The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/05/2007 MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Mondav, November 5, 2007 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. October 2, 2007 b. October 16,2007 5. Public Hearings a. 7:00 Lot Width Variance and Lot Division (1805 Arcade Street) b. 7:20 Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Truck Parking (1003 Century Avenue North) 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business None 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations October 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Martin November 12 Council Meeting: No Meeting November 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Boeser December 10 Council Meeting: Mr. Yarwood ?? December 17 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 10. Staff Presentations a. Remember - November 6 is Election Day! 11. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 2,2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. II. 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 Absent Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Staff Present: Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Ken Roberts, Planner III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Trippler moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Boeser seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a. September 4, 2007 Ayes - all Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the amended minutes, correcting the word "reserve" to "preserve" on the middle of page four. Commissioner Yarwood seconded The motion passed. b. September 18, 2007 Ayes - Hess, Pearson, Trippler, Yarwood, Martin, Boeser Abstentions - Fischer, Walton Commissioner Trippler moved approval of the amended minutes, deleting a! "t" typo on page four. . Commissioner Yarwood seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all Planning Commission Minutes of 10-2-07 -2- V. PUBLIC HEARING 7:05 p.m. - Conditional Use Permit Revision - Salvation Army (2080 Woodlynn Avenue) Planner Ekstrand presented the staff report. Mr. Ekstrand said the Salvation Army has not had any city violations or negative issues reported. He also explained the Salvation Army plans to stagger day care activities and that parents will go inside the building to retrieve their children. Major Don Tekautz, representing the Salvation Army, explained that the main fociJs of this child day care center is educational support for children, mainly tutoring in math a.nd reading. The public hearing was opened to the public; there were no comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Pearson moved adoption of the resolution approving a revision to the conditional use permit for the Salvation Army Church, located at 2080 Woodlynn Avenue, to expand their adult day care facility to include child day care. Approval of this CUP revision is based on the findings required by the ordinance and subject to the following conditions (additions are underlined and deletions are crossed out): 1. All construction shall follow the site plan approved by the city. City Staff Tho director of community dovolopmont may approve minor changes. 2. The proposed addition of child day care shall be started within one year as required by ordinance. Tho proposod construction must bo subst::mtially startod within ono yoar of council approval or tho pormit shall bocomo null and '/oid. The council may extend this deadline for one year. 3. The city council shall review this permit revision in one year. Commissioner Yarwood seconded The motion passed. Ayes - all 7:23 p.m. - Lot Area Variances and Lot Division (388 Viking Drive) Planner Roberts presented the staff report and answered questions from the commission. The commission discussed possible grading and drainage problems with development on this site. In response to a commissioner's question, staff responded that if the applicant wishes, after a one-year wait, he could apply to the city again with another plan. The applicant, Jason MacDonald, addressed the commission and displayed a drawing of the lots. Mr. MacDonald also referred to a lot area variance approved previously for a neighboring property. The commission discussed with Mr. MacDonald the reasonable use of the properiy under city ordinances and other lot sizes in the neighborhood. A commissioner explained toMr. MacDonald that by state statute an economic hardship is not a sufficient finding to grant a lot area variance. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-2-07 -3- The public hearing was opened to the public; there were no comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. Planner Roberts explained the subdivision code requirements referring to double-fronting lots in response to a commissioner's question. Commissioner Yarwood moved the planning commission recommend denial of the request for two variances for the creation of the new lot for a single dwelling south of the house at 388 Viking Drive. These would have included having a lot with 8,814 square feet of lot area and another lot with 9,502 square feet of area. The city is making this denial because: . There are no circumstances that are unique to this property that justify the proposed variances. . Of the inability of the applicant to prove a specific hardship for this variance request that meets state law requirements. . The creation of two lots from this property would make lots that are not in character with the size of the existing lots in the neighborhood. There are other small lots, but there are many more lots in the area that are larger than 10,000 square feet. . The proposal to construct a new house on the vacant part of the parcel ha~ a significant possibility to create or to add to known storm water drainage problems in the area. The back (south part) of 