2. Highway 36 (1790 Gervais):
8. North side 0f Highway 30. west of White Bear Avenue, south OfGRrv8iS
Avenue (within the Cook's Auto Body Repair property)
b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing
C. Existing Use: Auto Body Shop
d. Lot Size: 2.20 /\oren
e. Billboard Height: 35 feet
t Billboard Sign Face Size: 14 feet bv5U feet (7U0 square feet)
g. Setback Issues: adjacent highway 389ntr8nC8r8nnp
3. Highway 36 (1661 Cope Avenue):
3. South side Of Highway 30. east 0f Hazelwood Avenue, north ofCope
Avenue (within the City County Credit Union property)
b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing
C. Existing Use: Credit Union
d. Lot Size: 4.59 Acres
8. Billboard Height: 35 feet
i Billboard Sign Face Size: 14 feet by5O feet (7O0 square feet)
g- Setback Concerns: 40 feet from wetland
4. Highway 36 (1255 Highway 36):
8. North side of Highway 38. east of Highway 01. south ofGervaisAvenue
(within the Metcalf Moving Storage property)
b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing
C. Existing Use: TrUCkin0/StO[8geCOnnp@ny
d. Lot Size: 3.53 Acres
8. Billboard Height: 35 feet
f. Billboard Sign Face Size: 10.5 feet by 36 feet (378 square feet)
g. Setback Issues: None
5. Beam Avenue:
8. South side of Beam Avenue, east of Highway 81.west of Hazelwood
Avenue (within the KGlFP radio tower property)
b. Zoning District: Light Manufacturing
C. Existing Use: R@diOT0vv8[a/VV8t|8nd
d. Lot Size: 43.21 Acres
e. Billboard Height: (NC) CITY RECORDS FOUND)
f. Billboard Sign Face Size: (NO CITY RECORDS F(]UN[>\
g. Setback Issues: 80 feet tOwetland
Clear Channel Lighting Studies
Clear Channel never supplied the city with lighting studies referred to by Tom McCarver
during the November 13.20U7.CDRBmeeting. Mr. McCarver explained tO the CDRB
during the November 27, 2007, CDRB meeting that there was miscommunication about
the existence of such a study and then went on to explain how the lighting of the
billboards worked.
Therefore, the best source oJ information for the city about lighting is the research
conducted bvSRF Consulting Group (Attachment 7). The study states that ato
rnininnUnn it i8 important for communities to require all dynamic display signs be equipped
with 8 di[nnle[ control. A requirement for both 8 di[nnle[ control and @ photo cS|| that
4
constantly keeps track Of ambient light conditions and adjusts sign brightOGSa
accordingly, iSoptimal. E8gGD'S dynamic display ordinance has this requirement.
Brightness Levels
The following language was taken from a staff report to the Minnetonka city council
during their review Of dynamic displays: "The SF<F research determined that the
brightness of signs can be distracting, and if very bright, can 8cLU8||y r8SU|t in 8 blinding
effect, particularly 8tnight. Pure white light appears the brightest, and has the most
blinding capability. Unfortunately, there iS currently no good way ho measure the
brightness of signs in the field. Sign manufacturers can nn88Sur8 the light emitted by
LED signs in a controlled factory setting by measuring the 'nit' level, but those conditions
cannot b8 re-created in actual field conditions. Additionally, the instruments used tO
measure brightness are currently very 8xpenGiv8."
With no practical way of measuring brightness, the Minnetonka and Eagan ordinances
incorporate the general standard adopted by the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation: "No [Sign] may bS illuminated t0o degree 0f brightness that iSgreater
than necessary for adequate viSibi|ib/." The general philosophy iS that dynamic signs
should have the same appearance as regular signs both during the day and at night.
Additionally, both ordinances contain two other general standards found in Indiana and
Ohio regulations that state: "No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance 8Sto impair
the vision of motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with
the driver's operation Ofo motor vehicle. NO sign may b8Of such intensity Orbrilliance
that it interferes with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal."
Dynamic Display Sign Definition
After the installation of the Myth's LE[) sign approximately two years ago. the C[)RB
reviewed the new LED sign technology. Based OD the city attorney's comments 8tthe
time, it was determined that the new style of electronic message board signs (LED signs
— outdoor televisions) was different enough from anything that has come before that iL
needed its own category in the sign code. The C[)RB recommended a definition for the
dynamic display signs (previously called outdoor televisions by the board); they also
recommended that those styles Of signs bS prohibited iD the city. Staff therefore iS
recommending the CDRB's proposed definition of the dynamic display signs be included
in the ordinance 8s opposed L0E80Gn'Sdefinition.
On-Site Dynamic DisplaV Signs
Based on the city attorney's strict interpretation of the sign code, in order for the dynamic
display signs to be permitted in the city, language from the prohibited sign code section
would need tob8 removed 8Sfollows: "Signs that have blinking, flashing Vrfluttering
lights er that GhaRge iR bFightRess eF Gele . Signs that give public service information,
such as time and temperature are exenn[t.~
As the Maplewood sign code stands today, any permitted sign is allowed an electronic
message board or dynamic displays (signs that have the capability of blinking, flashing,
fluttering or changing in brightness or color) if it is used primarily for 8 public service
message. This portion ofK8ap|evvood'3sign code was adopted in 19Y2 and was
designed to address the old style of bank signs which had light bulbs that could display
time and temperature.
Since that time, technology has changed and the prices Of the newer electronic signs
and LE[} signs have COD18 d0vvO to the point where that type ofsign i3 affordable for
many commercial businesses. For this reason, the city has received four sign permit
applications for such Signagein the last seven years. With the recent requests for LED
and advanced electronic reader board signs, the CDRB was requested to interpret what
"prinnari|v" meant in the code. The CORB determined that primarily means that the sign
must display a public service message at least 31 minutes out of every hour. Only two
of the applicants were interested in installing 8 sign once they were 8vvar8 of the code
requirement for displaying primarily public service nl8Gs80ing /Br8nn9r Bank and O8yG
The prohibited sign code language amendment 88 proposed bv the city attorney would
allow any permitted signs (including billboards) tO have 8n electronic message board O[
dynamic displays, regardless 0fpublic service message, 8G long 8G the sign did not
blink, flash, or flutter (i9.. changed from one sign face to another without rapid
movement), subject to the requirements of the dynamic display ordinance if applicable.
Alternatively, any permitted sign vvVV|d be 8||Ovv8d to blink, flash, Vr flutter only if used
primarily for public service nleSa8gR. In these two 9x@[np|SS, the Myth sign vvOU|d
conform to the new code if the sign message changed from one sign face to another
without rapid movements. [)r the sign could blink, flash, flutter, HLc..if used 8L least 31
minutes out of every hour for o public service message.
Eaonn'S dynamic display sign CVd88|k]vvSdynanniCdisplaysfOron-site and off-site
signs. On-site dynamic displays are G|kJvvRd OD freestanding signs in Eagan if they are
not the predominant feature, if they d0 not change or move more often than once every
20 minutes, and must meet graphic height requirements based on the speed limit in front
0f the sign.
Due to the settlement agreement with Clear Channel and the accelerated rate that the
city is amending the sign code to allow for off-site dynamic displays, the CDRB
determined that they vvVV|d prefer to L8k8 more time to review on-site dyn8nlh: display
signs. They want to d0 8 comprehensive review of the on-site dynamic display Signs
with the overall draft sign code amendment the city council directed the CDRB to
resurrect in the next coming months. The C[)FlB determined this need particularly in
light 0f8 recent request by the Maplewood Mall for on-site dynamic display signs onthe
[nG|| property. The C[)FfB will begin this vvO[k in January for the planning commission's
n8vi8vv in February.
For this reason, staff recommended to the planning commission and the CDRB that the
city only adopt the portions Cf the Eagan dynamic display sign code that pertain t0 off-
premise SignSond@nlendiOgth8pnJhibit8daigDD0dR|@n0U8geoSf0UOvvs:
signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights orU18tdl8ng8in
brightness orcolor. Signs that give public service information, such as time and
temperature are 8x8nnpt.^ And further define on-premise sign asfollows: "(Jn-
premise sign means anV sign identifVing or advertising a business, person,
activity, goods, products, or services, located on the premises where the sign is
installed and maintained." Theoigncndaa|naadydefinanoff-pnarninoniQnoos
follows: "Billboard means an off-premises sign erected for the purposes 0f
advertising a produSt, event person, institution, oStivitv, business, service or
subject not located Vn the premises nn which the sign i8|oC8t8d.
701
Conversion of Maplewood Billboards
Modeling our dynamic display sign ordin8nce8fterEouan'Sondin8ncevvou|do]kovvCke8r
Channel b] convert all five billboards (ten sign faces) in the city k} dynamic display sign
t8C8S as |OnQ as the applicant agreed to allowing the city to display five hours Of
community messaging per month on each face or agreeing to remove one sign face
from the city. The s808nn8nL agreement with Clear Channel &onnrniLS the city to
approving a conditional use permit for an increase in the Highway 36/White Bear Avenue
billboard height from 35 feet to 50 feet for the installation of dynamic display sign face.
Regardless of the city's agreement for the increase in height of that sign, other signs
could feasibly be converted with just a sign face change if the city adopted the Eagan
0rdiD8OC8 in its entirety.
There are merits to the use of dynamic display billboard in that they can also instantly
display o nnesa88e and allows for the display of Amber Alerts and public service
messaging. However, the city should have controls Vn the location Vf those signs k}
ensure they are not located iO areas which could b8 deemed hazardous 0r could cause
8 nuisance t0 adjacent property owners. For this reason, staff recommended tOthe
planning commission and C|ORB that the ordinance amendment should be reviewed with
the strong feasibility that the owners would want to convert all of the other billboard sign
faces to dynamic display as vve||. At 8 noininnUnn staff was naoononn8nding that the
installation Vfa dynamic display sign face Vna billboard Ue approved through the city's
conditional use permit process.
COMMITTEE ACTION
November 2l200Y. the C[)RB reviewed the above information and recommended
changes tO the prohibited sign COdeondadynannicdiSp|oySign0rdinanCennOde|edofter
E88an'SordinanCe. Four major ShonQeabJtheEag8nordinonoeppDpoaedbytheC[}RB
Permitting off-site dynamic display signs with a conditional use permit only.
2. Requiring images to be maintained for a nnininnunn of 12 seoondS, as opposed to
8 seconds as proposed by Eagan.
3. Allowing for |DD8ntkxe C)Dtk]n A Onk/ which is the reduction of one existing static
billboard sign face for every dynamic display sign face installed; rather than
either/or incentive which also gave applicants the opportunity to install a dynamic
display Sign f@C8 if the city is o||ovved at least five hours per month of community
and public service messages Vn the sign.
4. In addition to the brightness standards outlined in Eagan's ordinance, the board
recommended that off-site dynamic display signs meet K48p|8vvood's existing
outdoor lighting requirements that require that the applicant submit 8 photometric
plan showing that the sign does not exceed .4 foot candies of lumens otall
property lines and that the sign does not produce glare Vr other lighting
nUiS@Oc8a.
December 4,2C07, the planning commission reviewed the above information and the
C[)RB'3 recommendation and recommended changes b} the prohibited sign C0deand
dynamic display sign ordinance as proposed by the board with minor changes.
7
p:ord\signcodm\LEDbi|lboau81227O7CC memo Revisions (Dynamic Displays)
Attachments:
1. Maplewood/Clear Channel Settlement Agreement
2. Proposed Community Center Sign
3. Eagan Dynamic Display Ordinance
4. November 27, 2007 CDRB Minutes and December 4, 2007 Planning Commission Minutes
5. Proposed St. Paul Dynamic Display Ordinance
O. Maplewood Billboard Location Map
7. SRF Consulting Dynamic Display Study
8. Dynamic Display Ordinance Amendment (CDRB and PCrecommendation)
9. Alternate Dynamic Display Ordinance Amendment
FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGING AND
COMMUNITY CENTER SIGN AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES BY
AND BETWEEN CITY OF MAPLEWOOD AND CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC.
Agreement made this ay of October, 2407 by and between the City of Maplewood
C "City ") and Clear Channel door, Inc., a Delaware corporation C "Clear Channel").
WHEREAS, Clear Channel, Inc. acknowledges that it has erected, constructed or
otherwise caused to be operational a "Dynamic Display" sign face (as hereinafter defined) in the
City of Maplewood; and:
WHEREAS, City staff has indicated to Clear Channel that it believes Clear Channel's
dynamic display sign face may be in conflict with a provision of the Maplewood Code; and:
WHEREAS, several cities in Minnesota have studied the effect of Clear Channel's
installation of so- called "Dynamic Displays" and:
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has determined that engaging in litigation regarding
the employment of these "Dynamic Displays" would be counterproductive based on the
experience of other cities similarly situated and which have settled and determined the presence
of such "Dynamic Display(s)" do not constitute a problem; and:
WHEREAS, the City does hereby commit to amend that portion of the Maplewood Sign
(zoning) Code to clarify that off - premise billboards are not prohibited from incorporating a
technology that allows sign surfaces to change their sign faces in color or illumination with
technology that may include illumination manipulated through digital input or other methods that
allow the sign surface to present a series of images or displays that do not blink, flash or flutter
but that do, by definition, change in color and/or illumination; signs that will fit the definition of
"Dynamic Display(s)" as shall be further- defined; and:
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of utilizing Clear Channel's "Dynamic Displays" to
display community and public service announcements; and:
WHEREAS, Clear Channel is agreeable to displaying community and public service
announcements for the City and to further provide the City with a "Galaxy Pro 20mm LED
Display" for the Maplewood Community Center at Clear Channel's sole expense and cost as a
condition precedent to the City council's approval of a "Dynamic Display" ordinance in
conformity with this agreement and respective of Clear Channel's previously activated
"Dynamic Display" located at Highwood and 1494.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Clear Channel agrees to reserve no less than five (5) hours (2250 eight - second
spots) per month per "Dynamic Display" in Maplewood for community and public service
announcements, provided that such announcements cannot be resold and cannot be used by or on
behalf of any for -profit enterprise. The City shall be solely responsible for the design and
development of all advertising copy, which shall be subject to Clear Channel's review and
approval. The City must provide Clear Channel reasonable advance notice for any requested
announcement. Advertising time not used by the City in any month will be forfeited, and will
not carry into another calendar month. Clear Channel shall have discretion to deliver this service
on one or any combination of its "Dynamic Displays." The City may delegate to another
governmental entity a portion of the time for community and public service announcements, but
such delegation shall not make the delegatee a beneficiary of this paragraph or otherwise entitle
that entity to bring an action to enforce this paragraph. Such enforcement rights shall at all times
remain with the City. Clear Channel's obligations pursuant to this paragraph are contingent
upon Clear Channel receiving the permits described in paragraph 3 below.
2. Clear Channel agrees to purchase and install a Galaxy Pro 20mm LED Dynamic
Display for the Maplewood Community Center ( "Galaxy Pro Sign"). The design and
specifications of the Galaxy Pro Sign are attached hereto as Exhibit A, Clear Channel agrees to
purchase and install the Galaxy Pro Sign no later than ninety (90) days after Clear Channel's
receipt of the permits described in paragraph 3 below. Clear Channel agrees to remove and
dispose of the existing City sign located at the Maplewood Community Center. Upon
installation of the Galaxy Pro Sign, Clear Channel shall transfer to the City all warranties
obtained from the manufacturer. The City shall be solely responsible for all messaging
associated with the Galaxy Pro Sign, as well as all maintenance and upkeep. Clear Channel
agrees to provide adequate training for City Staff for operation of the Galaxy Pro Sign. Clear
Channel makes no warranties or representations whatsoever to the City regarding the Galaxy Pro
Sign and the City shall look only to the manufacturer for any claims or causes of action
respecting the Galaxy Pro Sign. Clear Channel agrees to provide the City with a _ yeare.-p
maintenance contract for the Galaxy Pro Sign upon installation. Clear Channel's obligations
pursuant to this paragraph are contingent upon Clear Channel receiving the permits described in
paragraph 3 below.
3. It is the City's intention to proceed with a revision to the Maplewood Code
clarifying that Dynamic Displays are not prohibited. It is Clear Channel's intention to proceed
with applications for sign permits for three (3) additional Dynamic Display sign faces, one being
located on the structure at Highwood and 1-494 and two being located on the existing structure at
Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue. Clear Channel's application for the permits for the
structure at Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue will require the City to grant conditional use
permits to increase the 35 foot height limitation in the Code to 50 feet. The permit applications
will also require that the Dynamic Display signs be permitted to change no more frequently than
once every 8 seconds operating up to 24 hours a day every day of the year.
4. Clear Channel agrees to incorporate its "Dynamic Display(s)" in Maplewood into
the State of Minnesota's "Amber Alert" network, and to operate such Dynamic Displays under
2
the same "Amber Alert" terms generally in place between Clear Channel and the State of
Minnesota's Department of Public Safety, which currently provides that Clear Channel will post
timely messages within its digital display network in the applicable area.
S. Upon adoption of the amendment to the City's Sign Code clarifying that Dynamic
Displays are not prohibited in the City of Maplewood, Clear Channel and the City agree to abide
by the following standards and procedures regarding the brightness and illumination on Clear
Channel's "Dynamic Displays" (Signs) in the City of Maplewood:
a. No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility.
b. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a
motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with
the driver's operation of a motor vehicle.
C. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
d. All "Dynamic Display(s)" operated by Clear Channel must be equipped
with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness in response to
ambient conditions. The sips must also be equipped with a means to
immediately turn off the display or lighting if it malfunctions and the sign
owner or operator must immediately turn off the sign or lighting when
notified by the City that it is not complying with the standards in this
section.
e. The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from
one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special
effects.
f The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves,
without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any
other sign.
& The City agrees it will not enforce against Clear Channel any future ordinance,
rule, regulation or other law which limits the right of Clear Channel to operate its hereinbefore
described "Dynamic Display(s)" consistent with the terms of this Agreement, except to the
extent such fixture ordinance, rule, regulation or other law reasonably relates to safety.
7. The City further agrees that upon execution of this Agreement and performance
on the part of Clear Channel, pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Agreement, the City will not pursue
any action, criminal or civil, against Clear Channel for the operation of its sign face currently
being operated at Ifighwood and 1494 within the City of Maplewood.
8. This Agreement, including all rights and obligations provided for herein, shall be
binding upon the successors and assigns of the parties, whether by way of merger, consolidation,
operation of law, assignment, purchase or other acquisition, including subsequent purchasers
from Clear Channel. 9. The City and Clear Channel reserve all rights, remedies and
defenses regarding "Dynamic Display" signage should the City not grant to Clear Channel the
permits referenced in paragraph 3 above. In such event, the City shall be allowed to pursue any
remedies available to it and Clear Channel shall be allowed any defenses available to it. This
Agreement shall not be used to establish or defend any legal action related to the operation of
Clear Channel's existing "Dynamic Display" should the City not revise its Ordinance as
indicated above.
City of Maplewood
By:
Its. !l
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.,
a Delaware corporatio
Byol
Its: Vt
4
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
City of Eagan
Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance
Adopted October 2, 2007
1. Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays on
signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction can |88d bJ traffic accidents. Drivers CGD
be distracted not only by a changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a changing
message. Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Drivers are also
distracted by nneSSagRa that do not tell the fU|| story in one look. People have 8 natural desire to
see the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in order to wait for the end.
Additionally, drivers are more distracted by special effects used to change the message, such as
fade-ins and f8de'OVLs. Finally, drivers are generally more distracted by messages that are too
small to be clearly seen or that contain more than a simple message. Time and temperature signs
appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are short, easily absorbed, and
become inaccurate without frequent changes.
Despite these public safety concerns, there ia merit hm allowing new technologies t0easily
update nn8Ss8g8s. Except as prohibited by state or federal |8vv, sign owners Gh0U|d have the
opportunity to use these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to
minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize proliferation in residential districts where
signs Can adversely impact residential character.
LOC8| spacing requirements COU|d interfere with the 8qU@| opportunity tO Use such
technologies and are not included. Without those requirements, however, there is the potential
for numerous dynamic displays to exist along any roadway. If more than one dynamic display
can be seen from a given location on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical. If the
display time is too short, a driver could be subjected to a view that appears to have constant
movement. This impact would obviously be CDnlp0uDd9d in G corridor with nnu|hp|e signs. If
dynamic displays become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on each sign's
ability to change frequently, drivers may be subjected to an unsafe degree of distraction and
sensory overload. Therefore, a longer display time isappropriate.
A constant message i8 typically needed Una sign so that the public can use it to identify
and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this way-finding purpose and
could adversely affect driving conduct through last-second lane changes, stops, or turns, which
C0U|d result in traffic accidents. Accordingly, dynamic displays generally should not be 8||Ovved
to occupy the entire copy and graphic area ofosign.
In conclusion, the city finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but with
significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public safety.
2. Dynamic display sign means any sign, except governmental signs, with dvnornio
display characteristics that appear to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any
method other than physically removing and replacing the sign orits components, whether the
apparent movement Or change iaiO the display, the sign structure itself, 0r any other component
of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign
surface to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign
surface or its components. This also includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking,
or animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, [E[} lights manipulated
through digital input, "digital ink" or any other nn9thVU Vr technology that allows the sign surface
Ln present 8 series Vf images nrdisplays.
3. Dynamic display signs are allowed subject LVthe following conditions:
(a) Dynamic display signs are subordinate to off-premises signs, monument and
pylon 8ign8, and business signs. Dynamic displays must not be the predominant feature
of the sign surface. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have
dynamic displays even if not used. Dynamic display signs are allowed only on
monument and pylon signs for conditionally permitted uses in residential districts and for
all uses in other districts, subject to the requirements of this Section 11.70. Only one.
contiguous dynamic display area iS allowed ono sign surface;
Hb\A dynamic display may not change 0r move more often than once every 20
minutes, except one for which changes are necessary to correct hour-and-minute, date, or
L8rnpen8LVr8 inh]nnGLi0n. Time, date, or temperature inh]nnGLi0n is considered One
dynamic display and may not be included as a component of any other dynamic display.
A display of time, date, or temperature must remain for at least 20 minutes before
changing LO 8 different display, but the time, d8L8 or temperature information itself may
change nO more often than once every three seconds;
(c) The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from
one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects;
k1\ The images and messages displayed must b8 complete in themselves, without
continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign;
(e) Every line of copy and graphics ing dynamic display must [eot least seven
inches in height on8ro8dvvitho3peed|innitOf25tO34nni|eSperhoUr,nineinSheSon8
road with 8 speed limit Vf35k}44 nni|e8 per hour, 12 inches On a n}aU with 8 speed limit
Of45t054 miles per hour, and 15 inches 0O@ road with G speed limit 0f55 miles per
hour or more. If there is insufficient room for copy and graphics of this size in the area
allowed under clause (8) above, then nO dynamic display isallowed;
(f) Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the device in
one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be equipped with a means to
immediately discontinue the display ifitmalfunctions, and the Sign 0vvOe[ must
immediately stop the dynamic display when notified by the city that it is not complying
with the standards 0f this ordinance;
(o) Dynamic display signs nnu8t comply with the brightness standards contained
in subdivision L below;
(h) Dynamic display signs existing on (insert the Rffex}Uwe date of this ordinance)
must comply with the operational standards listed above. Am existing dynamic display
that does not meet the structural requirements in clause (b) may continue as a nonconforming
development subject b] section (insert ordinance section nVnnbeh.An
existing dynamic display that cannot meet the minimum size requirement in clause (B)
must use the largest size possible for one line of copy to fit in the available space.
2
(i) Exceptions. Recognizing that some dynamic displays, such 8a those used in
point of sale dispensers, interactive vending machines and ATMs, often need tVchange
images more frequently than defined by this ordinance in order to perform their intended
function and that such image changes can occur in a manner in which they do not create
distractions for drivers, dynamic displays with 8 k}LG| area of less than 180 SqU8r8 inches
at any point of sale disp8nS8r, interactive vending machines or ATM may be fully
animated, provided they do not flash or blink in a manner clearly visible from the
roadway and provided they either meet or exceed the building setbacks for the zoning
district in which they are located orare at least 3O'frVnn the public right ofway,
whichever iSgreater.
4. Incentives. Off-premises signs do not need bJ serve the same way-finding function as
do on-premises signs; they are restricted in number by the city; and they are in themselves
distracting and their nennVv8| S8rv8S public safety. This clause is intended to provide an incentive
option for the voluntary and uncompensated removal of off-premises signs in certain settings.
This r8nl0v8| results in an 0v8r@|| 8dv8DC8nl8nt of one or more of the goals set forth in this
section that should more than offset any additional burden caused by the incentives. These
provisions are also based on the recognition that the incentives create an opportunity to
consolidate outdoor advertising services that would otherwise remain distributed throughout the
community and expand the function of off-premises signs to serve a public purpose by providing
community and public service messages.
A. Incentive Option A— Reduction of Sign Surfaces
(a) A person may obtain a permit for an enhanced dynamic display sign on one
surface Vfanexisting off-premises sign if the following requirements are met:
(i) The applicant agrees in writing k} reduce its off-premises sign surfaces
by one by permanently removing, within 15 days after issuance of the permit, one
surface of an off-premises sign in the city that is owned or leased by the applicant
and is depicted in table A(which follows this section), which sign surface must
satisfy the criteria of parts (ii) and (iii) of this subsection. This removal must
include the complete removal of the structure and foundation supporting each
removed sign surface. The applicant must agree that the city may remove the sign
surface if the applicant does not timely do so, and the application must identify
the sign surface to be removed and be accompanied by 8 cash deposit or letter of
credit acceptable to the city attorney sufficient to pay the City's costs for that
removal. The applicant must also agree that it is removing the sign surface
voluntarily and that |L has no right to compensation for the removed sign surface
under any law. Replacement of an existing sign surface of an off-premises sign
with an enhanced dynamic display sign does not constitute a removal of a sign
GVrf8C8.
Ui\ The city has not previously issued G dynamic display sign p8rDit
based on the removal of the particular sign surface relied upon in this permit
application.
/iii\If the removed sign SVrfaC8iGVnefVrvvhichaGt8te permit is
required by state law, the applicant must surrendered its permit to the state upon
removal of the sign surface. The sign that is the subject of the dynamic display
Sign permit cannot begin LO operate until proof is provided to the city that the state
permit has been surrendered.
/b\Uthe applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above, the city
will issue GD enhanced dynamic display sign permit for the designated Off-prSmiSSSSign.
This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 100 percent of the potential copy and
graphic area and to change no more frequently than once every eight seconds. The
designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance.
B. Incentive Option B — Provision of Community and Public Service Messaging
(@) A person may obtain 8 permit for 8n enhanced dynamic display sign 0Oone
surface of an existing off-premises sign if the h]||oxvinQ n8qUir8nn8nLs are met:
(i) The enhanced dynamic display sign replaces 8n existing surface Ofgn
existing off-premises sign;
(ii) The city has not previously issued 8 dynamic display sign p8Qmit
based on the replacement of the particular sign SVrbac9ne|iedVponinUlis permit
application.
(iii) The applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city to provide to
the city no less than 5 hours (2250 eight-second spots) per month per enhanced
dynamic display sign in the city for community and public service messages at
such times Gs shall b8 determined by the city.
(b) If the applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above, the city
will issue 8n enhanced dynamic display sign permit for the designated Vff-prenliseGsign
This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 100 percent of the potential copy and
graphic area and to change no more frequently than once every eight seconds. The
designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance.
L. Brightness Standards.
1. All signs must meet the following brightness standards:
(a) No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility.
/b\NV sign may b9of such intensity Vr brilliance 8Sb] impair the vision Vfa
motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's
operation of a motor vehicle.
kdNo sign nlaybeofauohintensitvorbhUionoethatbinterfeneavvbhthe
effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
2. The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness
standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adjustment must b8 made immediately
upon notice of non-compliance from the city. The person owning or controlling the sign may
appeal the city's determination through the following appeal procedure:
(8) After making the adjustment required bv the city, the person owning Or
controlling the sign may appeal the city's determination by delivering a written appeal to
4
the city clerk within 10 days after the city's non-compliance notice. The written appeal
must include the name of a person unrelated to the person and business making the
appeal, who will serve Vn the appeal panel.
(b) Within five business days after receiving the appeal, the city must name a
person who is not an official or employee of the city to serve on the 8pp88| panel. Within
five business days after the city names its representative, the city's representative must
contact the sign owner's representative, and the two of them must appoint a third member
LV the panel, who has no relationship iV either party.
(c) The appeal panel may develop its own rules of procedure, but it must hold @
hearing within five business days after the third member iS appointed. The city and the
sign owner must be given the opportunity to present testimony, and the panel may hold
the hearing, or a portion of it, at the sign location. The panel must issue its decision on
what level of brightness is needed to meet the brightness standards within five business
days after the hearing commences. The decision will be binding on both parties.
3. All signs installed after (insert the effective date Of this ordinance) that will have
illumination by a means other than natural light must be equipped with a mechanism that
automatically adjusts the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be
equipped with a means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if it malfunctions, and the
SiQD owner 0[operator nlUSt immediately turn off the Sign or lighting when notified by the City
that it|s not complying with the standards in this section.
Attachment 4
.111M 11TE_S_�ALz
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 27,2007
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Sign Code Amendments:
1) Dynamic Display Signs
Senior planner Tom Ekstrand explained past actions and considerations regarding the
dynamic display sign code amendment. Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report,
which included the additional information requested by the board at its last meeting. Ms.
Finwall explained St. Paul's proposed dynamic sign code amendment. Ms. Finwall also
explained Maplewood's current billboard ordinance and Maplewood's existing five billboards
that were all constructed prior to the city's billboard ordinance.
Board member Wise said he researched a few cities outside of Minnesota and found that
some declared acceptable light requirements of specific levels of nits and asked whether
staff had looked at any cities outside of Minnesota. Planner Finwall responded the staff
reviewed the dynamic display sign ordinance for cities in Minnesota only. Those ordinances
have lighting standards based on the Wisconsin Department of Transportation standards
only.
Board member Ledvina questioned whether our current practice of using lumens to
measure brightness could be used. Planner Finwall responded that staff is recommending
the city's current lighting standard of measuring the amount of lumens be included in the
proposed sign ordinance which would require the applicant to submit a photometrics; plan.
Board member Demko suggested that Maplewood look at St. Paul's proposed sign code
amendment regarding trade downs of six to eight square feet of traditional signage for each
square foot of digital billboard space.
Vice-chairperson Ledvina asked representatives of Clear Channel to respond to questions
from the board.
Tom McCarver of Clear Channel explained that the light study done by Clear Channel was
conducted by light technicians who monitored various effects of the signage. Mr. McCarver
said there are several means to measure brightness of signs, such as lumens or nits, so
that a sign is easy to read but is not overly bright. Mr. McCarver said that using as minimal a
light level as possible provides benefits such as using less electricity which makes it less
costly and a minimal light level would also extend the life of the sign.
The board discussed definitions and verbiage to be included in the dynamic display sign
code amendment as compared with on-premise signage. The board agreed additional time
and study was needed for the on-site dynamic display sign code. The board also agreed
that the proposed Incentive Option B provision for community messaging is poor public
policy and that since the city will own and control a public messaging sign on White Bear
Avenue, they do not favor including this option as part of the code amendment proposal and
believe that the sign code should stand on its own, regardless of the settlement agreement.
Community Design Review Board 2
Minutes 11-27-2007
Board member LedvDa moved the community design review board recommend approval Of
the amendments and additions to the Maplewood Sign Code as follows:
Section 44-737(3): (Additions are underlined) signs that have blinking,
flashing 0r fluttering lights 0r that change in brightness orcolor. Signs that give public
service information, such as time and temperature are exempt."
2. Section 44-735: (Additions are underlined) " On-premise sicin means any sign identifying
or advertising a business, person, activity, goods, products, or services, located on the
premises where the sign is installed and maintained."
3. Adopt dynamic display sign code language modeled after the Eagan code amendment
oa follows (text added to the Eagan ordinance are underlined and text deleted are
stricken; text changed by the community design review board at their November
27, 2007, meeting is in bold):
o. Findings. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays on
signs and the distraction Of highway driv8r8. Distraction can lead b]traffic
accidents. Ohv8rS Can be distracted not only by a changing nn9s8aQ8, but also by
knowing that the sign has a changing message. Drivers may watch a sign waiting
for the next change L0 occur. [)rivers are also distracted by nn8Ss8Q8s that do not
tell the full story in one look. People have G natural desire to see the end 0fthe
story and will continue to look 8t the sign in order tO wait for the end.
Additionally, drivers are more distracted bv special effects used tOchange
the message, such 8s fade-ins and fode-OUtS. Finally, drivers are
generally more distracted bv messages that are too small tob8clearly
seen or that contain more than a simple message. Time and temperature
signs appear tobeon exception to these concerns because the
messages are short, easily absorbed, and become inaccurate without
frequent changes.
Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies
to easily update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal |ovv sign
owners should have the opportunity b] use these technologies with certain
restrictions. The n8Sth{tiVn8 are intended to minimize potential driver distraction
and to minimize proliferation in residential districts where signs can 8dw8[ae|y
impact residential character.
Local spacing rRqUinament3Sou|dinbmrferevviththeeqU8|oppOrbunitvtOUseauSh
technologies and are not included. Without those requirements, hOvvever. there is
the potential for Oun08nJUS dyDGnnio displays to exist along any nOodvvoy. If more
than one dynamic display can be seen from 8 given location DD@ road, the
minimum display time becomes critical. |f the display time |stoo short, adriver
could be subjected to a view that appears to have constant movement. This
impact would obviously be compounded in o corridor with multiple signs. If
dynamic displays become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on
each sign's ability tO change frequently, drivers may bR subjected tO@Ounsafe
degree of distraction and sensory overload. Therefore, a longer display time is
appropriate.
Community Desi Review Board
Minutes 11
A constant message is typ needed on a sign so that the public can use it to
identify and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this
way-finding purpose and could adversely affect driving conduct through last-
second |8n8chang8s.sLOp8.Vrturns.vvhiCh could result in traffic accidents.
In conclusion, the city finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on off-
premise
signs but with significant controls to minimize their proliferat and their
potential threats to public health, safety, and welfare.
b. Dynamic display sign means any si designed for outdoor use that is capable of
displaying a video signal, including, but not limited to, cathode-ray tubes (CRTs),
light-emitting diode (LED) displays, Plasma displays, liquid-crystal displays
(LCDs), or other technologies used in commercially available televisions or
computer monitors.
111 110111 _1 WE 11 1 1
C. Dynamic display signs are allowed subject to the following conditions:
(o) Dynamic display si o remiseaoiQna
-----` ---,--'-- -- �-`----- -'------� � �' — —�/ --' --�-
(b) A dynamic display sign is permitted by conditional use permit onIV.