388 Viking Drive is low and would require substantial fill for a new home site. Filling for one additional home site on the property could compromise the existing storm water runoff and drainage that occurs on this lot. Commissioner Trippler seconded. Ayes: Fischer, Hess, Trippler, Walton, Yarwood, Boeser Nay: Martin Abstention: Pearson The motion passed. VI. NEW BUSINESS a. South Maplewood Study - Rose Lorsun9 - Schoell Madson (South of Caryer Avenue) Rose Lorsung presented the report. Ms. Lorsung reported she met previously with the environmental and natural resources commission and they responded favorably to the commission's recommendations. Ms. Lorsung asked that the city council be requested to extend the moratorium an additional 120 days to allow further time to study the issues, with a public hearing to be scheduled at some point after that. Ms. Lorsung said that keeping in mind the protection of natural resources in the area, the items to now focus on are zoning districts and land use designations that specifically refer to the design of a site in relationship to those natural resources. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-2-07 -4- Ms. Lorsung answered questions from the commission and discussed densities and land use designations. Commissioner Trippler asked why the residential cluster designation is being considered in the proposed land use changes. Ms. Lorsung responded that the residential cluster designation is a middle approach between the liberal and conservative density visions. Ms. Lorsung said she will get copies of ordinances that other cities have adopted and other specific ideas for the commission in order to move forward with this study. Commissioner Pearson asked Ms. Lorsung if possible to also get examples of development in the residential cluster designation in land areas similar to south Maplewood VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS None VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS . Jennifer Haskamp of Schoell Madson introduced herself and said she is working on the update of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically, the parks, trails and open space part of that plan. Ms. Haskamp said she is creating a parks, trails and open space task force to work with her and asked for two or three planning commissioner volunteers to serve on this task force. She said the task force will hold approximately six meetings and will start as soon as possible. Commissioners Walton, Yarwood and Martin volunteered to serve on the task force. All commissioners were invited to attend any of the task force meetings. . Ron Cockriel reported that a booya and blue grass event will be held on Saturday, October 6, at the Bruentrup Farm. IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. September 24 Council meeting: Commissioner Walton reported. b. October 8 Council meeting: Commissioner Trippler-not needed. c. October 22 Council meeting: Commissioner Martin will attend. d. November 12 Council meeting: Cancelled due to Veterans Day holiday. e. Commissioner Boeser volunteered as representative for the next Council meeting. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Planner Roberts reported lengthy items are scheduled to be reviewed at the next planning commission meeting; the commission revised the start time to 6:00 p.m. b. November's first planning commission meeting is tentatively rescheduled to Monday, November 5, due to election night on the 6th. c. Planner Roberts reported on the senior housing study update. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION 1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA TUESDAY, OCTOBER 16, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Fischer called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. II. 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 6:20 p.m. Present Present Present Ken Roberts, Planner Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Chuck Ahl, Public Works Director Alan Kantrud, City Attorney Staff Present: III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Pearson moved to approve the agenda as submitted. Commissioner Trippler seconded. The motion passed. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None V. PUBLIC HEARING None VI. NEW BUSINESS Ayes - all a. Gladstone Neighborhood Streetscaping Plans (Tom Harrington, Kimley-Horn) Public Works Director Chuck Ahl explained details and projected timeline for streetscaping and asked the commissioners for their comments and input. Director Ahl then introduced Tom Harrington of Kimley-Horn & Associates. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-16-07 -2- Tom Harrington of Kimley-Horn & Associates gave a slide presentation of the streetscaping plan details for Phase I of the Gladstone improvements. Some of the items Mr. Harrington discussed were street lighting, pavements, storm water drainage, plantings and trees. Mr. Harrington asked the commissioners for their input on the streetscaping plans as presented. Director Ahl noted that Phase II improvements are not included in this presentation, since there is not a developer for that part of the project yet. Several planning commissioners said they prefer the Legacy Village style of lighting, prefer having utilities buried, and suggested that pervious pavement be considered. Commissioners also discussed traffic concerns with walkers and bikers on Frost Avenue and suggested that sensors or reflectors for crosswalks or speed bumps be considered to alert traffic. Parks Commissioner Peter Fischer asked about the trail connection plan in the Phalen Place area. Director Ahl explained possible trail connections, but noted that the trail plan has not been completed at this time. Commissioner Fischer suggested pervious pavement might be used for the trail connection area at Phalen Place. Mr. Fischer said he prefers to have power lines buried. Parks Commissioner Don Christiansen asked whether there will be sidewalks along Frost Avenue to Highway 61 and if they will be lit. After reviewing the plans, it was determined that sidewalks are not planned along Frost Avenue to Highway 61. Parks Commissioner Bruce Roman asked if installing the trail on the north side of Frost Avenue would impact the Flicek ball fields. Director Ahl said that they are still working on the design to limit the impact, which at this time is for a six-foot sidewalk rather than a 10- foot trail. Mr. Roman asked how bikers would be impacted by the roundabouts. Director Ahl said that bikers can operate through the roundabout, but the trail designers are currently working on providing trail access in the roundabout areas. Planning Commissioner Trippler suggested including a trail connection from the bridge crossing on Highway 61 to the Gateway Trail. b. Concept Review - English Street Manufactured Home Site Redevelopment Plan (1880 English Street) Planner Roberts presented the report. Commissioners discussed densities and also asked about drainage patterns; staff responded that there is no grading plan established so drainage has not been determined. A commissioner asked if establishing housing units over mixed-use commercial had been considered for this project. Calvin Seegar of Crossroads Financial Group, LLC, responded saying that building housing units over mixed-use commercial was not feasible due to inadequate square footage. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-16-07 -3- Kevin Gardner of Metro Land Surveying & Engineering said that after looking at several density plans, it was decided that two-story housing was the best alternative. Director Ahl commented that mixed-use commercial with housing was explored previously and it was determined that four stories would be needed to be commercially viable. Planner Roberts noted the concerns of the Community Design Review Board discussed at their meeting on October 9. VII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS a. South Maplewood Study - Rose Lorsung - Schoell Madson (South of Carver Avenue) Rose Lorsung of Schoell Madson presented land use information on the South Maplewood Study. Ms. Lorsung said she hoped to have a report completed for the commission's review within a month. Ms. Lorsung also notified the commission that a walking tour of the south Maplewood area is scheduled for November 3 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. Ms. Lorsung explained information previously requested by the commission and provided particulars of several successful open space and cluster developments in the metropolitan area. The commission discussed growth rates projected by the city, possible densities and creating zoning districts with green spaces. Ms. Lorsung explained the need to set aside the study on South Maplewood and to move on to the review of the land use plan soon. She said that work will begin with Kimley-Horn on updating the comprehensive sewer plan. Ms. Lorsung also informed the planning commission that her firm has been hired to continue work on creating a zoning ordinance for Gladstone. She said she would be presenting a draft to the commission in four to six weeks. VIII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS None IX. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS a. Planner Roberts reported on the October 8 City Council meeting. b. October 22 City Council meeting: Mr. Martin will attend. c. November 12 - No City Council Meeting scheduled due to Veterans Day holiday. d. November 26 City Council meeting: Mr. Walton will attend. X. STAFF PRESENTATIONS a. Planner Roberts informed the commission that the next Planning Commission Meeting is Monday, November 5 due to election night being on the 6th. Planning Commission Minutes of 10-16-07 -4- b. City Attorney Alan Kantrud explained the proposed sign code revision information given to the commission in their packet, along with background information regarding proposed revisions to the sign code due to the Clear Channel billboard near 1-494 and Century Avenue. Staff responded to questions from the commissioners regarding the proposed revisions to the sign code. Tom McCarver of Clear Channel spoke regarding sign technology and content. The commission discussed controls for signs such as impacts of colors, brightness levels, elevations, and requiring a longer display time than Clear Channel's existing 8-second display time for flashing messages in order to lessen driver distraction. A commissioner suggested that since Clear Channel appears to be in violation of the sign code, a short-term solution would be to freeze the sign at one selected display until it is determined if Clear Channel will be allowed to continue advertising in a changing mode. Commissioner Yarwood moved the Planning Commission table this item for additional time to further review the information and also to request a recommendation from staff on a more thought out ordinance. Commissioner Hess seconded. Commissioner Yarwood suggested this item could be discussed further at the next commission meeting. The commission then voted: Ayes - Yarwood, Hess, Fischer, Walton, Martin Nays - Desai, Boeser, Pearson, Trippler Commissioner Yarwood said he is okay with the ordinance revisions as written in the city of Eagan ordinance, with the exception of changing the 8-second flash time to a 20- second display time and changing the size of fonts in text. XI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: DATE: Greg Copeland, City Manager Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner Lot Division and Lot Width Variance Dick Smith, Jendi Properties, LLC 1805 and 1811 Arcade Street October 31, 2007 for the November 5 