() The images and messages displayed must bestat and each displa
must be maintained for a minimum of 12 seconds, and the transition from one
static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects;
Community Design Review Board 4
Minutes 11-27-2007
(d) The images and messages displayed must be complete inthemselves,
without continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other
(S) Every line Of copy and graphics ino dynamic display [nuStb88t|8GSt
seven inches in height 0n8n}8dwith8Gpeed|irniLOf25LO34rni|es per hour,
nine inches on 8 road with 8 Speed limit of35L044 miles per hour, 12 inches on
a road with a speed limit of 45 to 54 miles per hour, and 15 inches on a road with
a speed limit of 55 miles per hour or more. if theFe 0 6 iRSUff FOOM f9F GOPY
Ul Dynamic display signs nnUstbedeSiQned8ndeqUipDedtofneezethe
device in one position ifg malfunction occurs. The displays must also be
equipped with 8 means to immediately discontinue the display ifii nnalfVnCtions,
and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynamic display when notified by
the City that it is not oO[np|yiOg with the standards of this ordinance;
/o\ Dynamic display signs must comply with the brightness atondgnda
contained in subdivision e. below;
(h) Dynamic display signs existing 0n (insert the effective date 0fthis
ordinance) must comply with the operational standards listed above. AR ex
d. Incentives. {lff-pnerniS8s signs do not need 03 serve the same way-finding
function as do on-premises aiQ nd
they are distracting and their removal nnrvnn public safety. This
clause iG intended LVprovide an incentive option for the voluntary and
uncompensated removal 0f off-premise signs iD certain settings. This removal
results in8n overall advancement of one or more 0f the goals set forth inthis
section that should more than offset any additional burden caused bythe
incentives. These provisions are also based on the recognition that the incentives
create an opportunity LV consolidate outdoor advertising services that would
otherwise remain distributed throughout the community and expand the function
of off-premises signs to serve a public purpose by providing community and
public service messages.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 11-27-2007
(1) I 1;Ge1;tiVG Option A — Reduction of Sign Surfaces
(a) A person or sign operator may obtain o conditional use permit for
dynamic display sign onnnamurfonnofenaxmtinQ
off-premises sign if the following requirements are met:
1\ The applicant agrees in writing kJ reduce its off-premise
sign surfaces by one hv permanently removing, within 15
days after issuance Cf the permit, one surface Vfan off-
premises siQninih8Cityth8tiGVvvnedVr|8888dbyLhe
applicant
, which sign surface must satisfy the criteria of
parts /2\ and (3)of this subsection. This removal must
include the complete nannova| of the structure and
foundation supporting each removed sign surface. The
applicant must agree that the city may remove the sign
surface if the applicant does not timely dO so, and the
application must identify the sign surface LOb8removed
and be accompanied byo cash deposit or letter ofcredit
acceptable tV the city attorney sufficient LO pay the city's
Costs for that n]nnVva|. The applicant must also 8gn]8 that
itiS removing the sign surface voluntarily and that it has D0
right to compensation for the removed sign surface under
any |8vv. R9p|8CRrnent of an existing sign surface of an off-
premises sign with an *Ahee**ed dynamic display sign
does not constitute 8 removal ofa sign surface.
2) The city has not previously issued 8 dynamic display sign
permit based on the removal of the particular sign GVrf8c9
relied upon in this permit application.
3\ If the removed sign 8Urfax}eis one for which a state permit
is required by state |8w. the applicant must surrendered its
permit tO the state upon removal Dfthe sign surface. The
sign that is the subject of the dynamic display sign permit
cannot begin to operate until proof is provided b} the city
that the state permit has been surrendered.
/bA If the applicant nle8tS GeMplies witl4 the permit requirements noted
above, the city will issue 8n8RhaeRGRd dynamic display sign permit
for the designated off-premises sign. This permit will G||ovv 8
dynamic display k) occupy 10O percent of the potential copy and
graphic area and to change nOmore frequently than once every
L2 ek
eoonds. The designated sign must meet all other
n8quin8rD8ntS of this ordinance.
CoDlDlVDitv Design Review [3o@Rj 6
Minutes 11-27-2007
e. Brightness Standards.
(1) All signs must meet the following brightness standards:
(o) NO sign may Le brighter than is necessary fOrdearand8dequate
(b) N0 sign [n@yb8OfsUChiDtRDSitvO[bhUi8DC8@Sk]iOlp8irth9
vision 0f8 motor vehicle driver with average eyesight Ort0
otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle.
kJ NO sign may be of such intensity Or brilliance that it interferes with
the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
iy\ The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to nn8eL
the brightness sLGnd8ndG in accordance with the city's instructions. The
adjustment must be made immediately Upon notice of non-compliance
from the city.
91 __RtF9lliRg the GigR may appeal the
CoDlDlVDitv Design Review [3o@Rj 7
Minutes 11-27-2007
/3\ All dynamic display signs installed after (insert the effective date Ofthis
ordinance) that will have illumination by8 means other than natural light
must be equipped with o mechanism that automatically adjusts the
brightness inresponse tn ambient conditions. These signs must also b8
equipped with a means k} immediately turn off the display or lighting ifit
malfunctions, and the sign OvvD8r or operator must immediately turn off
the sign 0r lighting when notified by the city that itiSnot complying with
the standards |n this section.
(4) In addition to the brightness standards reguired above, dynamic display
signs must meet with the city's outdoor lighting requirements (section 44-
Board member DemkooeCODded AveS - aU
The motion passed.
Will
/3\ All dynamic display signs installed after (insert the effective date Ofthis
ordinance) that will have illumination by8 means other than natural light
must be equipped with o mechanism that automatically adjusts the
brightness inresponse tn ambient conditions. These signs must also b8
equipped with a means k} immediately turn off the display or lighting ifit
malfunctions, and the sign OvvD8r or operator must immediately turn off
the sign 0r lighting when notified by the city that itiSnot complying with
the standards |n this section.
(4) In addition to the brightness standards reguired above, dynamic display
signs must meet with the city's outdoor lighting requirements (section 44-
Board member DemkooeCODded AveS - aU
The motion passed.
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 4, 2007
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
11. ROLL CALL
Vice-Chairperson Tushar Desai
Chairperson Lorraine Fischer
Commissioner Harland Hess
Commissioner Gary Pearson
Commissioner Dale Trippler
Commissioner Joe Walton
Commissioner Jeremy Yarwood
Commissioner Robert Martin
Commissioner Joseph Boeser
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present at 7:05 p.m.
Present
Present
Present
Staff Present: Ken Roberts, Planner
Shann Finwall, Planner
Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner
VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
a. Sign Code Amendment — Dynamic Display Sign Ordinance
Senior Planner Ekstrand introduced this item for consideration. Planner Shann Finwall
presented the staff report. Ms. Finwall reviewed additional information requested by the
commission at their last meeting relating to St. Paul's sign code, Maplewood's existing
billboards and their locations, and Clear Channel's lighting studies.
Ms. Finwall updated the commission on the dynamic display sign ordinance review and action
recommended by the community design review board at their meeting on November 27.
Commissioner Trippler asked staff whether a particular time period was included in the code
amendment language for the five hours of community messaging time. Ms. Finwall responded
that there is no time period designated in the proposed language.
Commissioner Trippler suggested that if the ordinance requires that the sign should not
produce glare or other lighting nuisances, then the city should designate an authority to
evaluate the sign and make that determination. Ms. Finwall responded that this language is
what exists in the current lighting code.
Commissioner Trippler said in talking with a member of the community design review board he
learned the board favors adding language to the sign code amendment recommending
dynamic signs be prohibited in wetlands, nature preserves, parks and historic areas.
Planning CVnlnnisSk}n -2-
Minutes Of12-04-O7
Matt Ledvno addressed the COrnrnisSkJn representing the community design review board. Mc
L8dViDa explained past discussions Ofthe board regarding the proposed sign code amendment
and the board's recommendation. Mr. LedViD8 mentioned the community design review board
recommended increasing the minimum display change time from eight seconds to twelve
seconds. He also explained that the board recommended deleting Incentive Option B from the
code because the board believes itis not good public policy for government tOb8 involved iD
activities that this government agency iSregulating.
K4c Ledv n@ said the QDrnrnUnitv design review hO2nd intends at the board's fU8Jns review of the
on-site sign code to add language prohibiting signage from wetlands and nature preserves.
CDrnrniO8k]mer BDeserSUggested in the interest of continuity, the rninirnUrn change time might
be set at eight seconds so all of the signs are operating under the same standards.
Commissioner Hess said he prefers twelve seconds for a more static sign.
Commissioner Fischer said she is comfortable with the community design review board's
Commissioner Tripple[ suggested the sign code language be revised under number one of the
brightness standards section tDadd that G city representative will arbitrate lighting standard
disputes and also to add "not to exceed one hour" in place of "immediately" under two and
three Ofthe brightness standards section.
Commissioner Y8nwoOd moved approval 0f amendments and additions U]the Maplewood Sign
Code as follows:
88cUOn \: (Additions are underlined) "On-premise signs that have blinking,
flashing Or fluttering lights O[th8tCh8ng8iDbi htnmsSOrCOOc Signs that give public
service information, such as time and temperature are exempt."
2. Section 44-735: (Additions are underlined) " On-premise sign means any sign
identifying or advertising a business, oerson, activity, goods, products, or services,
located on the DnenoiSes where the sian is installed and maintained."
3. Adopt dynamic display sign code language modeled after the Eagan code
amendment oo follows (text added tmthe Eagan ordinance are underlined and
text deleted are stricken; text changed b* the community design review board
mt their November 27,2007,meeting is in bold):
8. Findings. Studies show that there iSo correlation between dynamic displays
on signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction can lead to traffic
accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by a changing message, but also
by knowing that the sign has changing nn9sS8Qe. Drivers may watch 8 sign
waiting for the next change to occur. Drivers are also distracted by messages
that dO not tell the full story iD one look. People have G natural desire k}see
the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in order to wait for the
end.
Additionally, drivers are more distracted bv special effects used hDchange
the message, such 8S fade-ins and f8d8-OUts. Finally, drivers are
generally more distracted bymessages that are too small b]beclearly
seen O[ that contain more than o simple message. Time and temperature
signs appear t0b8on exception tO these concerns because the
Planning CVnlnnisSk}n -3-
Minutes Of12-04-O7
messages are short, easily absorbed, and become inaccurate without
frequent changes.
Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit tO allowing new
tSchD0|OgiSS to S8ai|y update nlesSGg8S. Except as prohibited by state or
federal law, sign owners should have the opportunity k] use these
technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize
potential driver distraction and to minimize proliferation in residential districts
where signs can adversely impact residential character.
Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity to use
such technologies and are not included. Without those requirements,
however, there is the potential for numerous dynamic displays to exist along
any roadway. |f more than one dynamic display can be seen from 8 given
location on 8 road, the nnininnVnn display time becomes critical. If the display
time is too short, a driver could be subjected to a view that appears to have
constant movement. This impact would obviously b8 compounded ina
corridor with multiple signs. If dynamic displays become pervasive and there
are no meaningful limitations on each sign's ability to change frequently,
drivers may b8 subjected tO@D unsafe degree Of distraction and sensory
overload. Therefore, G longer display time i3appropriate.
A constant message iG typically needed 0n8 sign Go that the public can use ii
to identify and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from
this way-finding purpose and could adversely affect driving conduct through
last-second lane changes, stops, or turns, which could result intraffic
accidents. AGGor-dingly, dynan;iG displays generally should not be
|n conclusion, the city finds that dynamic displays should be allowed Vnoff-
premise
signs but with significant controls tO minimize their proliferation and
their potential threats to public of8t .
b. Dynamic display sign nleenoanyoi n designed for outdoor use that is
capable of displaying a video signal, including, but not limited to, cathode-ray
tubes (CRTs), light-emitting diode (LED) displays, plasma displays, liquid-
crystal displays (LCDs), or other technologies used in commercially available
televisions or computer monitors.
C. Dynamic display signs are allowed subject to the following conditions:
10:1111
Piz 01,
10-I.No.0 MEMO!
C. Dynamic display signs are allowed subject to the following conditions:
Planning CVnlnnisSk}n -4-
Minutes Of12-04-O7
(a) Dynamic display signs o pre nois8S
signs
displays eve-A if Puat
/b\ A dynamic display sign is permitted by conditional use permit Dnlv.A4ay
(c) The images and messages displayed must bestatic and each display
must be maintained for a minimum of 12 seconds, and the
transition from one static display b} another must be instantaneous
without any special effects;
(d) The images and messages displayed must be complete inthemselves,
without continuation iD content t0 the next image 0[ message 0rhJany
other sign;
(e) Every line 0f copy and graphics inG dynamic display must b88tleast
seven inches in height ono road with 8 speed limit 0f25t034miles
per hour, nine inches Ono road with a speed limit of35ho44 miles per
hour, 12 inches Vna road with 8 speed limit Cf45b]54 miles per hour,
and 15 inches on 8 road with 8 speed limit of 55 nni|8s per hour or
more.
allowed
Ul
Dynamic display signs rnuStbedeykznedondequiooedbJfnaezethe
device in one position ifa malfunction occurs. The displays must also
be equipped with 8 means tV immediately discontinue the display ifit
malfunctions, and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynamic
display when notified by the city that it is not complying with the
standards Of this ordinance;
kz\ Dynamic display signs rnUEt comply with the brightness standards
contained in subdivision e. below;
(h) Dynamic display signs 8xi8Un0On(inS8rtih8eff8Ciiv8d8L8nfUhis
ordinance) must comply with the operational standards listed above.
Planning CVnlnnisSk}n -5-
Minutes Of12-04-O7
d. |OC9Otiv8S. Off-premises signs dODOtn9edtoS8rv8Ul8SomSvvgv-fiDding
function asdO on-premises signs;
and they are distracting and their removal SHmeS public safety.
This clause iG intended L0 provide 8n incentive option for the voluntary and
uncompensated r8noOv@| Of off-premise signs in certain settings. This removal
results in an overall advancement of one or more of the goals set forth in this
section that should more than offset any additional burden caused bvthe
incentives. These provisions are also based Vn the recognition that the
incentives create an opportunity to consolidate outdoor advertising services
that would otherwise remain distributed throughout the community and expand
the function Vf off-premises signs LV serve 8 public purpose byproviding
community and public service messages.
M\ Option Reduction 0f Sign Surf@neS
(a) A person or sign operator may obtain a conditional use permit
for ap elph RGGGI dynamic display sign on one surface ofon
existing off-premises sign if the following requirements are met:
1\ The applicant agrees in writing to reduce its off-premise
sign surfaces by one by permanently removing, within
15 days after issuance Of the permit, one surface Of8D
0f-pnSnniSRS Sign in the city that is Ovvn9d Or leased by
the applicant
th ' vvhinh sign surface must satisfy the criteria
Of parts (2) and /3\Of this subsection. This removal
must include the complete removal of the structure and
foundation supporting each removed sign surface. The
applicant must agree that the city may remove the sign
surface if the applicant does not timely dO so, and the
application must identify the sign surface tOb9removed
and b8 accompanied by8 cash deposit Vr letter Vfcredit
acceptable to the city attorney sufficient to pay the city's
costs for that removal. The applicant nnU3t also agree
that itiS removing the sign surface voluntarily and that it
,_ -me em
N
MR lip
d. |OC9Otiv8S. Off-premises signs dODOtn9edtoS8rv8Ul8SomSvvgv-fiDding
function asdO on-premises signs;
and they are distracting and their removal SHmeS public safety.
This clause iG intended L0 provide 8n incentive option for the voluntary and
uncompensated r8noOv@| Of off-premise signs in certain settings. This removal
results in an overall advancement of one or more of the goals set forth in this
section that should more than offset any additional burden caused bvthe
incentives. These provisions are also based Vn the recognition that the
incentives create an opportunity to consolidate outdoor advertising services
that would otherwise remain distributed throughout the community and expand
the function Vf off-premises signs LV serve 8 public purpose byproviding
community and public service messages.
M\ Option Reduction 0f Sign Surf@neS
(a) A person or sign operator may obtain a conditional use permit
for ap elph RGGGI dynamic display sign on one surface ofon
existing off-premises sign if the following requirements are met:
1\ The applicant agrees in writing to reduce its off-premise
sign surfaces by one by permanently removing, within
15 days after issuance Of the permit, one surface Of8D
0f-pnSnniSRS Sign in the city that is Ovvn9d Or leased by
the applicant
th ' vvhinh sign surface must satisfy the criteria
Of parts (2) and /3\Of this subsection. This removal
must include the complete removal of the structure and
foundation supporting each removed sign surface. The
applicant must agree that the city may remove the sign
surface if the applicant does not timely dO so, and the
application must identify the sign surface tOb9removed
and b8 accompanied by8 cash deposit Vr letter Vfcredit
acceptable to the city attorney sufficient to pay the city's
costs for that removal. The applicant nnU3t also agree
that itiS removing the sign surface voluntarily and that it
Planning CVnlnnisSk}n -0-
Minutes Of12-04-O7
has DO right t0 compensation for the removed sign
surface under any law. Replacement of8n existing sign
surface ofon off-premises sign with an**#*eA**ad
dynamic display sign does not constitute @ removal OfG
sign surface.
2\ The city has not previously issued 8 dynamic display
sign permit based on the removal of the particular sign
surface relied upon in this permit application.