Planning Commission Meeting INTRODUCTION Project Description Dick Smith of Jendi Properties, Inc., has purchased the property at 1805 Arcade Street. There are two existing single-family houses located on the property. Mr. Smith proposes to subdivide the property so that each house would be on its own lot. The larger house on the south side of the property (1805) will be sold, and the smaller house on the north side of the property (1811) will either be remodeled or torn down and rebuilt. Due to the location of the existing houses and the city's required side yard setback for houses and garages, the applicant is also requesting a lot width variance to allow the north lot to be 62 feet wide, as opposed to the city code required width of 75 feet. Requests In order to proceed with the project, the applicant is requesting the following city approvals: 1. Lot Division: Subdivision approval to split the existing lot into two single-family lots. 2. Variance: A 13-foot lot width variance to allow a 62-foot-wide lot (instead of 75 feet as required by code). BACKGROUND There are no records in the city's files reflecting when the houses were built. However, from the previous owner's accounts, a building contractor originally owned the land and constructed the smaller house at 1811 Arcade Street in 1936, then lived in the small house for two years until the he built the larger house at 1805 Arcade Street in 1938. The city's files do reflect that both houses were hooked up to separate sewer and water in 1960. Past owners have lived in the larger house and rented out the smaller house. DISCUSSION Variance Lot Width Variance: City code at section 44-106 states that the minimum width in the single dwelling residential zoning district shall be 75 feet (for interior lots). The applicant is requesting that the city approve a 62-foot-wide lot width in order to subdivide the property into two lots. This would put the smaller house located on the north side of the property (1811 Arcade Street) on its own lot separate from the larger house (1805 Arcade Street). The new south lot would be 87.94 feet wide. Both lots will exceed the minimum lot area requirements of 10,000 square feet: north lot - 18,608 square feet; south lot - 39,337 square feet. State Statute: In order to comply with the state land use law, the city council is required to make two findings before granting a variance: 1. Strict enforcement of the city ordinances would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property. Undue hardship means that: a. You cannot put your property to a reasonable use under city ordinances. b. Your problem is due to circumstances unique to your property that you did not cause. c. The variance would not alter the essential character of the area. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Hardship: The two houses have been located on the same property for almost 70 years. In order to create two lots so that each house can be sold separately a lot division is required. The lot width variance for the north lot is needed due to the location of the existing house on the south side of the property to ensure adequate setbacks from that house to the new property line. Neighboring houses to the south at 1787 and 1791 Arcade Street were built in 1936 on 50-foot- wide lots. So the proposed 62-foot wide lot would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. ExistinQ Conditions Parcel A: The house on the south side of the property is in fairly good repair. The applicant has recently obtained a building permit to remodel the bathroom. The house has an attached garage located on the north side. This garage is accessed from the rear (west) side. In order to maintain the required five-foot-setback from this garage to the new property line, the proposed new lot line must be shifted at least one foot to the north. Therefore, the proposed 62-foot-wide lot must be decreased to 61 feet, creating the need for a 14-foot-wide lot width variance, rather than 13 feet as proposed. There is one driveway that, as proposed, would be on the north property. A condition of the lot division should be the removal of portions of the existing driveway to within five feet of the new property line, construction of a new driveway for the south lot, and construction of a garage door on the east side of the attached garage. 2 Parcel B: The house on the north side of the property is only 448 square feet in area. This house does not meet the city's minimum square footage for a single-level house, which is 950 square feet. The applicant is debating whether to build an addition to the house, or tear it down and rebuild the house. A condition of approval for the lot division, at a minimum, should be the remodeling of the house to ensure it meets city zoning code size requirements and building code requirements. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Adopt the attached variance resolution (Attachment 6). This resolution approves a 14-foot lot width variance for the property at 1811 Arcade Street. The city is basing this approval on the fact that the lot area and lot width variance are in keeping with the surrounding properties and the ability of the applicant to prove a specific hardship for the rear yard setback variance that meets state law requirements including: a. The problem requiring the lot width variance in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause (i.e., location of the existing house). b. The new lot width will be in keeping with the two single family properties to the south, which both have 50-foot-wide lots. c. The variance and creation of separate lots for the existing houses in this location will not change the character of the area as surrounding properties are all single family houses with similar lot sizes. 2. Approve the lot division site plan date stamped September 21, 2007, for a lot division request to subdivide the 57,945 square foot single family lot located at 1805 Arcade Street into two single family lots. Lot division approval is based on code requirements (Section 34-14 - lot divisions) and is subject to the following: a. Submit a revised survey to staff for approval which shows that Parcel B maintains a lot width of at least 60 feet. b. Submit a cash escrow or letter of credit to cover 150 percent of the following: 1) Removal of all portions of the existing driveway which are within five feet of the shared property line. 2) Construction of a new driveway for Parcel A. 3) Construction of a new garage door to be located on the east side of the attached garage on Parcel A. 4) Conversion of the house or building a new single dwelling on Parcel A to meet city zoning code size and building code requirements. c. Lot A must be combined with Parcel B. d. If the lots are to be sold or deeded to another party, deeds describing the two new legal descriptions for both lots. 3 e. Once the above-mentioned conditions are met, the city will stamp the surveyor deeds. These must be recorded with Ramsey County within one year of the date of the lot division approval or the lot split will become null and void (city code requirement). f. Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit for any improvements to Parcel A or Parcel B, the following must be submitted to staff for approval: 1) Proof that Ramsey County has recorded the lot division. 2) A signed certificate of survey showing the location of all property lines and the location of the improvements which must maintain all required setbacks. 4 REFERENCE INFORMATION SITE DESCRIPTION Existing Use: Two Single-Family Houses SURROUNDING LAND USES North: East: South: West: Single Family House Arcade Street Single Family House Maple Hills Townhomes PLANNING Land Use: Zoning: Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) Single Dwelling Residential (R-1) Criteria for Approval Variances: State law requires that the city make two findings before granting a variance: 1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under consideration. 2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Undue hardship, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be put to a reasonable use if used under the conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and a variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the ordinance. Lot Division: Section 34-14 of the city code allows city staff to approve three new lots from a parcel or tract in any single calendar year without the need for platting. The lot division must be filed with the county within one year of city approval. Application Date The city received the complete application for the variance and lot division request on September 21, 2007. State law requires that the city take action within 60 days of receiving complete applications for any land use proposal. The 60-day requirement on this proposal ends November 20, 2007, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. P/sec17/1805 Arcade/11-5-07 PC Attachments: 1. Applicant's Narrative 2. Location Map 3. Plat Map 4. Survey 5. Engineering Comments 6. Variance Resolution 5 Attachment 1 lENDI PROPERTIES, LLC . ,,~, "" '- ivE IJ JUL 3 I 2007 07-31-07 City of Maplewood 1830 County Road BEast Maplewood, MN 55109 RE: Lot split of 1805 and 1811 Arcade Legal of 1805----17-29-22-44-0002 Legal of 1811----17-29-22-44-0001 We purchased the above properties on July 6th ofthis year. Both properties have been in a state of decline for a number of years and need much maintenance repair and modification. The home at 1811 Arcade was built in 1936. The owner and builder than built the home located at 1805 Arcade in the year 1938. The two homes have existed on the same lot ever since. It seems the existence of two homes on one large lot without an official recording of the homes as two separate and distinct properties was either an oversight or intended admission by the owner/builder. The homes located at 1791 and 1797 were built ih 1936 and both were on lots of 50 foot width. We intend to make the modifications to both homes including the updating and/or replacing the current electrical, mechanical and plumbing systems along with the needed structural repairs. Once completed the homes will be sold to new owners or added to our rental property inventory. Any questions regarding this matter can be directed to me, Dick Smith at 612-747-8068. Regards, ~~~ Dick Smith General Manager 1992 Evergreel1Ct. Roseville, MN 55113 Uc;# 20587802 PHONE FAX E~MAIL (612) 747-8068 (651) 634-0710 jendiptoperties@lI1sn.com ......, .... \-_//J/// ~ ~ '"0 co U s.... ------ - Gateway ~~~~_/-:/// - -----------------7----------------- /f --- I ~64;1811 Arc~de s~ .......J ' , t'"-m ~lllll~. N w ~~~ ~~~ E Location Map s Attachment 2 ////@/ $/ / / /...... --- 1/1---.--- /II ARCADE STREET LOT DIVISION RAMSEY COUNTY RECORDS MAP Attachment 3 ---~ I>A\~~ ----~ ~~ -- ~1',.n' 207."5S' 1 ~ g ~1(l.6(,' ~ . (77) ,~ HI\~ ~ 200' 1:}.41 " " ~ / 2 " o 19.52' j 100' NO ADDRESS PIN 17-29-22-44-0001 ~ (Ii CIC NO. 483 01 " o 200' w w " ". 163.20' HI.8' ," ". 69.19 fu:r . :i ,<!, w+. 9 ./ . #f-t /'" DISCLAIMER: This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, infonnation and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. SOURCES: Ramsey County (October 1,2007), The Lawrence Group;October 1, 2007 for County parcel and property records data; October 2007 for commercial and ,,'00. @ ~ Ii ~li Xl'; I ~ ili I!!!'!"i . Il,.,i,1 1 iil ~h~M :h!~~';'ll~.o_!lf;! i. _~ . ~ c "_~j . ~~g'~~,,~ ." ~!~l;~ t ~i~~5I~; ~h~ !~ <h .fL~-E' Ii "'1;;;<~~~~~ ]~. ~: ~ Ha~H ~~;iH~H n]~ _ ~i ~ g ~~ii;h ~j~iH!~jht ~!~~ 811 ~ 'T !.~Ii:; !~!t~~$:~H~ ~~!! * ~~ ...:j: " ~.... ..h]...