3\ If the r8nnOv8d sign surface is one for which a state
permit is required by state law, the applicant must
SUrFSDd9rRd its permit to the state upon r8nlOv8| of the
sign surface. The sign that iG the subject of the dynamic
display sign permit cannot begin to operate until proof iS
provided to the city that the state permit has been
surrendered.
/b\ If the applicant nlania GGMPIi9S w414 the pnnnd nsquinonnnnLo
noted above, the city will issue GOf*RlaRGxed dynamic display
sign permit for the designated Offpr8nliSSS Sign. This permit
will allow 8 dynamic display k) occupy 10U percent 8fthe
potential copy and graphic area and to change nomore
frequently than once every aoondo. The designated
sign must meet all other r8qUiF8[n8Dts of this OndiD@DC8.
(b) If the appliGaRt ffi22!LGGFAPIiGG with the permi
. . ents Rated above, the Gity will issue an enhanned
dynamiG display sign per-mit for- the designated off-pre i
sign. This per-mit will allow a dynan;iG display to 9GGupy
Planning CVnlnnisSk}n -Y-
Minutes Of12-04-O7
e. Brightness Standards.
(1) All signs nnVGtnn8eLth8fo|k]vvn0brightn8sSst8nd8rdS.CitvStaff shall
b8 designated as the arbiters nf whether 8 sign meets the brightness
standards 0f city code:
(8) No sign nn8yb8bh0hL8rLh8nb;nHc8sSGryfUrdR8r8nd
adequate visibility.
/b\ No sign nn8ybe of such intensity Orbrilliance aGb} impair the
vision Vf8 motor vehicle driver with average eyesight ork}
otherwise interfere with the driver's operation Of8motor
(c) No sign may be of such inL8nahv or brilliance that it interferes
with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
C2\ The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the Sign h3 meet
the brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The
adjustment must b8made imme6ately within one hour upon notice Of
non-compliance from the city.
Planning CVnlnnisSk}n -8-
Minutes Of12-04-O7
CB All dynamic display signs insL8|hed8ft8r(ins8rtth8eff8CUv8d8t8Vfthis
ordinance) that will have illumination bv8 means other than natural
light must b8 equipped with o mechanism that automatically adjusts
the brightness in response k] ambient conditions. These signs must
also bo equipped with o means to immediately within one hour turn off
the display or lighting if it malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator
must immediately turn off the sign or lighting when notified by the city
that it is not complying with the standards in this section.
(4) In addition to the brightness standards required above, dynamic
display signs must meet with the city's outdoor lighting requirements
(section 44-200)).
Commissioner Pearson seconded Ayes —Boeser,Desai. Fischer, Hess, Martin,
Pearson, Walton, Yarwood
The motion passed.
Commissioner ThpDk5rs2id he voted nay because he does not think the city should be getting
into the business of providing television for drivers and that dynamic signs are the wrong thing.
Attachment 5
Council File #
Presented By
Green Sheet #
ORDINANCE
CITY OF SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA
2
3
An ordinance amending Leg. Code Chap. 64 regulating
4
signs by permitting the conversion of legal nonconforming
5
advertising signs ("billboards") to "dynamic display" signs
6
in exchange for permanently removing traditional legal
7
nonconforming advertising signs by adding a definition for
8
such billboards and promulgating regulations for the
9
conversion of such signs.
10
11
12 Note: Single underlinin and;°,;4�k si4k-e Apeitg4 show the changesftom the existing
13 Sign Chapter of the Zoning Code as submitted to the Council for first reading on 11121,
14 Double underlmini and ...... show revisions made by the Planning
15 Commission when it finalized its recommendation on 11116107.
16
17
18 THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAINT PAUL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
19
20 Section 1
21
22 That Legislative Code § Sec. 64,104.13 and the various definitions
23 contained therein is hereby amended by adding the following new paragraph
24 under that section to read:
25
26 Billboard with dynamic display. A billboard on which the sign message
27 moves or changes, or appears to do so, through any method other than
28 physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether such
29 movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other
30 component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a
31 technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without
32 having to replace the sign face or its components physically or mechanically.
33 This also includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or
34 animated display and any display that incorporates rotating 12anels, LED
35 lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink" or any other method or
36 technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays,
37 except for time and temperature displays that occupy less than twenty (20)
38 percent of the billboard face.
39
HE
41 Section 2
42
43 That Legislative Code § 64.302 entitled "Nonconforming signs;
44 exceptions," is hereby amended by removing obsolete language regarding
45 the "move to conformance" and in its place adding new provisions to provide
46 for and regulate the conversion of existing legal nonconforming billboards to
47 ones with dynamic displays so as to read as follows:
48
49 Sec. 64.302. Nonconforming advertising signs; exeept.-i-onsconversion to
50 billboard with dynamic display.
51
52 AfIt'ffEI!Vei4iSiffg SigH &ii4ifig ffS 8f the EWe 4 lhiS SeetiOfl (r-ebIztfffF
53 -2, 1998)whieh is leeeAed iff R ZOffiftg EhSt+iet Whiek ElOeS Bet v l....4
54 ad-veftising sigHs eF whieh does not eeafor-pa to the- size and,�e
55 A4*4jS 64RPtff +Ra�' b@ FOP!a OEI, Aff 4 - : @ -,4 R-AWi'-A*-P- -, eJ
56 i. ff:OAAded 41 Ihis seetieo; PF-64,'ided, hewezv t4al stleh ftetizv
57 skall bAng the sig+l inte gr-eatef eawiplia-Reewith the pfevisiefls of this
58 g Stft-HdBfdS-.
59
60 (a)Advet4ising signs to
be Feplaeed, r-eleea4ed
of r-enEwaled e
61 saffle i�enilig leti.
62 (4):Fhe zening lot ffl+tst
bewithin a za+iing
Elistfiet iff whieh ad-,�eftisiflg
63
41 66.24 4(a)
iii
stigiis afe a peffflit4ed ese, as speeified
see6eii
of (1), of as pefffli4ed a
64 ssii? —sii � 9 —�y. P AR —+ RJ
M
66 (a) Intent and purpose. Studies show that there is a correlation between driver
67 distraction and accidents. Signs with dynamic displays can be a cause of driver
68 distraction. Along highways, signs with dynamic displays tend to distract drivers if they
69 are waiting to see the next change, especially if it is a continuation of the message or if
70 the transition uses special effects. Signs with lettering that is too small to read at a glance
71 also cause driver distraction whereas, typical time and temperature signs, which can be
72 read at a glance, are not a significant distraction. This section allows for the conversion
73 of illuminated billboards to billboards with dvnamic disDlays subiect to standards that
74 maintain highway safety,
75
76 Dvnamic disnlav technologies can i!reativ exnand the advertising canacitv and i!ranhic
77 flexibility of billboards. However, Section 64.420 prohibits any new advertising signs in
78 the city in order to protect and improve views, aesthetics, community_ Pride and
79 investment, and the visibility of local businesses. One purpose of this chapter is to
80 reduce the number of billboards in the city, but the city government is extremely limited
81 in its ability to cause their removal. The provisions of the present section seek to offer
82 benefits both to the public and to billboard owners. This section allows increased
83 advertisiniz through the addition of dynamic display technologies on existing billboards
84 alone certain freeways in exchange for voluntary reductions in the number of billboards
85 in the city.
86
87 (b) Except in a B4 or B5 zoning district. a legally nonconforming. illuminated billboard
88
may be converted to a billboard with a dynamic display if the following conditions are
89
met:
90
91
(1)
The billboard is located within three hundred thirty (330) feet of 1-94 or
92
1-35E north of 1-94 and is designed to be read from the highway.
93
94
The billboard is at least one (1) mile measured lineally along the freeway
95
from any other billboard with a dynamic display designed to be read by
96
drivers heading in the same direction on the highway_
97
98
(3)
Only one sign face on a billboard structure is converted.
99
100
(4)
The billboard is more than one thousand (1,000) feet from any residence,
101
regardless of municipal boundaries, that is in a residential or TN
102
traditional neighborhood zoning district and has windows which are facing
103
and from which the dynamic display is directly visible.
104
105
(5)
The owner of the billboard shall apply for and receive a sign permit for the
106
conversion from the city,
107
108
L61
As part of the permit application, the applicant shall agree in writing to
109
remove permanently other existing billboards in the city; for each square
110
foot of dynamic display space being created , six (6) square feet of
III
illuminated billboard faces, or oi* e ight 8) square feet of non-illuminated
112
faces shall be removed. Billboards that the applicant owns or controls in
113
any of the following areas must be taken down before billboards taken
114
down in other areas of the city will be counted toward this removal
115
requirement. the Mississippi River Critical Area; locally designated
116
historic districts, the B4 and B5 downtown zoning districts, residential
117
zoning districts, and any other locations designated for billboard removal
118
by a resolution of the city council or the planning commission. Billboards
119
may be counted toward the removal if they have been or will be removed
120
between one (1) year prior to the application and two (2) months following
121
the issuance of the permit. The removals must include the complete
122
removal of the billboard structures including the foundations of an
123
freestanding billboards.
124
125
Prior to approval of the sign permit, the applicant must agree in writing
126
that the city may remove the billboards if the applicant has not done so
127
before the new electronic message sign is put into operation, and the
128
applicant must submit a cash deposit or letter of credit acceptable to the
129
city to pay the city's cost for that removal. The applicant must also agree
130
in writing that the removal of the billboards is done voluntarily and the
131
applicant has no right, under any law, to compensation from any
132
governmental unit for the removed signs.
133
134
No application may be approved if the removed billboards can be legally
135
nn s
rebuilt. If the application is approved, the sign permit shall specif t
136
and conditions for assuring the permanence of the removals, which may
137
include penalties such as liquidated damages. The terms and conditions
138
shall give assurance to the city that the owners of the properties from
139
which billboards are removed will not have any right under any law to
140
re-establish the billboards or to receive compensation from n
- L - Y
141
governmental unit for the removed billboards.
142
143
(7)
If the removed signs are ones for which a state permit is required, the
144
applicant and owners must surrender such permits to the state. The
145
billboard with a dynamic display may not be put into operation until proo
146
is provided to the city that such state permits have been surrendered.
147
148
Lcj In addition to the other regulations in this chapter, a billboard with a dynamic
149
display shall conform to the following operational standards:
150
151
(1)
All alpha-numeric copy must be at least fifteen (15) inches high.
152
153
(2)
The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from
154
one static display to another must be direct and immediate without any
155
special effects.
156
157
(3)
Each image and message displayed must be complete in itself, and may
158
not continue on the subsequent one.
159
160
(4)
Each image and message must remain constant for at least �84 twaw
161
C U2 seconds before changing to the next one.
162
163
(5)
No sign may be brighter than necessary for clear and adequate visibility.
164
165
(6)
No sign may be of such intensity or brilliances as to impair the vision of a
166
driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with drivers'
167
operation of their vehicles.
168
(7)
No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
169
effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device, or signal, or located where
170
it would do so, as determined by the city traffic engineer.
171
172
(8)
A billboard converted for dynamic display, on which more than twenty
173
(20) percent of the sign face is changeable, must have a mechanism that
174
automatically adjusts the sign's brightness in response to ambient
175
conditions. It must also be equipped with a means to turn off the display
176
or lighting immediately if it malfunctions, and the sign owner or operato
177
must turn off the sign or lighting immediately upon notification by the city
178 that sijzn malfunctions are causing it to be out of compliance with the
179 operational standards in this section.
180
181 (9) The billboard owner or operator must adjust the sign to meet the
182 brijzhtness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The
183 adjustment must be made immediately upon receiving a notice of
184 non-compliance from the city; however, the sign owner or operator may
185 a122eal the city's notice of non - compliance to the board of zoning appeals.
186
187 Section 3
188
189 That Legislative Code § 64.201 entitled "Duties of the zoning administrator" is a
190 housekeeping measure intended to reflect the reassignment of responsibility for sign
191 variances from the Planning Commission to the Board of Zoning Appeals previously
192 approved in Council File No. 05-632 so that Leg. Code § 64.201(e), in order to remain
193 consistent with other paragraphs in the Zoning Code, shall read as follows:
194
195 See. 64.201 Duties of the zoning administrator
196
197 (e) The zoning administrator shall not grant any variances with respect to this chapter in
198 carrying out his duties as zoning administrator. Variances may be granted by the
199 b oard of zoning appeals. The zoning administrator shall grant a
200 permit upon a finding of compliance with the conditions imposed by this chapter.
201
202 Section 4
203
204 This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its passage, approval
205 and publication.
206
Yeas I Nays I Absent
Benanav
Bostrorn
Harris
Helgen
Lantry
Montgomery
Thune
Requested by Department of:
Planning and Economic Development
MI
Form Approved by City Attorney
By:
Forrn Approved by Mayor for Submission
to Council
-0
M
Little Canad<
o
Cn
rn
There are Fi
All Billboard
E
Vnrinaic Hainhtc White Bear Lake
Attachment 6
1 MA F no - ••• : ••o •
Attachment 7
"DYNAMIC" SIGNAGE:
RELATED RESEARCH TO DRIVER DISTRACTION
AND
ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Submitted by
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Prepared for
City of Minnetonka
June 7, 2007
F-IN
� ��` � TABLE �°�� CONTENTS
Paee No.
[A INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------.. l
3.0 SELECTED RESEARCH FINDINGS ......................................................................
2
3]
Expert Opini -------------------------------
3
3.2
Billboards: u Source of Driver Distraction? ...................................................
4
3.3
" Dynamic " BillbouTda:uo/\dditiooulSourneof--------------
6
Driver Distract
3.3.1 Other Informat ..............................................................................
g
3/4
How Much Distraction lxo Problem? ............................................................
10
3.5
How Does " Brightness "
15
3.6
Billboard and Other Signnge :n ..................................................
16
Minnesota Perspective
Perspectives
4.0 SUGGESTED REGULATORY APPROACH -------------------.\g
4] Defiuitiouo------.-----.-----.-----.-----.-----.— 14
4.2 Types of Regulatory Meuoures -----------------------.\q
4.2] Complete or Partial Prohibition of Electronic S igns � --------.. 14
4.2.2 Size Limitations on Electronic Si ----------------.20
4.2.3 Rate-of-Change Limitations onElectronic Si`n«—.--.-----.— 20
4.2.4 Moti An or\/idco Limitations on Electronic Si --- 21
4^2.5 Si Placement and Spaci .............................................................. 22
4 .2.6 Text Size ............................................................................................ 22
4.2.7 Bri ghtness LinilnlionzmoulIlec\ronicSigoa ------------- 23
4 .3 Public Review ................................................................................................ 24
5/0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS -----------------.25
Appendix /\— Current Si
Appendix B— Outdoor Advertisi Sign Bri ghtness Definitions
Appendix C — Elentrooic Outdoor Device Visual Performance Definition
Lb
LIST OF TABLES
Pau No.
Table 1: FHWA Reanalysis of Faustman's Findings ...................................................... 5
Table 2: Crash Causation Summary ................................................................................ 11
Table 3: Percentage of CDS Crashes Involving Inattention- .......................................... 12
Distraction Related Crash Causes
Table 4: Specific Sources of Distraction Among Distracted Drivers: ............................ 12
Table 5: Telespot Sign Crash Rates - Expressway Southbound ..................................... 13
Table 6: Telespot Sign Crash Rates-Expressway Northbound ....................................... 14
Table 7: Number of New Messages Displayed at Various Driver Speeds and ............... 21
Time Intervals Between Messages
LIST OF FIGURES
Paae No.
Figure 1: VicRoads' Ten Point Road Safety Checklist .................................................... 18
1143
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This study was precipitated by concerns raised by the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota in regard
to the installation of two LED ("light emitting diode") billboards along Interstate 394 and
Interstate 494. The LED function was applied to two existing "static" image billboards located
adjacent to the interstate. Following installation of the LED function, the City turned off the
power to the signs though a stop work order based on current city ordinance prohibiting flashing
signs, which is broadly defined, as well as permitting requirements for the retrofitting of the
signs to the upgraded technology. The billboard owner sued the City, and the court response to
this legal action as of the writing of this study has been to allow limited use of the LED
billboards. A moratorium on further signage of this type was established by the City to facilitate
the study of issues related to driver distraction and safety and appropriate regulatory measures
for LED and other types of changeable signage.
This study was undertaken on behalf of the City of Minnetonka to examine these issues. While
the concerns were precipitated by LED billboards in particular, this report examines more
broadly "dynamic" display signage which is defined as any characteristics of a sign that appear
to have movement or that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically
removing and replacing the sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is
in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a
display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image
without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also
includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, or animated display and any display
that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink" or
any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or
displays. These capabilities may be provided by a variety of technologies which are discussed
later in this report.
As the study progressed, additional communities within the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area, as
well as the League of Minnesota Cities, expressed interest in these issues. However, it is not the
intention of this report to provide a comprehensive study of all issues raised by dynamic signage,
or other types of billboards, but rather to focus narrowly on the issues of concern to the City of
Minnetonka.
ITATM 1 M 10 112 04 111Y: [111 11111 MAI
Driving a motor vehicle is a complex task that requires the ability to divide one's attention.
Simultaneously maintaining a steady and legal speed, changing lanes, navigating traffic and
intersections, reading and interpreting street signs, drivers are often challenged by conditions that
can change in the blink of an eye. Internal and external physical conditions can affect how safely
the driving task is accomplished. Drug or alcohol intoxication, fatigue and/or distractions in the
driving environment all can play a role in motor vehicle crashes. However, these conditions are
rarely the sole reason for a crash. Rather, these conditions serve to exacerbate an already-
complex driving environment and subsequent mistakes in judgment can lead to crashes.
mil
W&W
Increasingly complex traffic and roadway environments require greater attention to and focus on
the driving task.