~. .:- N ~o ji .!J ~~r~~,' .:J~;1'~5"b~~ ~~:~J~ 'i' ~~ :j Z -!1hHI ~!~!J~U~h 3!ul 7 ~~ ~ ~ !~I:Jt !lH~hiii;~ !~n~ ~ ii 8 ~ ~~:31:.j ~HHHnh, 3&~oJ O:~. ,Attac ,m11f 4 o~ i :;~ ~~.. is "~ ~~ ~ - Hh,1 ~~i~ J.t;'~;;~ !lii ~ ~ "5 ~ N 5 _ ~50~ jHi~ i;U ti~ ,~;i i;~,r l~o,l" "~r8 11'. g ~~ -~" g]~ o' ~:-ij _~I :!~~ "'" so.!': 1 ~.'''', !.. It ;a~i 1i~~..;]i ~""! -< md ~~:: ii]i!:<i:iy~~i:r ~ U; ;;"". Uh-Kh5;s",:,' ~~ ~,'~;} li],n ~O~h5~r"h , Ii' Hiii] Hiniiii;;' I~ 31 ::c ;:: 0 ~ '" '" ~ 0 - ::l Z ~ U- ti 13 0 u..J 0 z U ! 0 ~ ,.. , Vi '" 5 '" , 15 ~ , CD => l Vl u..J ~ 0: 0 A ~ 0 z 0 0 '" 0 0= fj ~ ~ -< It') '" 0 0 b 00 - u hi! 1 ~i.~ ~ li. s ]~i i:ihi ~" ~ij ~ni~{ o~ i~,H~~, ~ !j;lll:~:~ ~~:,t ~f!th ~ ~ !~:i i~Hii g: ] slh] ,1;"f~~~ "~oj :leg ijS g~~~t;~ ~ i'i~e:;: ~~~~~~ l:~Ul>~ ~~ ~a_ ~:;:~~~; ~i~~~~ 'if, i~~ lI' j,!. .!!! iii! " ,I I 'PI! I! i " lil'l~" ii, O,!l' hi!'!'l',!!'!I' ~I!ll!n,,, I ... , ! . 0 BOlli. Iii iii ~! ~ g . Y ! t . l: a ~ " ~ ~ , , jll j !I !I Ii " ,. 'i II ~ ~ ; ~ ~ "I! , 0 . ': ~ ~ ~"' ~ 2i ~ ~ a gj ~:' a 8 ~ 3! '" ~ l> I? ~ :. ~ tl 2 ~ ~ ~ ! !! Ie t;':"l> ~ < 11 ,i;i " r ~ ;q ;",1 ~ ]i ~ z l' 9 \> ~ ~ III ' , , 'I ' " ;l:! ~ '! f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~\ II ~\\ ~I ." 0- , n i ~"",. ..' , "!I liil! lilli, ""'f ~m~ ",!., illi! " , g~ " ;, . ; l l:~ t ~ " ~~~I,z~;~ ". '" 0 ^" "1I ~~: l!i> I a ~ ii"! oil" c <9 '" ~ /: ;;. ll"l 0 I i ,I!!! ililO. :5 / , , , , (, , , " , ." u z "' w ~ ~~ u ~~~, ~ U~~ t/l .gJ~ <( ~~1:l8 "d I!~ 0: W Q. '" W 'C >-< "" :> P::< ~ (fl i:<.. o "" E-<j <, U, ......" i:<.. ...... E-< P::<! "". Ui Attachment 5 Page 1 of 1 Maplewood Enl!ineerinl! Department Lot Division - 1805 Arcade Street Reviewed by: Michael Thompson Date: 10/19/07 The applicant, Doug Smith, is proposing a lot division for the property at 1805 Arcade Street that has a property identification number (PIN) of 17-29-22-44-0002. There are two existing homes on this property with 1805 and 1811 addresses. There is a 60'x100' piece of property northwest of 1805 Arcade Street, PIN 17-29-22-44-0001, which is unaddressed according to Ramsey County records. The applicant request seeks to create a lot division and properly create a PIN for each residence and record this information with the city and county. Utilities According to utility records, both homes have water and sanitary sewer billing accounts so utility extensions are not necessary from Arcade Street. Drainage The lot division location and buildings are located at a high point in the topography therefore runoff naturally sheet flows away from the existing structures. Access Each home shall have a separate driveway access from the frontage road. The existing and proposed driveway must be a minimum of 5-feet away from the proposed property line. Attachment 6 VARIANCE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, Dick Smith of Jendi Properties, LLC, applied to the city for approval of a 14- foot-wide lot width variance. WHEREAS, the variance applies to the property at 1805 Arcade Street. WHEREAS, Section 44-106 of the Maplewood Code of Ordinances requires that lots for single dwellings have a minimum lot width of 75 feet. WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing a 61-foot-wide lot. WHEREAS, the history of these variances is as follows: 1. On November 5, 2007, the planning commission held a public hearing. City staff published a notice in the Maplewood Review and sent notices to the surrounding property owners as required by law. The planning commission gave everyone at the hearing an opportunity to speak and present written statements. The planning commission recommended that the city council approval of the variances. 2. The City Council held a public meeting about this request on . The city council considered reports and recommendations from the city staff and planning commission. The city council the variances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approve the above-described variances for the following reasons: a. The problem requiring the lot width variance in this circumstance is a problem that the current owner did not cause (i.e., location of the existing house). b. The new lot width will be in keeping with the two single family properties to the south, which both have 50-foot-wide lots. c. The variance and creation of separate lots for the existing houses in this location will not change the character of the area as surrounding properties are all single family houses with similar lot sizes. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2007 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LOCATION: DATE: City Manager Ken Roberts, Planner Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Truck Parking and Storage 1003 Century Avenue North October 26, 2007 INTRODUCTION Mr. Thomas Tachney is requesting that the city approve a conditional use permit (CUP) for the property at 1003 Century Avenue North. (See maps on pages 9 through 13.) This request is to park and store a commercial truck on this property. He and his family live at this property and Mr. Tachney wants to keep the commercial truck there, as he needs a place to park the truck at night and on the weekends. (See his statement on pages six and seven.) The city code requires city council approval of a conditional use permit to keep a heavy commercial vehicle (more than one ton) on a residential property. BACKGROUND City staff became aware of the parking of this truck on the property earlier this year when the city code enforcement officer spotted it parked in the front yard. The property owner contacted city staff about the parking of the truck on the property and the city procedures for trying to keep it on the site after city staff notified him that keeping the truck there requires city council approval. DISCUSSION The city regulates the keeping of commercial vehicles