The purpose of this study is to understand what existing transportation research tells us about the
effects of dynamic signs on motorists. This study also explores regulatory measures enacted in
other jurisdictions to address concerns related to driver distraction. Due to time and scope
constraints, this report is not comprehensive, but rather addresses the most frequently cited and
easily accessible information available. The report concludes with a discussion of regulatory
options for the City of Minnetonka to consider in their formulation of policies to address
dynamic signage.
Information collected for this report draws from a variety of sources including interviews with
subject matter experts, government and academic research, and policies developed to regulate
various types of signage.
Several city and county sign ordinances were used as references for policy and regulatory
research. In some cases, ordinances were brought to our attention by planners and others
following the sign ordinance issue. In others, Internet searches were conducted using words and
references that apply specifically to dynamic signs.
Several sign manufacturers and sign companies provided an industry perspective through a
workshop with the SRF Consulting Group and the City of Minnetonka staff on February 27,
2007. This meeting yielded information about sign characteristics that can be addressed through
policy and regulatory measures. Daktronics, a company that manufactures and markets LED
signs, was also helpful in this regard, providing informational materials about characteristics of
signs that can be regulated and examples of city sign ordinances with which they are familiar.
This following section presents a summary of expert opinions and selected driver distraction
research conducted by government and academic researchers examining roadside signage and its
effects on the driving task. Studies are organized around critical questions with serious research
ramifications.
• Is there reason to believe that billboards are a source of distraction?
• Is there reason to believe that "dynamic" billboards are an additional source of
distraction?
• How much distraction is a problem?
• How does "brightness" affect driver safety concerns?
• How should billboards and other signage be regulated from a driver safety perspective?
A5
3.1 Expert Opinions
A combination of researchers and public policy experts were interviewed for this study.
Individuals were identified while conducting background research into driver distraction and
were interviewed because of their credibility in the field.
Kathleen Harder, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, has conducted driver
distraction research for a variety of applications, including research for Mn/DOT. She is
an expert in the field of human factors and psychology. She indicated that electronic
billboards pose a driver distraction threat because of their ability to display high
resolution color images, their ability to change images, and their placement in
relationship to the roadway, particularly in areas where the road curves, exits and
entrances are present, merges, lane drops, weaving areas, key locations of official signs,
and/or areas where roadways divide.
Greg Davis, a researcher with the FHWA Office of Safety Research and Development,
in Washington, DC was involved in the 2001 FHWA study on electronic billboards. He
was interviewed to gain a deeper understanding of this critical study and to learn of
recent research in this area. Davis stated that while no research has established a direct
cause and effect relationship between electronic outdoor advertising signs and crash rates,
the lack of such a research finding does not preclude a causal relationship between
electronic billboards and crashes. He advocated for a new study that can control all
variables and determine if a cause and effect relationship exists.
Scott Robinson, an outdoor advertising regulator for Mn/DOT, wrote the 2003 technical
memorandum that addresses allowable changes for outdoor advertising devices. Mr.
Robinson indicated that the memo was originally written in 1998 to establish a permitted
rate of change for tri-vision signs and that the application to electronic billboards was not
considered. The minimum change rate of 4.9 seconds for 70 mph roadways and 6.2
seconds for 55 mph roadways was based on the travel time between static signs spaced at
the minimum allowed distance apart. Mr. Robinson also indicated that the memo is not a
Mn/DOT policy, statute or rule, but rather it was written to provide internal guidance.
Jerry Wachtel, an Engineering Psychologist and highway safety expert in private
practice, was the lead author for the FHWA's original (1980) study on electronic
billboards. He has continued his active involvement in this field, and advises Government
agencies as well as the outdoor advertising industry on sign ordinances, sign operations,
and the implications of the latest research on road safety. Mr. Wachtel believes that it is
neither feasible from the perspective of research design and methodology, nor necessary
from a regulatory perspective, to demonstrate a causal relationship between digital
billboards and road safety. Rather, he believes that we have a strong understanding, based
on many years of research, of driver information processing capabilities and limitations,
and of the contributions to, and consequences of, driver distraction, on crash risk; and
that this understanding is sufficient to support development of guidelines and ordinances
for the design, placement, and operation of digital billboards so as to lessen their
potentially adverse impact on road safety and traffic operations.
Im
Wachtel also offered comments on drafts of this report. In later conversations related to
his review, Wachtel stated his belief that even though visual fixations on roadway signs
decrease as route familiarity increases, a strength of the new digital billboards is that they
can present messages that are alwa - vs new. Thus, the conclusion from the 1980 FHWA
study is another argument against these billboards; namely, drivers spend more time
looking at the unfamiliar signs than at familiar ones, suggesting digital billboards are
more dangerous than traditional fixed billboards. Wachtel also suggested his preference
for a goal to have any given driver experience only one, or a maximum of two, messages
from an individual roadside sign.
3.2 Billboards: a Source of Driver Distraction ?'
The purpose of a sign is to attract the attention of passersby so that a message is conveyed. To
the degree signs attract the attention of vehicle drivers, they may distract them from the activity
of driving. While this report primarily examines the impact of dynamic roadside advertising, the
role traditional static advertising plays in driver distraction is discussed below.
The relationship between roadside advertising and crash rates has been the subject of several
studies. The majority of this research was conducted in the 1950s, 60s and 70s. While some of
the earliest studies have been subsequently criticized for flawed methodologies and improper
statistical techniques, some findings emerge when the totality of the studies are examined. One
of these findings is that the correlation between crash rates and roadside advertising is strongest
in complex driving environments. For example, higher crash rates were found at intersections
(generally considered a complex environment) that have advertising than those intersections that
do not have advertising. A few of the studies that are important in this field are summarized
below.
Minnesota Department of Transportation Field Study (1951) and
Michigan State Highway Department Field Study (1952)
These two studies from the early 1950s used similar methods but came to significantly
different conclusions. Recognized as the more scientifically rigorous study, the
Minnesota study found that increases in the number of advertising signs per mile are
correlated with increases in motor vehicle crash rates. It also found that intersections
with at least four advertising signs experienced three times more crashes than
intersections with no advertising signs. Conversely, the less rigorous Michigan study
found the presence of advertising signs had no effect on the number of crashes.
Iowa State College, Do Road Signs Affect Accidents? (Lauer & McMonagle, 1955)
A laboratory test was created to determine the effect of advertising signs on driver
behavior. The results of this study found removing all advertising signs from the driver's
field of vision did not improve driver performance. When signs were included, driver
performance was slightly better. Note that laboratory methods used in this study are
considered to be dated by today's standards.
A7
Faustman (California Route 40) Field Study (1961)' and Federal Highway
Administration, Reanalysis of Faustman Field Study (1973)'
Two studies that appear to have stood the test of time are Faustman's original analysis of
California Route 40 and its re-examination by FHWA more than a decade later. The
original analysis tried to improve upon previous research by limiting variables, such as
roadway geometric design and roadway access controls. The FHWA reanalysis focused
on disaggregating the data and converting actual crashes to expected crash rates on
specific roadway sections. Each of the sections was given a value based on the number
of billboards on the section. A linear regression was performed to determine the
expected crash rates. An analysis of variance of the regression coefficients found that the
number of billboards on a section was statistically significant. The reanalysis found a
strong correlation between the number of billboards and crash rates as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. FHWA Reanalysis of austman's Findings.
Federal Highway Administration
Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial
Electronic Variable-Message Signage (Wachtel & Netherton, 1980) 6
This extensive review provides a comprehensive discussion of roadside advertising
research as of 1980. The study authors noted "attempts to quantify the impact of roadside
advertising on traffic safety have not yielded conclusive results." The authors found that
courts typically rule on the side of disallowing billboards because of the "readily
understood logic that a driver cannot be expected to give full attention to his driving tasks
when he is reading a billboard." Because the distraction evidence is not conclusive, these
decisions were generally not based on empirical evidence.
The research review noted that accident reports often cite "driver distraction" as a default
category used by uncertain law enforcement officers who must identify the cause of a
crash. As a result, the authors believe crashes due to driver distraction are not always
properly identified. In addition, law enforcement officers often fail to indicate the precise
crash locations on crash reports, making it difficult to establish relationships between
crashes and roadside features.
Expected No. of
Cumulative Increase
No. of Billboards
Accidents in a
5-year Period
in Accident Rate
0
5.92
1
6.65
12.3
2
7.38
24.2
3
8.11
37.0
4
8.84
49.3
5
9.57
61.7
Federal Highway Administration
Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial
Electronic Variable-Message Signage (Wachtel & Netherton, 1980) 6
This extensive review provides a comprehensive discussion of roadside advertising
research as of 1980. The study authors noted "attempts to quantify the impact of roadside
advertising on traffic safety have not yielded conclusive results." The authors found that
courts typically rule on the side of disallowing billboards because of the "readily
understood logic that a driver cannot be expected to give full attention to his driving tasks
when he is reading a billboard." Because the distraction evidence is not conclusive, these
decisions were generally not based on empirical evidence.
The research review noted that accident reports often cite "driver distraction" as a default
category used by uncertain law enforcement officers who must identify the cause of a
crash. As a result, the authors believe crashes due to driver distraction are not always
properly identified. In addition, law enforcement officers often fail to indicate the precise
crash locations on crash reports, making it difficult to establish relationships between
crashes and roadside features.
Accident Research Unit, School of Psychology, University of Nottingham
Attraction and distraction of attention with roadside advertisements (Crundall et
al., 2005)'
This research used eye movement tracking to measure the difference between street-level
advertisements and raised advertisements in terms of how they held drivers' attention at
times when attention should have been devoted to driving tasks. The study found that
street-level advertising signs are more distracting than raised signs.
3.3 "Dynamic" Billboards: an Additional Source of Distraction?
Signage owners or leasers want to incorporate dynamic features into their signage for a number
of reasons: to enhance the sign's ability to attract attention, to facilitate display of larger amounts
of information within the same sign area, to conveniently change message content, and to
enhance profitability. As mentioned earlier, this report uses the term "dynamic" signs to refer to
non-static signs capable of displaying multiple messages. Several studies documented the ability
of a sign to accomplish the first of these goals.
University of Toronto
Observed Driver Glance Behavior at Roadside Advertising Signs (Beijer & Smiley,
2004) 8
Research done at the University of Toronto compared driver behavior subject to passive
(static) and active (dynamic) signs. The study found that about twice as many glances
were made toward the active signs than passive signs. A disproportionately larger
number of long glances (greater than 0.75 seconds) taken were toward the active signs.
The duration of 0.75 seconds is important because it is close to the minimum perception-
reaction time required for a driver to react to a slowing vehicle. For vehicles with close
following distances, or under unusually complex driving conditions, a perception delay of
this length could increase the chance of a crash. The following findings were reported in
this study:
• 88% of the subjects made long glances (greater than 0.75 seconds).
• 22% of all glances made at all signs were long glances (greater than 0.75 seconds
• 20% of all the subjects made long glances of over two seconds.
• As compared to static and scrolling text signs, video and tri-vision signs attracted
more long glances.
• Video and scrolling text signs received the longest average maximum glance
duration.
• All three of the moving sign types (video, scrolling text and tri-vision) attracted more
than twice as many glances as static signs.
WIT - 91
Kim
University of Toronto
Impact of Video Advertising on Driver Fixation Patterns (Smiley et al., 2001) 9
Another study completed at the University of Toronto used similar eye fixation
information in urban locations to show that drivers made roughly the same number of
glances at traffic signals and street signs with and without full-motion video billboards
present. This may be interpreted to mean that while electronic billboards may be
distracting, they do not appear to distract drivers from noticing traffic signs. This study
also found that video signs entering the driver's line of sight directly in front of the
vehicle (e.g., when the sign is situated at a curve) are very distracting.
City of Seattle Report (Wachtel, 2001)'
The City of Seattle commissioned a report in 2001 to examine the relationship between
electronic signs with moving/flashing images and driver distraction. The report found
that electronic signs with moving images contribute to driver distraction for longer
intervals than electronic signs with no movement. Following are major points made in
the report:
• New video display technologies produce images of higher quality than previously
available technologies. These signs have improved color, image quality and
brightness.
• New video display technologies use LEDs with higher viewing angles. Drivers can
read the sign from very close distances when they are at a large angle from the face of
the sign.
• Signs with a visual story or message that carries for two or more frames are
particularly distracting because drivers tend to focus on the message until it is
completed rather than the driving task at hand.
• Research has shown that drivers expend about 80 percent of their attention on driving
related tasks, leaving 20% of their attention for non-essential tasks.
• The Seattle consultant suggests a "10 second rule" as the maximum display time for a
video message.
The expanded content of a dynamic sign also contributes to extended distraction from the
driving task. The Seattle Report examined how this may be due in part to the Zeigarnik
effect which describes the psychological need to follow a task to its conclusion. People's
attention is limited by the ability to only focus on a small number of tasks at a time, and
by the tendency to choose to complete one task before beginning another. In a driving
environment, drivers' attention might be drawn to the sign rather than the task of driving
because they are waiting to see a change in the message. This loss of attention could lead
to unsafe driving behaviors, such as prolonged glances away from the roadway, slowing,
or even lane departure.
M
While the Zeigarnik effect may be present in a wide variety of driving situations, possible
scenarios that could affect drivers include:
• A scrolling message requires the viewer to concentrate as the message is revealed.
Based on the size and resolution of the sign, and the length of the message, this could
range from less than one second to many seconds.
• A sequence of images or messages that tell a story, during which the driver's
attention may be captured for the entire duration that the sign is visible. Instead of
merely glancing at the sign and then returning concentration to the driving task, more
attention may be given to the message.
• Anticipation of a new image appearing, even if the expected new image is not related
to the first image. In this case, the driver may be distracted while waiting for the
change.
Federal Highway Administration
Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial
Electronic Variable-Message Signage (Wachtel & Netherton, 1980) "
This research provides information on the use of on-premise Commercial Electronic
Variable - Message Signs (CEVMS) that display public service information (i.e,. time and
temperature) and advertising messages along the Interstate highway system. The
research found the following major considerations:
• Highway Safety Considerations
The link between changing messages that attract drivers' attention and crashes has
been an issue of concern since the earliest forms of electronic signage became
available. This study thoroughly reviewed the literature seeking information
regarding a potential link between CEVMS and crashes:
"Although a trend in recent findings has begun to point to
a demonstrable relationship between CEVMS and
accidents, the available evidence remains statistically
insufticient to scientifically support this relationship.
The study also noted that studies have not documented information about "such
occurrences as 'near misses' or traffic impedances that are widely recognized as
relevant to safety, and which may or may not be attributable to the presence of
roadside advertising."
• Human Factors Considerations
Human factors relate to all the elements that explain driver behavior, such as eye
glances and driver responses to a variety of driving-related stimuli. The study makes
the point that simple driving-related tasks consume relatively little information
processing capacity. However, when other conditions, such as congestion,
complicated roadway geometries, or weather are also considered, the marginal extra
.8411
amount of attention required to read roadside advertisements could lead to driving
errors that could cause crashes.
"The enormous flexibility of display possessed by CEVMS
makes it possible to use them in ways that can attract
drivers' attention at greater distances, hold their attention
longer, and deliver a wider variety of information and
image stimuli than is possible by the use of conventional
advertising signs. "
Texas Transportation Institute for FHWA, Impacts of Using Dynamic Features to
Display Messages on Changeable Message Signs (Dudek et al., 2005) 12
This study examined the comprehension times for three different scenarios for
DOT-operated changeable message signs. The scenarios evaluated were:
• Flashing an entire one-phase message
• Flashing one line of a one-phase message while two other lines of the message remain
constant
• Alternating text on one line of a three-line CMS while keeping the other two lines of
text constant on the second phase of the message
The findings of this study were:
• Flashing messages did not produce faster reading times.
• Flashing messages may have an adverse effect on message comprehension for
unfamiliar drivers.
• Average reading times for flashing line messages and two-phase messages were
significantly longer than for alternating messages.
• Message comprehension was negatively affected by flashing line messages.
While this research did not evaluate advertising-related signs, it does demonstrate that
flashing signs require more of the driver's time and attention to comprehend the message.
In the case of electronic billboards, this suggests that billboards that flash may require
more time and attention to read than static ones.
3.3.1 OTHER INFORMATION
NHTSA Driver Distraction Internet Forum (2000) 13
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration held an Internet forum to gather
research and public comment related to driver distraction with an emphasis on the use of
cell phones, navigation systems, wireless Internet and other in-vehicle devices. During
this forum, participants were invited to take a poll to determine the most prominent driver
.9412
distraction issues. Electronic billboards were identified as one of six noted sources of
distraction.
Parliament of Victoria, Australia, Report of the Road Safety Committee on the
Inquiry into Driver Distraction (2006)'
This report identified road signs and advertising as one of the largest sources of driver
distraction. At least three billboards near Melbourne, Australia display moving images.
"The Committee considers these screens to be at the high
end of potential visual distraction and accordingly, present
a risk to drivers. "
The study also included a quote from the Manager of the Road User Behaviour group at
VicRoads (the State's road and traffic authority) from a December 2005 hearing:
What we do know is when there is movement involved, such
as flicker or movement in the visual periphery, that this is
more likely to capture a driver's attention. We actually are
hard -wired as human beings to movement, so particularly
moving screens and information that scrolls at
intersections and in highly complex driving situations
these are risky, and in particular researchers have been
most concerned about those sort of advertising materials.