in residential areas to help insure that residential properties stay residential in use and in character. Keeping commercial trucks and other commercial equipment in a residential area could create a disturbance or could change the character of the neighborhood. In this case, however, most of the neighbors support Mr. Tachney's request to keep the truck at this house. In fact, while the truck has been at this house, staff is not aware of any problem or significant disturbance that it has caused. As long as the owner continues to keep and operate the truck in a respectful and peaceful manner, it should not cause any problems. To help insure that the truck will not cause a problem, city staff is proposing several conditions of approval, including a review of the CUP in one year. OTHER COMMENTS Lieutenant Michael Shortreed of the Maplewood Police Department reviewed this proposal and noted that he did not have any public safety comments or suggestions. Please see all of his notes about this proposal in his memo on page 14. RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution starting on page 15. This resolution approves a conditional use permit for Mr. Thomas Tachney to store or park one heavy commercial vehicle (one enclosed delivery truck) on the property at 1003 Century Avenue North. This permit shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner or operator of the truck doing the following: a. Residing on the property. b. Parking the truck on the existing driveway or on the gravel parking pad. c. Not parking the truck on a public street. d. Maintaining the driveway and parking pad in good condition. 2. The owner or operator shall not let the truck's engine idle for more than thirty (30) minutes in anyone (1) hour period. In no circumstances may the owner or operator idle the engine for more than two periods, lasting thirty (30) minutes each, in one twenty-four (24) hour period. There shall not be any engine idling that disturbs the neighbors between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3. The owner or operator shall not do any maintenance or repair of the truck or commercial equipment on the property. 4. The owner or operator shall not load or unload the truck on the property or on adjacent properties. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. 2 CITIZENS' COMMENTS I surveyed the owners of the 64 properties within 500 feet of this site. Of the 15 replies, 12 were for the proposal, two were against and one had comments about the proposal. For 1. I do not see any problem with Mr. Tachney's proposal. (Morneau - 2689 Midvale Place) 2. We have lived next door to the Tachney's for the last 9 years. All along he has parked the truck in the same spot (hidden basically behind the bushes). It is not an eye sore. Please allow Tom his permit. (Engwer- 2712 Midvale Place) 3. We do not have any problems with Tom's parking needs. (Flacksbarth - 2708 Midvale Place) 4. As a Maplewood resident located at 2716 Harvester Avenue, I do not have a problem with Mr. Tachney's request to park his commercial vehicle at his residence. (Engen) 5. This is in reference to the notice we received from the city regarding the conditional use permit request for commercial truck parking at 1003 Century Avenue. We drove by the house to see what the property looked like. We had a hard time seeing the truck parked behind the lilac bushes. At first glance, you cannot see it at all. You have to drive very slow and look very hard to see it. We have no problem with the truck being parked on his property. As a matter of fact, I have seen motor homes and travel trailers parked in people's yards that are really an eye sore. (Nelson - 2704 Harvester Avenue) 6. This is in response to the letter dated September 26, 2007 regarding CUP commercial truck parking at 1003 Century Avenue. Lon and I do not have a problem with Mr. Tachney parking his commercial truck on his property. We feel he is showing effort to hide the vehicle behind the existing lilac bushes as a screen. While it is not hidden from view off Midvale, we do not find it to be an eyesore since it is a working vehicle and reflects an honest living. We have lived in the neighborhood for one year, though we have not met Mr. Tachney to date, we have found Mr. Tachney to take good care of his property. We recommend the CUP be approved. (Hudak - 2698 Midvale Place) 7. We live at 1551 Geneva Avenue across the streetfrom this residence. We have lived here for over 30 years. We have never noticed that there has been a truck parked in front of this house. We have no problem with the truck being parked there. (Braaten - 1551 Geneva Avenue, Oakdale). 8. I would be for Mr. Tachney getting a CUP to park his commercial truck on his property. His truck is behind a hedge and visible from Century. (Kamish -1597 Geneva Avenue- Oakdale) Staff also received telephone calls from four nearby Oakdale residents that said the proposal is OK or that they had no problem with the proposal (let him do it). 