This opinion would suggest that electronic signs can present a distraction to drivers.
3.4 Haw Much Distraction Is a Problem?
A number of studies were identified that discussed concerns with driver distraction generally. It
should be noted that some of the studies cited use specific crash data that is ten or more years
old. Direct comparison of distraction sources to influences of today may not be completely valid
due to increased technological sophistication of distracting influences. These could include in-
vehicle technology (e.g., navigation systems, MP3 players, DVD players, CD players, computer
systems, etc.) as well as other potentially distracting influences (e.g., cell phones, text messaging,
dynamic signage, other roadway elements, etc.) that were not commonplace when the data for
these studies was collected:
Australian Road Research Board
Investigations of Distraction by Irrelevant Information (Johnston & Cole, 1976)'
This research used five experiments to test whether drivers could maintain efficient
performance in their driving tasks while being subjected to content that was information
rich, but irrelevant to driving. The findings were that a small, but statistically significant
amount of performance degradation was observed when the participant was under a
critical load of stimuli.
413
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration/ Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute
Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-CrashlCrash Risk: An Analysis Using the
100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data (Klauer et al., 2006)
This study analyzed the data from a driving database developed by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. This database contained exhaustive data recorded by
instrumented vehicles that measured glance position, impairment, drowsiness, risk taking
and many other parameters potentially involved in crash causation. Vehicles were
instrumented so that an observer did not need to be in the vehicle to collect data.
Automated data collection reduced the problem of an observer influencing driver
behavior. The study found that glances of two seconds or greater doubled the risk of
crashes or near-crashes. The study also found that 22 percent of crashes are accompanied
by "secondary-task" distraction whether inside or outside the vehicle.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute
Driver Inattention is a Major Factor in Serious Traffic Crashes (2001)
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration commissioned a study to examine
the causes of crashes. The study gathered information from four areas throughout the
country and used data from the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) from
April 1996-April 1997 for analysis. The geographic areas were selected because they had
good crash investigation practices and high interview completion rates. The results of
this study are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Crash Causation Summary
Causal Category
Percentage of Drivers
Contributing to Causation
Driver Inattention
22.7
Vehicle Speed
18.7
Alcohol Impairment
18.2
Perceptual Errors
15.1
Decision Errors
10.1
Incapacitation
6.4
Other
8.8
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine
The Role of Driver Inattention in Crashes; New Statistics from the
1995 Crashworthiness Data System (Wang, 1996)'
This report analyzed the NHTSA 1995 Crash Worthiness Data System (CDS). It found
that the greatest source of driver distraction (3.2 percent) was due to a specified person,
object or event outside the vehicle. The full results of the study are presented in Table 3.
Film,
AIM
Table 3. Percentage of CDS Crashes Involving Inattention-Distraction
Related Crash Causes
Weighted driver N — 4,627.OW (7,943, un weigh ted); weigh bei crash N — 2.619,00D (4,536);
In order for a crwh to classified "attentive,* all involved drivers had to be classified 'aftentive"
g - estimate based on 5-9 cases.
University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center
The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes {Stotts et al., 200 1) '
A study prepared by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center
for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety examined the sources of driver distraction in
traffic crashes. The data came from the CDS from 1995-1999. Of the thirteen specific
sources of distraction tracked by the study, the greatest source of distraction was an
outside person, object or event. While the study does not break down the sources of
outside distraction, it does show that distractions outside the vehicle are the largest factor
in distraction-related crashes. The results of this study are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Specific Sources qfDistraction Among Drivers in Distraction Related Crashes
Specific Distraction Percentage of
Drivers
Outside person, object or event
29.4
Adjusting radio, cassette, CD
11.4
Other occupant in vehicle
10.9
W* 4P
4.3
Other device/object brought into vehicle
Mked fmt did - not se
Adjusting vehicle/climate controls
2.8
al"Im"10=1
1.7
Using/dialing cell phone
1.5
Smoking related
0.9
1049"MIN'll - - - -------- -----
25.6
Unknown distraction
8.6
IM
OMNI=
Weighted driver N — 4,627.OW (7,943, un weigh ted); weigh bei crash N — 2.619,00D (4,536);
In order for a crwh to classified "attentive,* all involved drivers had to be classified 'aftentive"
g - estimate based on 5-9 cases.
University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center
The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes {Stotts et al., 200 1) '
A study prepared by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center
for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety examined the sources of driver distraction in
traffic crashes. The data came from the CDS from 1995-1999. Of the thirteen specific
sources of distraction tracked by the study, the greatest source of distraction was an
outside person, object or event. While the study does not break down the sources of
outside distraction, it does show that distractions outside the vehicle are the largest factor
in distraction-related crashes. The results of this study are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Specific Sources qfDistraction Among Drivers in Distraction Related Crashes
Specific Distraction Percentage of
Drivers
Outside person, object or event
29.4
Adjusting radio, cassette, CD
11.4
Other occupant in vehicle
10.9
Moving object in vehicle
4.3
Other device/object brought into vehicle
2.9
Adjusting vehicle/climate controls
2.8
Eating or drinking
1.7
Using/dialing cell phone
1.5
Smoking related
0.9
Other distraction
25.6
Unknown distraction
8.6
Total 100.0
Xk215
Three studies were found which attempted to measure driver behavior specifically in response to
dynamic signage. Two of these studies demonstrated a potential relationship between dynamic
signage and crash rates:
Minnesota Department of Transportation, The Effectiveness and Safety of Traffic
and Non-Traffic Related Messages Presented on Changeable Message Signs
(CMS) (Harder, 2004) 21
This study used a driving simulator to measure the effect of Department of
Transportation changeable message signs on traffic flow. The two messages evaluated
were a "crash ahead" warning and an AMBER Alert (child abduction information). The
research found that just over half of the participants used the "crash ahead" message and
60 percent could recall the AMBER Alert with scores of Good or Better. Over one fifth
of the participants slowed down by at least 2 mph upon seeing the AMBER Alert,
demonstrating that messages relevant to drivers are associated with changes in at least
some drivers' travel speed.
Decision of the Outdoor Advertising Board in the Matter of John Donnelly & Sons,
Permitee, Telespot of New England, Inc., Intervenor, and Department of Public
Works, Intervenor, with Respect to Permit Numbered 19260 as Amended (1976) 21
This proceeding documents the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising
Board's ruling regarding one of the first changeable signs. This sign was located near an
arterial road in Boston and used magnetic discs to portray a message that changed every
30 seconds. The original sign permit was rejected based on four criteria, one of which
was safety. Upon appeal, the Massachusetts Department of Public Works allowed the
permit based on the fact that the sign would give the public a benefit. However, they
ultimately determined that the sign was a safety hazard based on crash rates before and
after the sign was installed. Tables 5 and 6 show the change in crash rates.
Table 5. Telespot Sign Crash Rates - Expressway Southbound
rm
Average
Average
Average
per year
per year
Percent
(1/6970-
(1/6973-
Change
1213111972)
313111975)
Crashes where
the sign was viewable
29.0
20.0
-31.0
(north of sign)
Crashes where
the sign was not viewable
39.0
15,6
-60.0
(south of sign)
rm
Table 6. Telespot Sign Crash Rates - Expressway Northbound
This analysis shows that while crash rates decreased on comparable sections in the years
after the sign was installed, the sections where the sign was visible experienced smaller
crash rate decreases. Due to these arguments, the Board ruled that the operation of the
sign must be terminated.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message Sign Study — Impacts of an
Advertising Variable Message Sign on Freeway Traffic (1994) "
A study prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) examined
crash rates before and after an advertising variable message sign was installed in 1984 on
the Milwaukee County Stadium, home of the Milwaukee Brewers professional baseball
team. Crash statistics were analyzed for the three years before and the one and three
years after the sign was installed. As they are often associated with driver distraction,
side-swipe and rear-end crashes, as well as total crashes, were examined for both the
eastbound and westbound directions. The sign was much more visible to eastbound
traffic due to the stadium's proximity to the roadway and the amount of visual
obstructions for westbound traffic.
The analysis found an increase in crash rates for all crash types in the eastbound direction
after the sign was installed. Most pronounced was an 80 percent increase in side-swipe
crashes after the first year of installation. Results in the westbound direction were mixed,
with a 29 percent decrease in crashes the first year the sign was in place and a 35 percent
increase in the three years the sign was in place. Although no control roadway sections
were studied, an interview with the study author revealed that the introduction of a sign
on a high volume curving roadway may have introduced enough distraction to an already
demanding driving environment to explain the higher crash rate in the eastbound
direction. The study author also stated that the study was not able to establish a causal
relationship between the sign and the crash rates. 23
Federal Highway Administration
Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver
Attention and Distraction (2001) 24
The Federal Highway Administration published a comprehensive report in 2001 that
consisted of a literature search, literature review and a description of research needs for
Xk417
Average per year
Average per year
Average
(111/1970-
(11111973-
Percent
1213111972)
3131/1975)
Change
Crashes where
the sign was viewable
463
42.7
-7.8
(south of sign)
Crashes where
the sign was not viewable
8.0
1.8
-77.5
(north of sign)
This analysis shows that while crash rates decreased on comparable sections in the years
after the sign was installed, the sections where the sign was visible experienced smaller
crash rate decreases. Due to these arguments, the Board ruled that the operation of the
sign must be terminated.
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message Sign Study — Impacts of an
Advertising Variable Message Sign on Freeway Traffic (1994) "
A study prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) examined
crash rates before and after an advertising variable message sign was installed in 1984 on
the Milwaukee County Stadium, home of the Milwaukee Brewers professional baseball
team. Crash statistics were analyzed for the three years before and the one and three
years after the sign was installed. As they are often associated with driver distraction,
side-swipe and rear-end crashes, as well as total crashes, were examined for both the
eastbound and westbound directions. The sign was much more visible to eastbound
traffic due to the stadium's proximity to the roadway and the amount of visual
obstructions for westbound traffic.
The analysis found an increase in crash rates for all crash types in the eastbound direction
after the sign was installed. Most pronounced was an 80 percent increase in side-swipe
crashes after the first year of installation. Results in the westbound direction were mixed,
with a 29 percent decrease in crashes the first year the sign was in place and a 35 percent
increase in the three years the sign was in place. Although no control roadway sections
were studied, an interview with the study author revealed that the introduction of a sign
on a high volume curving roadway may have introduced enough distraction to an already
demanding driving environment to explain the higher crash rate in the eastbound
direction. The study author also stated that the study was not able to establish a causal
relationship between the sign and the crash rates. 23
Federal Highway Administration
Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver
Attention and Distraction (2001) 24
The Federal Highway Administration published a comprehensive report in 2001 that
consisted of a literature search, literature review and a description of research needs for
Xk417
the topic of electronic billboards (EBBs). While the study did not conduct any new
research, it does provide an excellent summary of the role electronic billboards play in
traffic safety and includes good descriptions of the terminology related to electronic
billboards. Selected findings from that synthesis are provided below:
"In most instances, researchers were not able to verify that an
EBB was a ma� jor factor in causing a crash. Only one study
since the 1980 review and one lawsuit were identified. "
"Studies were identified that verified that: an increase in
distraction, a decrease in conspicuity, or a decrease in
legibility may cause an increase in the crash rate. "
"Commercial EBBS are designed to `catch the eye' of drivers.
Their presence may distract drivers from concentrating on the
driving task and visual surrounds. "
"There is indication that individual difftrences in age and
driving experience may be important considerations in driver
distraction, and are relevant to understanding driver responses
to the external environment. Furthermore, research regarding
driver familiarity of their route demonstrated that visual
fixations on roadway signs decreases as route familiarity
increases. This research may show that there is a difference
between commuter and visiting drivers. "
Based on these findings, the FHWA recommended additional research to further
demonstrate how roadway characteristics, sign characteristics and legibility, driver
characteristics and other potential driver distractions affect traffic safety. FHWA was
contacted to see if any new information was available. Greg Davis, a Research
Psychologist with the FHWA Office of Safety R &D, indicated that the FHWA has not
performed additional studies on the topic since the report was published. He stated that
there is "no direct correlation between electronic outdoor advertising signs and crash
rates ". He referred to a before /after study of electronic signs installed along a freeway in
Las Vegas that found no change in crash rates. He went on to say that the lack of a
research finding that links signs with crash rates does not mean that a causal relationship
does not exist. He indicated that he has been contacted by several law enforcement
agencies regarding the link between driver distraction and dynamic message
signslelectronic billboards. He indicated that this is a timely and pertinent topic for many
states due to the increasing popularity and capabilities of electronic outdoor advertising
devices, and he expects further research to be forthcoming. He advocates for a new study
that can control for all variables and determine if a cause and effect relationship exists. 25
3.5 How Does `Brightness" Affect Driver Safety Concerns?
The brightness of any sign, static or dynamic, raises concerns with discomfort or disability glare
to the driver that may arise when viewing any lighted object. Disability Clare occurs when a
driver is exposed to a light source so bright that it temporarily blinds the driver, impairing their
ability to perform driving tasks. This temporary blindness is brief, but can be dangerous.
Discomfort Glare occurs when a light source is bright enough to distract or encourage the driver
to look away from the light, but is not blinding. Discomfort glare is of particular concern in
cases where a bright sign is located in the same line of sight as a traffic sign, signal or another
vehicle.
While concerns about glare are not unique to dynamic signs, newer sign technologies, which
often include dynamic components, have the technical capability to emit more light and/or
respond to ambient light conditions, raising additional concerns about sign brightness in areas
where signs compete with regulatory traffic signs or signals.
3.6 Billboards and Other Signage Regulation: a Minnesota Perspective
Roadside signage is governed by policies and laws at the federal, state and local levels.
Minnesota Statute, Chapter 173 seeks to "reasonably and effectively regulate and control the
erection or maintenance of advertising devices on land adjacent to such highways." The statute
requires adherence to federal statutes with respect to interstate and primary systems of highways.
Minnesota Statute Ch. 173.16 Subd. 3. regulates lighting of signs. Signs which are "illuminated
by any flashing light or lights, except those giving public service information" (time, date,
temperature, weather or news) are prohibited. This section also states:
(b) Advertising devices shall not be erected or maintained which are not effectively
shielded so as to prevent beams or rays of light from being directed at any portion of the
traveled way of an interstate or primary highway, of such intensity or brilliance as to
cause glare or impair the vision of the operator of any motor vehicle; or which otherwise
interfere with any driver's operation of a motor vehicle are prohibited.
and
(c) Outdoor advertising devices shall not be erected or maintained which shall be so
illuminated that they interfere with the effectiveness of or obscure any official traffic
sign, device or signal.
3.7 Billboard and Other Signage Regulation: Other Perspectives
During the course of this study, several articles were found which summarize regulation of
dynamic signage in other states:
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Electronic Billboards and Highway Safety (2003) 26
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation also published a literature review report to
further explain the current state of EBB research. Although much of the information is
rivu-
kca"
mentioned in other sections of this report, the Wisconsin review did summarize
Wisconsin's regulations for electronic billboards.
• No message may be displayed for less than one-half second;
• No message may be repeated at intervals of less than two seconds;
• No segmented message may last longer than 10 seconds;
• No traveling message may travel at a rate slower than 16 light columns per second or
faster than 32 columns per second (light column defined as pixel column);
• No variable message sign lamp may be illuminated to a degree of brightness that is
greater than necessary for adequate visibility.
National Alliance of Highway Beautification Agencies (1999) 2'
Although this survey is eight years old, it generated the following information related to
electronic billboards:
• Nine states had specific regulations governing signs,
• Nine states had regulations on tri-vision signs that were either being drafted or in
pending legislation,
• Fifteen states had regulations regarding moving parts and/or lights,
• Nine state had no regulations on tri-vision signs, and
• Six states and Washington, DC, prohibited tri-vision signs.
An investigation into state outdoor advertising regulations was also conducted.
• Thirty-six states had prohibitions on signs with red, flashing, intermittent, or moving
lights,
• Twenty-nine states prohibited signs that were so illuminated as to obscure or interfere
with traffic control devices, and
• Twenty-nine states prohibited signs located on interstate or primary highway outside
of the zoning authority of incorporated cities within 500 ft of an interchange or
intersection at grade or safety roadside area.
Parliament of Victoria, Australia, Report of the Road Safety Committee on the
Inquiry into Driver Distraction (2006) 11
This report, cited earlier for its driver distraction opinions, identifies road signs and
advertising as one of the largest sources of driver distraction. VicRoads, the state's road
and traffic authority, has implemented the following regulations.
M
Figitre 1. VicRoads' Ten Point Road Safety Checklist
An advertisement, or any structure, device or hoarding for the exhibition of
an advertisement, is considered to be a road safety hazard if it:
I obstructs a driver's line of sight at an intersection, curve or
point of egress from an adjacent property; or
2. obstructs a driver's view of a traffic control device, or is
likely to create a confusing or dominating background which
might reduce the clarity or effectiveness of a traffic control
device; or
3. could dazzle or distract drivers due to its size, design or
colouring, or it being illuminated, reflective, animated or
flashing; or
4. is at a location where particular concentration is required
(eg. high pedestrian volume intersection); or
5. is likely to be mistaken for a traffic control device, for
example, because it contains red, green or yellow lighting, or
has red circles, octagons, crosses or triangles, or arrows; or
6. requires close study from a moving or stationary vehicle in a
location where the vehicle would be unprotected from
passing traffic; or
7. invites drivers to turn where there is fast moving traffic or
the sign is so close to the turning point that there is no time
to signal and turn safely; or
8. is within 100 metres of a rural railway crossing; or
9. has insufficient clearance from vehicles on the carriageway;
or
10. could mislead drivers or be mistaken as an instruction to
drivers.
#821
VicRoads also gives operational requirements for electronic advertising message signs.
Signage must:
• not display animated or moving images, or flashing or intermittent lights;
• remain unchanged for a minimum of 30 seconds;
• not be visible from a freeway; and
• satisfy the ten-point checklist.
!_91IM-10011" N 8111 It"] 0111111 WIN 1193 1 1 11 1 W-11 9 9 MIYA"
Local governments regulate electronic outdoor advertising devices in widely varying degrees.
Some cities completely prohibit the use of all electronic signs (sometimes specifying LED signs),
while others have no regulations specific to electronic signs. Between those two extremes, there
are many levels and types of control that can be applied.
The primary concerns to keep in mind when considering sign regulations are 1) First
Amendment rights, which can be affected by regulations that affect the content of a sign's
message, and therefore should be avoided, and 2) changing technology, which can quickly make
a sign ordinance no longer applicable if the ordinance has been specifically written to address a
certain type of sign technology. Performance based measures may therefore be preferable as they
remain viable even as sign technology advances.
4.1 Definitions
Signage discussions often include a number of different words or phrases used to describe the
technical characteristics of signage devices or their components (such as LEDs). For the purpose
of zoning, some additional terms are also used to describe sign characteristics. Any regulatory
efforts should take care to precisely define terminology. One possible resource in this effort is
"Street Graphics and the Law," published by the American Planning Association (APA)
Planning Advisory Service 29
4.2 Types of Regulatory Measures
4.21 Complete or Partial Prohibition of Electronic Signs
Some cities have completely prohibited the use of electronic outdoor advertising devices. For
example, the City of Maple Valley, WA prohibits all types of electronic outdoor advertising
devices including animated signs, electronic changeable message signs, flashing signs or
displays, moving signs, scrolling displays, and traveling displays. This applies to both on-
premise and off-premise signs.
Other cities are very selective about where electronic signs are allowed, allowing them only in
certain zoning districts. There are very few "standard" approaches. For the most part, each local
422
government tailors their regulations to their own situation. One approach adopted by cities is to
prohibit electronic outdoor advertising devices in residential zoning districts, and for a certain
distance away from residential zoning districts, similar to the zoning limitations placed on
illuminated signs. Some ordinances require that electronic signs be situated such that the sign
face is not visible from nearby residences.
4.2.2 Size Limitations on Electronic
Another way of regulating electronic signs is to limit their size. Again, there is no set standard
for this. One ordinance reviewed for the purpose of this study limits the electronic portion of a
sign to no more than 50 percent of the sign face with the overall size determined by whatever the
sign ordinance allows for a particular zoning district. Other examples of electronic sign size
limitations include five square feet, 1,000 square inches, 20 square feet, and so forth. In other
ordinances, there is no differentiation made between the size of electronic signs and other signs.
According to input from representatives of the sign industry, the smaller the size of the electronic
sign, the more desirable it is for businesses to use frequent message changes, or sequenced
messages, where more than one screen of text is used to convey an entire message.
4.2.3 Rate -of- Change Limitations on Electronic Sims
Many communities that allow electronic signs also regulate the rate at which the messages on the
signs can be changed. Research on sign codes has shown this to range from as little as four
seconds to as long as 24 hours.
The Interstate 394 sign between Ridgedale Drive and Plymouth Road is visible for
approximately 45 seconds at free flow traffic speeds. Depending on text size, the message may
not be readable by drivers during this entire duration, but the message changes can attract
attention from long distances. Depending on how often the message changes occur and the
speed of traffic, drivers on this segment could see a varying number of discrete messages. Table
7 provides the number of message changes a driver would see at different change durations and
traffic speeds.
423
Prohibiting displays from changing quickly can minimize potential driver distraction, but it
would significantly limit the message owner's ability to convey information that does not fit on
one screen of the sign. Using two or more successive screens to convey a message is referred to
as sequencing. Based on the studies summarized in part 3 of this Report, including the glance
duration studies performed by Klaur for the FHWA in 2006 and by Beijer & Smiley in 2004, and
Wachtel's analysis for Seattle of the Zeigarnik effect, a message delivery system such as
sequencing that requires or induces a driver to watch the sign for several seconds increases the
likelihood of driver distraction. Based on information from the sign industry, for sequencing to
be effective in a marketing sense, a brief rate-of-change (1-2 seconds) is generally used before
transitioning into the next screen.
Some codes specify how an image changes, while other codes prohibit the use of transitions.
The change from one image to another can be accomplished by various techniques: no transition
— simply a change from one screen to another, or fading or dissolving one image into the next.
Flashing, spinning, revolving, or other more distracting transition methods can be prohibited,
allowing businesses to use sequencing in an effective manner without making the signs overly
distracting. Another way of regulating distracting transitions is to require a very short time of a
dark or empty screen between images.
4.2.4 Motion, Animation, or Video Limitations on Electronic Sins
Motion on a sign can consist of everything from special text effects (spinning, revolving,
shaking, flashing, etc.) to simple graphics, such as balloons or bubbles rising across the screen, to
more realistic moving images that have the appearance of a television screen. According to sign
industry representatives, video imagery on a sign is referred to as "animation" if the sign is
limited to the capability of 10 frames per second. Fewer frames per second make the moving
image look more like animation. Imagery produced by signs that have the capability of
processing up to 30 frames per second is accurately referred to as "video" imaging.
Many communities that allow dynamic signs do not allow the application of any type of motion,
animation, or video on the signs. However, Seattle was obliged to allow video imagery on their
signs after earlier signage code regulating certain types of signs was not strictly enforced. In
addition to requiring a dark period between successive messages to overcome the Zeigarnik
effect, Seattle also limits the duration of the video message to a minimum of two seconds and a
Table 7. Number of Messages Seen at Various Driver Speeds and
-- i I I — I a I
maximum of 10 seconds. This time frame was established based upon careful calculations of the
streets from which these signs could be seen, speed limits and traffic volumes in addition to the
community's concern over the extent to which moving images could distract drivers. However,
Seattle also limits the size of their electronic signs to a maximum of 1,000 square inches, with no
single dimension greater than three feet, thus minimizing the effect of video images.
4.2.5 Sign Placement and Spacing
Regulating the number of dynamic sign potentially visible to a driver at any one time as well as
the position of the sign in relationship to the roadway may reduce distraction to drivers. Spacing
requirements should consider the speed, width and horizontal and vertical alignment of the
roadway.
Some communities have established minimum distances between electronic signs. Establishing
an adequate distance between these types of devices seems particularly important if a fairly fast
rate of change is allowed for the purpose of facilitating sequenced messages or if animation and
video imaging is allowed. Closely spaced signs attempting to convey sequenced messages may
simply create visual overload and an over-stimulated driving environment. Research conducted
to date has not yielded information about optimal electronic sign spacing. Seattle adopted a 35-
foot spacing requirement for their electronic signs based upon multiple levels of analysis of the
downtown city environment in which these signs are present.
Due to the varying characteristics of individual roadways in this regard, overlay districts
allowing dynamic signage with conditions specific to that area could be considered. Overlay
districts could also take into account other locational factors such as offset from the roadway and
conspicuity. Determining appropriate offsets from the roadway must consider roadway clear
zone requirements as well as spacing of frontage roads and access points, while also considering
the signage too far outside the driver's line of sight may be a further distraction. Conspicuity, a
sign's ability to stand out from its surroundings, should also be considered.
4.2.6 Text Size
Legibility is another important property of signage. The preferred approach used within highway
signing is that drivers can read text that is I inch high from 30 feet away. Larger text is needed
for signs to be legible at greater distances. Large, legible text allows the driver to read the
billboard from varying distances and focus on the driving task. Conversely, with small text, the
driver is more likely to focus on the sign for a longer period of time and possibly be more
adversely distracted. However, the size or type of text or the amount of text due is rarely
regulated.
X2M
4.2.7 Brightness Limitations on Electronic Signs
One of the main concerns about the use of electronic signs, regardless of whether they consist of
changeable text, animation, or video, is the brightness of the image. The brightness of an object
can be characterized in two ways. ]luminance is the total brightness of all the light at a point of
measurement. Illuminance often describes ambient light and can be measured with a standard
light meter such as is used in photography. Luminance is the measure of the light emanating
from an object with respect to its size and is the term is used to quantify electronic sign
brightness. The unit of measurement for luminance is nits, which is the total amount of light
emitted from a sign divided by the surface area of the sign (candelas per square meter).
Many, but not all, LED-type signage can be time-programmed to respond to day and nighttime
light levels. Higher-end signage types are equipped with photo cells to respond to ambient light
conditions. Despite these controls, LED signs have been observed that are considered to be
excessively bright. Sign industry representatives indicate that excessive brightness can be the
result of 1) sign malfunction or improper wiring, 2) lack of photo cell and/or dimming
mechanism, or 3) operator error or lack of understanding that brightness is not necessarily an
advantage, especially if it makes a sign unreadable or unpleasant to look at. They also maintain
that the intent of the electronic sign industry is to establish a brightness level that is similar to a
traditional internally or externally lit sign. Recent observations of sign technicians calibrating
the Interstate 394 LED billboard noted that the brightness controls are not calibrated to specific
nit levels, but rather vary in proportion to a set maximum level, like a volume control dial on a
typical car radio.
To control the extent to which electronic signs are a distraction or the extent to which they are
readable, many local governments have adopted regulations that limit nit levels. At this time,
ordinances that use nit level limitations typically differentiate between day time and night time
nit levels. A common daytime nit limitation ranges from 5,000 to 7,000 nits. A common
nighttime limitation is 500 nits, although in areas that are extremely dark at night, with very little
in the way of ambient light levels, less than 500 nits may be appropriate. Other communities
have taken this farther, such as Lincoln, Nebraska, whose sign code incorporates a graph of
varying ambient light levels ranging from night time to a bright sunny day and all conditions
between those two extremes, and has correlating nit limitations for the various ambient light
levels.
Enforcement of these types of regulations is challenging as luminance of electronic signs is very
difficult to measure in the field. Typically, sign luminance is measured and calibrated in a
controlled factory setting using a spectral photometer to measure the light output. This
calibration setting is then used in conjunction with a photo cell to control the brightness of the
sign. The higher the ambient light levels, the brighter the sign. There are different nit thresholds
for various colors. White is most often used to set dimming levels because at a constant nit level,
white has the most intensity as perceived by the human eye.
Lincoln uses a light meter to conduct testing on electronic signs and found a wide range of
luminance levels. One small electronic sign had luminance levels of 13,000 nits. The process
that Lincoln uses to check luminance levels is to hold a luminance meter close to the face of the
sign so that it captures only the light emitted from the sign. They have not had any requests to
W�
measure the brightness of LED billboards, so the viability of using this approach on billboards
has not been explored.
In Seattle, sign luminance was found too difficult to measure, so signs are visually inspected
when complaints from the public are received. Sign owners are then contacted and asked to
adjust sign luminance accordingly.
Both Mesa, Arizona and Lincoln, Nebraska have included a requirement for written certification
from the sign manufacturer that the light intensity has been preset not to exceed the illumination
levels established by their code, and the preset intensity level is protected from end user
manipulation by password protected software or other method approved by the appropriate city
official. This language appears to offer the advantage of ensuring that electronic signs, at a
minimum, cannot exceed a certain established level of brightness.
At a minimum, it is important for communities to require all electronic signs to be equipped with
a dimmer control. A requirement for both a dimmer control and a photo cell, which constantly
keeps track of ambient light conditions and adjusts sign brightness accordingly, is optimal.
Over time, the LEDs used in electronic signs have a tendency to lose some of their intensity, and
an owner may choose to have the sign adjusted and calibrated, which involves adjusting the level
of electrical current in a manner that affects the brightness of the sign. This occurs over the
course of two or three years. Having maximum nit levels established would ensure that the sign
company has upper limits to work with as far as adjusting the sign is concerned.
4.3 Public Review
Most communities establish rules within their sign code and do not create opportunities for
electronic signs to be approved through conditional use permits or special use permits. Some
communities with special overlay districts, or areas that are oriented toward entertainment and
night life, have established a review process for electronic signs, or for various functions of
electronic signs such as animation and video.
Other communities take the opposite approach, where they allow electronic signs with no
controls whatsoever, except in certain special areas, such as a historic overlay district, or a
historic downtown district, where the signs are prohibited. Each community needs to tailor their
application of electronic signs to meet their needs.
As of the writing of this report, no ordinances have been discovered that have a special review
committee just for the purpose of electronic signs. Typically, sign regulations established in the
zoning ordinance would be reviewed in accordance with existing review and approval processes.
As with other development features, dynamic signage should be either prohibited, permitted, or
conditional depending upon the zoning district and/or the specific features of the sign as
established within the city's regulations (i.e. size, specific location with respect to the adjacent
roadway, zoning district, proximity of sensitive uses). The recommended review process for
permitted dynamic signs should be the same as procedures already in place for administrative
X4kV
review. For dynamic signs requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the standard process for
public notification and a public hearing before the planning commission should apply.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Driver distraction plays a significant role in traffic safety. Driver distraction is a factor in one in
four crashes, and of those crashes involving driver distraction, one in four involves distractions
outside the vehicle. The extent to which dynamic signage contributes to traffic safety has been
examined in this study. Following are some of the major findings from a review of available
research.
• Drivers that are subjected to information-rich content that is irrelevant to the driving task
{such as digital advertising) may be temporarily distracted enough to cause a degradation in
their driving performance. This degradation could lead to a crash.
• The unlimited variety of changing content allows dynamic signage to attract drivers'
attention at greater distances and hold their attention longer than traditional static billboards.
• Several studies have found a correlation between crashes and the complexity of the driving
environment. For example, crash rates are higher at intersections because the difficulty of
the driving task is increased by the roadway's complexity. Complex driving environments
place a high demand on drivers' attention. Introducing a source of distraction in an already
demanding driving environment is more likely to result in crashes. This is illustrated by the
1994 Wisconsin DOT study that examined crash rates before and after installation of an
electronic sig on a high-volume curving roadway. Introduction of this sign was identified
as a likely factor of the 80 percent increase in side-swipe crashes that was experienced.
• Many studies have noted a correlation between outdoor advertising signs and crash rates, but
have not established a causal relationship between the signs and crash rates. Driving is a
complex task influenced by multiple factors. It is not necessary to establish a direct causal
relationship between outdoor advertising signs and crash rates to show that they can make the
driving task less safe. While the research shows that driver distraction is a key factor in
many motor vehicle crashes, this often includes many interacting factors that distract drivers.
The specific driver distraction danger that advertising signs contribute is difficult to quantify.
A study that could control for multiple variables (human factors, vehicle, enforcement and
the roadway environment) would be needed to provide a definitive statement on the level of
driver distraction that signs produce. Such a study would likely find that not all advertising
AM cause distraction that would lead to crashes, but some signs in some situations are more
likely to contribute to crashes than others.
Overall, the literature review conducted for the purpose of this study identifies a relationship
between driver distraction and electronic outdoor advertising devices. As indicated, driver
distraction is a significant factor in crashes. The purpose of dynamic signage is to attract the
attention of people in vehicles, so a natural conclusion from that knowledge is that drivers may
be distracted by them. Professional traffic engineering judgment concludes that driver
distraction generally contributes to a reduction in safe driving characteristics.
M
For this reason, state departments of transportation have carefully studied the design and location
of dynamic signs within the highway right-of-way. Their goal is to convey a message to the
traveling public in a manner that is as straight-forward and readable as possible without being a
visual "attraction". The goal of the outdoor advertising sign is to be a visual attraction outside
the right-of-way, possibly making it a source of driver distraction. Nevertheless, the actual
change in crash rates influenced by the presence of any specific device has not been quantified in
a manner that fully isolates the impacts of an electronic sign. Recent studies conducted by
FHWA and others have cited the need for further research.
In the interest of promoting public safety, this report recommends that electronic signs be viewed
as a form of driver distraction and a public safety issue. Therefore, the ordinance
recommendations identified here should be considered. These recommendations should be
reviewed in the future as additional research becomes available.
With respect to regulatory measures for electronic outdoor advertising signs, it is important that
local governments take a thorough approach to updating their ordinances to address this issue.
For example, an ordinance that addresses sign motion, but does not address brightness and
intensity levels may leave the door open for further controversy. This report seeks to identify all
of the aspects of electronic outdoor advertising devices that are subject to regulation. It does not
specifically state what those regulations should be (e.g. the size of electronic signs), since these
are all things that policy makers and staff must take into careful consideration. Further, as driver
distraction and resulting influences on safety do not, in a practical sense, distinguish between on-
premise and off-premise signage, this distinction is not highlighted in the recommendations
below.
Regulatory Measures recommended for consideration
To properly address the issue of dynamic signage, it is recommended that the sign code address
the following:
Identify specific areas where dynamic signs are prohibited. This would typically be done
by specifying certain zoning districts where they are not allowed under any
circumstances. If dynamic signs are to be allowed in specific areas, this could be done by
zoning district (only higher level commercial districts are recommended for
consideration) or by zoning overlay related to specific purposes (e.g. entertainment or
sports facility district) or to specific roadway types.
2. Determine the acceptable level of operational modes in conjunction with such zoning
districts or overlays. The various levels include:
a. Static display only, with no transitions between messages,
b. Static display with fade or dissolve transitions, or transitions that do not have the
effect of moving text or images,
c. Static display with scrolling, traveling, spinning, zooming in, or similar special
effects that have the appearance of movement, animation, or changing in size, or get
revealed sequentially rather than all at once (e.g. letters dropping into place, etc.), and
rivu.
WNW
d. Full animation and video.
3. If one of the forms of static display is identified as the preferred operational mode, a
minimum display time should be established. This display time should correspond to the
operation roadway speed (rather than posted speed limit), allowing at most one image
transition during the time that the sign if visible to a driver traveling at the operational
speed.
If a shorter minimum display time is considered, the effects of message sequencing
should be considered. Wait intervals of more than 1-2 seconds between sequenced
messages have the potential to become more of a distraction as viewers wait impatiently
for the next screen, in an effort to view the complete message.
4. If the community wishes to accommodate animation or video in some or all locations
where dynamic are permitted, a minimum and maximum duration of a video image
should be established. The purpose for establishing a time limit is to ensure that the
message is conveyed in a short, concise time frame that does not cause slowing of traffic
to allow drivers to see the entire message. Given the creativity of advertising, these video
images may be seen as a form of entertainment, and people typically like to see an
entertaining message through to the end.
Differentiate between zoning districts where dynamic signs are permitted by right, and
zoning districts, overlay districts, or special districts where they should only be allowed
through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A CUP would involve public
notification and review and approval by the Planning Commission. Other options would
include a design review board or other dispute resolution process.
5. Consider the establishment of minimum distance requirements between electronic
outdoor advertising devices in relation to the zoning district or roadway context in which
the signs are allowed.
6. Consider size limitations on dynamic signs for zoning districts where they are allowed.
This may vary from one district to another.
7. Consider if dynamic signs are allowed independently, or if they must be incorporated into
the body of another sign, and therefore become a limited percentage of the overall sign
face.
8. Establish a requirement for that all dynamic signs that emit light be equipped with
mechanisms that allow brightness to be set at specific nit levels and respond accurately to
changing light conditions. The City must establish the authority to disable or turn the
device off if it malfunctions in a manner that creates excessive glare or intensity that
causes visual interference or blind spots, and require that the device remain inoperable
until such time that the owner demonstrates to the appropriate city official that the device
is in satisfactory working condition. If such technology is not available, consideration
should be give to banning dynamic signs that emit light until such time as the technology
allows brightness levels to be precisely controlled.
M
9. Consider maximum brightness levels that correlate to ambient (day or night condition,
lighting of surrounding context) light levels. A maximum daytime and separate
nighttime nit/footcandle level should be established. Consider wording that requires the
sign to automatically adjust its nit level based on ambient light conditions.
10. Consider a requirement for a written certification from the sign manufacturer that the
individual sign's maximum light intensity has been preset not to exceed the maximum
daytime illumination levels established by the code, and that the maximum intensity level
is protected from end user manipulation by password protected software or other method
approved by the appropriate city official.
II. Require sign owners to provide an accurate field method of ensuring that maximum light
levels are not exceeded. If such a method cannot technically be provided, consider
banning dynamic signs that emit light until such time as the technology is available.
X431
Attachment 8
1010 Q 11 T-11 Z 1561:4 Z
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE PROHIBITED SIGN SECTION OF THE SIGN CODE AND
ADDING LANGUAGE FOR DYNAMIC DISPLAY SIGNS IN THE SIGN CODE
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
Section 1. This amendment changes Section 44-737(3) (Prohibited Signs) (additions are
underlined):
" ' On-premise q that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that change in
brightness or color. Signs that give public service information, such as time and
temperature are exempt."
Section 2. This amendment changes Section 44-735 (Sign Code Definitions) (additions are
underlined):
"On-premise sign means any sign identifying or advertising a business, person, activity
goods, products, or services, located on the premises where the sign is installed and
maintained."
Section 3. This amendment adds language to the sign code for dynamic display signs
(additions are underlined):
Dynamic Display Signs
a. Findinas. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic diSDlays on
signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction of drivers can lead to
traffic accidents. Drivers can be distracted not only by a changing message, but
also by knowing that the sign has a changing message. In such a case, drivers
may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Drivers also are
distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one look. People have a
natural desire to see the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in
order to wait for the end.
Additionally, drivers could be more distracted by special effects used to change
the message, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Finally, drivers are
generally more distracted by messages that are too small to be clearly
seen or that contain more than a simple message. Time and temperature
signs appear to be an exception to these concerns because the
messages are short, easily absorbed by those observing them, and are only
accurate with frequent changes.
Despite these Public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies
to easily update messages. Except as Prohibited by state or federal law, sign
owners should have the opportunity to use these technologies with certain
restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize potential driver distraction,
to minimize their proliferation in residential districts where signs can adversely
impact residential character, and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity of sign
owners to use such technologies and are not included. Without those
requirements, however, there is the potential for numerous dynamic displays to
exist along any roadway. If more than one dynamic display can be seen from a
given location on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical. If the
display time is too short, a driver could be subiected to a view that appears to
have constant movement. This impact on drivers would be compounded in a
traffic corridor with multiple signs. If dynamic displays become pervasive and
there are no meaningful limitations on each sign's ability to change frequently,
drivers may be subiected to an unsafe degree of distraction and sensory
overload. Therefore, requiring a longer display time on dynamic signs is in the
public interest.
A constant message is typically needed on a sign so that the public can use it to
identify and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this
way-finding Purpose and could adversely affect driving conduct through last-
second lane chanaes. StODS, or turns. all of which could result in traffic accidents.
In conclusion, the City of Maplewood finds that dynamic displays should be
allowed on off-premise signs but with significant controls to minimize their
proliferation and their potential threats to public health, safety, and welfare.
b. Dynamic disDlav sian means anv sian desianed for outdoor use that is capable of
displaying a video signal, including, but not limited to, cathode-ray tubes (CRTs),
light-emitting diode (LED) displays, plasma displays, liquid-crystal displays
(LCDs), or other technologies used in commercially available televisions or
computer monitors.
C. Dynamic display signs are allowed subiect to the following conditions:
(1) Dynamic display signs are allowed on off-premises signs only.
(2) A dynamic display sign is allowed by conditional use permit approved by
the city council.
(3) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be static and each
display must be maintained for a minimum of 12 seconds, and the
transition from one static display to another must be instantaneous
without any special effects
(4) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be complete in
themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or message
or to any other sign;
(5) Every line of copy and graphics in a dynamic display must be at least
seven inches in height on a road with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per
hour, nine inches on a road with a speed limit of 35 to 44 miles per hour,
12 inches on a road with a speed limit of 45 to 54 miles per hour, and 15
inches on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour or more.
device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also be
equipped with a means to discontinue the disiplay if it malfunctions, and
the sign owner must stop the dVnamic displaV within one hour of being
notified bv the citv that it is not meetina the standards of this ordinance:
(7) DVnamic displaV signs must meet the brightness standards contained in
subdivision e. below;
(8) Dynamic display signs existing on (insert the effective date of this
ordinance) Must conno|v with the o0enaUono] standards listed above.
d. Incentive. Off-DrenniseSSiODSdO not need t0 serve the same vvGV-findin
function as do on-premises signs and they are distracting and their removal
serves the public health, safety, and welfare. This clause is intended to provide
an incentive option for the voluntary and uncompensated removal of off-premise
signs in certain settings. This sign removal results in an overall advancement of
one or more of the goals set forth in this section that should more than offset anV
additional burden caused by the incentive. These provisions are also based on
the recognition that the incentive creates an opportunity to consolidate outdoor
advertising services that would otherwise remain distributed throughout
Reduction of Sign Surfaces
(1) A person or sign operator may obtain a conditional use permit for a
dynamic display sign on one surface of an existing off-premises sign if the
followina reauirements are met:
G) The 8DD|iC8nt@OreeSiDvvritiOOho reduce its Off-D[8nliS8SiOn
surfaces bV one by permanentIV removing, within 15 days afte
issuance of the permit, one surface of an off-premises sign in the
city that is owned or leased by the applicant, which sign surface
must satisfy the criteria of parts (2) and (3) of this subsection. This
removal must include the complete removal of the structure and
foundation supporting each removed sign surface. The applicant
must agree that the city may remove the sign surface if the
applicant does not do so, and the application must identifV the
sign surface to be removed and be accompanied by a cash
deposit or letter of credit acceptable to the city attorney sufficient
to paV the citV's costs for that removal. The applicant must also
agree that it is removing the sign surface voluntarily and that it has
no right to compensation for the removed sign surface under any
law. Replacement of an existing sign surface of an off-premises
sign with a dVnamic display sign does not constitute a removal of
a sign surface.
(b) The city has not previously issued a dynamic display sign permit
based on the removal of the particular sign surface relied upon in
this permit application.
C) If the removed sian surface is one that a state Dermit is reauired
by state law, the applicant must surrendered its permit to the state
upon removal of the sign surface. The sign that is the subdect of
the dVnamic display sign permit cannot begin to operate until the
sign owner or operator provides proof to the city that the state
permit has been surrendered.
2) If the ar)olicant meets the oermit reauirements noted above. the citv will
issue a dynamic display sign permit for the designated off-premises sign.
This permit will allow a dynamic displaV to occupV 100 percent of the
Potential copy and graphic area and to change no more frequently than
once every 12 seconds. The designated sign must meet all other
requirements of this ordinance.
e. Brightness Standards.
(1) City staff shall approve the following brightness standards for all dynamic
display signs:
(a) No sign shall be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate
(b) No sign shall be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the
vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to
otherwise interfere with the driver's ogeration of a motor vehicle.
No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with
the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
(2) The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet
the brightness standards in accordance with the citV's instructions. The
adiustment must be made within one hour upon notice of non-compliance
from the city.
3\ All dvnamic diSDIav sians installed after (insert the effective date of this
ordinance) will have illumination by a means other than natural lig-ht must
be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adiusts the brightness
in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped
with a means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if the sign
malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must turn off the sign o
lighting within one hour after being notified by the citV that it is not
meeting the standards of this section.
(4) In addition to the brightness standards required above, dynamic display
signs shall meet the city's outdoor lighting requirements (section 44-
Section 4. This ordinance shall take effect after publishing |n the official newspaper.
The Maplewood City Council approved the first reading 0f this ordinance 0ODecember
10,2007.
�+ The Maplewood City Council approved the second reading of this ordinance on
Mayor
City Clerk
Attachment 9
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SIGN CODE ADDING LANGUAGE FOR DYNAMIC
DISPLAY SIGNS.
The Maplewood City Council approves the following changes to the Maplewood Code of
Ordinances:
Section 1. This amendment chanaes Section 44-735 (Sian Code Definitions) (additions
are underlined):
"On- premise sign means any sign identifying or advertising a business, person,
activity, goods, products, or services, located on the premises where the sign is
installed and maintained."
Section 2. This amendment adds lanquage to the sign code for dynamic display signs
(additions are underlined):
Dynamic Display Signs
Dynamic display sign means any sign designed for outdoor use that is
capable of displaying a video signal, including, but not limited to, cathode-
ray tubes (CRTs), light-emitting diode (LED) displays, Plasma displays,
liquid-crystal displays (LCDs), or other technologies used in commercially
available televisions or computer monitors.
b. There is merit to allowina Dvnamic Sians. a new technoloov to easil
update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal law, sign
owners should have the opportunity to use these technologies with
certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to minimize potential
driver distraction, to minimize their proliferation in residential districts
where signs can adversely impact residential character, and to protect the
public health, safety, and welfare.
The City of Maplewood finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on
off -premise signs but with significant controls to minimize their
proliferation and their potential threats to public health, safety, and
welfare.
Dynamic display signs are allowed subiect to the following conditions:
(1.) Dynamic display signs are allowed on off -premises signs only, unless
otherwise provided by the City's sign ordinance.
(2.) A dynamic display sign is allowed by conditional use permit approved
by the city council.
(3.) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be static and
each display must be maintained for a minimum of 8 seconds, and
the transition from one static display to another must be
instantaneous without any special effects;
(4.) The images and messages displayed on the sign must be complete
in themselves, without continuation in content to the next image or
message or to any other sign;
(5.) Every line of copy and graphics in a dynamic display must be at least
seven inches in height on a road with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles
per hour, nine inches on a road with a speed limit of 35 to 44 miles
per hour,12 inches on a road with a speed limit of 45 to 54 miles per
hour, and 15inches on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per hour
or more.
(6.) Dynamic display signs must be designed and equipped to freeze the
device in one position if a malfunction occurs. The displays must also
be equipped with a means to discontinue the display if it
malfunctions, and the sign owner must stop the dynamic display
within one hour of being notified by the city that it is not meeting the
standards of this ordinance;
(7.) Dynamic display signs must meet the brightness standards contained
in subdivision e. below;
(8.) Dynamic display signs existing on (insert the effective date of this
ordinance) must comply with the operational standards listed above.
Incentive. This clause is intended to provide an incentive option for the voluntary and
uncompensated removal of off-premise signs in certain settings. This sign removal
results in an overall advancement of one or more of the goals set forth in this section
that should more than offset any additional burden caused by the incentive. These
provisions are also based on the recognition that the incentive creates an opportunity
to consolidate outdoor advertising services that would otherwise remain distributed
throughout Maplewood.
Reduction of Sign Surfaces
(1.) A person or sign operator may obtain a conditional use permit for a
dynamic display sign on one surface of an existing off-premises sign if
the following requirements are met:
(a) The applicant agrees in writing to reduce its off - premise sign
surfaces by one by Permanently removing, within 15 days after
issuance of the permit, one surface of an off-premises sign in the
city that is owned or leased by the applicant, which sign surface
must satisfy the criteria of parts (b) and (c) of this subsection. This
removal must include the complete removal of the structure and
foundation supporting each removed sign surface. The applicant
must agree that the city may remove the sign surface if the
applicant does not do so, and the application must identify the
sign surface to be removed and be accompanied by a cash
deposit or letter of credit acceptable to the city attorney sufficient
to pay the city's costs for that removal. The applicant must also
agree that it is removing the sign surface voluntarily and that it has
no right to compensation for the removed sign surface under an
law. Replacement of an existing sign surface of an off-premises
sign with a dynamic display sign does not constitute a removal of
a sign surface.
(b) The city has not Previously issued a dynamic display sign permit
based on the removal of the particular sign surface relied upon in
this permit application.
(c) If the removed sign surface is one that a state permit is required
by state law, the applicant must surrendered its permit to the state
upon removal of the sign surface. The sign that is the subiect of
the dynamic display sign permit cannot begin to operate until the
sign owner or operator provides proof to the city that the state
permit has been surrendered.
(2.) If the applicant meets the permit requirements noted above, the city
will issue a dynamic display sign permit for the designated off-
premises sign. This permit will allow a dynamic display to occupy 100
percent of the Potential copy and graphic area and to change no more
frequently than once every 8 seconds. The designated sign must
meet all other reauirements of this ordinance.
e. Brightness Standards.
(1.) City staff shall approve the following brightness standards for all
dynamic display signs:
(a) No sign shall be brighter than is necessary for clear and
adequate visibility.
(b) No sign shall be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the
vision of a motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to
otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor
vehicle.
(c) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes
with the effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
(2.) The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet
the brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The
adiustment must be made within one hour upon notice of non-
compliance from the city.
(3.) All dynamic display signs installed after (insert the effective date of this
ordinance) will have illumination by a means other than natural light must
be equipped with a mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness
in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped
with a means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if the sign
malfunctions, and the sign owner or operator must turn off the sign o
lighting within one hour after being notified by the city that it is not
meeting the standards of this section.
(4.) In addition to the brightness standards required above, dynamic display
signs shall meet the city's outdoor lighting requirements (section 44-
Section 4' This ordinance shall take effect after publishing in the official newspaper.
�� The Maplewood City Council approved the first reading [f this ordinance 0n
)�- The Maplewood City Council approved the second reading Cf this ordinance on
Attest:
City Clerk
Agenda Item G1
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Greg Copeland, City Manager
Robert MittOf Finance and Administration Manager
FROM: Charles /\hl. Public Works Director/City Engineer
SUBJECT: Advanced Order of Tandem Axle Truck
DATE: December 19
The approved 2008 — 2012 Capital Improvement Plan calls for the replacement in 2008 of one tandem axle
truck that is used for multiple purposes such as snow plowing, hauling of street sweepings, hauling of fill
materials and hauling Ofexcavations. These uses are across multiple divisions within Public Works. An
opportunity exists k] place 8n order for the chassis of this tandem truck during 2U07bJ lock in2UO7prices.
This pre-order will save approximately +$5.U0U. Approval to order the truck chassis i3recommended.
Replacement Uf this truck kS required 8S the vehicle is13 years old and has broken frames and haul-boxes
such that itiS currently not operating. The estimated replacement budget iS$184.0OO. This iS ordered iO@
couple [fphases. The first phase |s the truck chassis. The state contract for chassis Cf this type isquoted
8t$90,000. Specific details Cf the actual cost increases are not available, but the 2UO8 cost iS projected L0
be8% higher than the 2007 cost, which expires on December 28.20O7. The projected 3avin8sis$5.4O0
The chassis will require 3 months tObe delivered. The remainder Of the truck equipment [haul box, plow
attachment, spreader, auger, 8Lc] will be ordered in February and March tV provide for 8 complete unit in
mid-March. The actual payment for the chassis will not occur until February or March 2008.
KiSrecommended that the city council authorize the Director 0f Public Works to place Gn order for one
tandem axle truck chassis in2U07at8 cost not to exceed $00.O0Oos listed within the 20O8-2O12Capital
Improvement Plan.