3 Objections 1. We do not approve a conditional use permit to be awarded to Mr. Tachney because we feel it would give precedence to the address of 985 Century Avenue. This neighbor already drives and parks work vehicles and piles junk cars in his backyard. He has already built garages large enough for work vehicles. (Saniti - 2713 Harvester Avenue) 2. We are highly concerned about setting a precedent that would allow the owner of the lot at 985 Century Avenue to park a similar vehicle behind our lot (2709 Harvester Avenue) which would be entirely unacceptable to us. (La Donna and David Oppert) Comments/Questions/Concerns 1. I appreciate Mr. Tachney's need related to his employment. Is the permit for a limited duration? Are there alternative parking solutions for the vehicle? How are the rights of the neighbors being protected - pollution (noise, air and visual)? This is a non-commercial, residential neighborhood. If the permit is granted, we prefer that it be for a limited time so alternate arrangements can be made. (McCutchan - owner of 977 Century Avenue) 4 REFERENCE SITE DESCRIPTION Site size: 20,037 square feet (0.46 acres) Existing Land Use: single dwelling and garage SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Houses across Midvale Place East: House across Century Avenue in Oakdale South: Houses on Century Avenue West: Houses on Midvale Place ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT Section 44-102 (1)(a) of the city code allows the city council to approve a conditional use permit to store or keep a heavy commercial vehicle at a residential property, subject to three conditions. CRITERIA FOR CUP APPROVAL Section 44-1097(a) states that the city council may approve a CUP, based on nine standards. (See findings 1-9 in the resolution on pages 15 and 16.) PLANNING Existing Land Use Plan designation: R-1 (single dwellings) Existing Zoning: R-1 (single dwellings) Application Date The city received all the application materials for this request on September 24, 2007. State law requires the city to take action on this request by November 19, 2007, unless the applicant agrees to a time extension. Sec 25/1 003 Century Avenue - Truck CUP - 2007 Attachments: 1. Applicant's Statement 2. Imagewerk's Statement 3. Location Map 4. Address Map 5. Aerial Photo 6. Aerial Photo (Enlarged) 7. Site Plan 8. October 25, 2007 memo from Lt. Shortreed 9. Conditional Use Permit Resolution 5 Attachment 1 September 17, 2007 Thomas R. Tacheny 1003 Century Ave. N. Maplewood, MN 55119 c;: L,(-J"l To whom it may concern, This letter is being written to request a conditional use permit for a work vehicle to be park on my property. A rock based parking pad adjacent to my driveway has been used to park this vehicle. It is an International 4700 truck with a 6cylinder engine and a 16 ft box that is 11 ft high and 8 ft wide. The vehicle is parked overnight and on weekends. I work from this vehicle and pick up printer rollers from various print shops throughout the metro and 5 states area. I work Monday - Friday with overnight trips frequently throughout the year. My employer, Bottcher America in Belcamp, Maryland, rents a small warehouse space from Imagewerks at 1600 Gervais Avenue in Maplewood. The dock space at Imagewerks is used for unloading rollers to be staged for shipment to the manufacturing plant in Tipton, Indiana. Their dock needs to be accessible at all times tor their business needs. No overnight or truck space is available at this address for my work vehicle to be parked. (See letter from Imagewerks) To address the Maplewood code, Sec 44-102 Conditional uses: I reside on the property where the vehicle would be parked. It is parked on a rock based parking pad that is 28 ft wide by 20 ft long. It lies behind a lilac hedge that lines Century Avenue (Hwy 120). It is 25 ft from the curb on Century Ave (HwyI20) and my driveway is 9 ft wide with an additional 8 ft grass/gravel area between the driveways. There is a shared driveway area along Century Ave. (Photos provided.) The vehicle is started in the morning and idles 5 minutes, with the exception of wintertime when it would need to idle 10-15 minutes. To address the criteria for approval of a conditional use permit: I) I believe I comply with the City code as mentioned above. 2) I believe that it doesn't change the existing or planned character of the area. 3) I feel that in using the rock based parking pad, the property value is preserved. 4) The vehicle is maintained by Ryder Transportation Services according to DOT regulations. To address environmental concerns, an example would be that the lilac hedge that it's parked next to remains healthy. 5) There has been no need to access this property by using Midvale Place and parking just off of Highway 120 hasn't caused any traffic problems. 6) There would be no need to change the services provided City of Maple wood. 7) There would be no additional costs for public facilities or services than in the past. 8) There would be no additional changes to the natural and scenic features of this property. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT 6 9) The use of the rock based parking pad has caused no adverse environmental effects in the 12 years my work vehicle has been parked there. I would like to mention that I didn't realize that there was a city code regarding my work vehicle being parked on my property. 10) My request is for a rock based parking pad instead of a building or structure. Bottcher America has a future goal to have it's own permanent office and warehouse space as their Midwest tenitory grows. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ~ ~/l~ Thomas R. Tacheny / 7 Attachment 2 imagewerks MARKETING September 13, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: Imagewerks Marketing rents space to Bottcher. We currently have one dock area, and cannot have this blocked with a commercial truck. Our parking lot does not accommodate any oversized vehicles. Thank you, ~di~ Owner/CEO Imagewerks Marketing, Inc. IMAGEWERK5 5T A TEMENT 6517701319 tot 2294 fax 160083ERVAIS AVE.8 I MAPIEWOOD, MN 55109 iwmarketing.com Attachment 3 ~'^GWJb.1A~ II " " ' " " " " !I " II II Be;~1J'el L"&};t) ff~U'-:;:;lH(;n Cent~ _/<~...~;;:~ -,~<-:.~:>./ _...~.<>/' ~ IU ..J C'S :.:: <C o -,m;= I I I ...) ..-: ~,r _.... r " " I I I I I I I ~ -..... ---- -- --~ -- --- --- ---" f. ...,' l( \.i U' ~ ~'i i ~ I .h II ""-~ , -~ " -..., \'-' I J l.__ !( I', II II II II Ii II , j I I I I "----""1 _____J r I ". BB1l!lID:A'lE: ~\ f':::~::::'--=-~.:2 I I I I I I : I i I I I I I , I I' I I I I I I I I I I ..1 I l"'! I ::..:.~-I, II. ., , - \ , " j '':: - ._ '-'.::rrH 51:; .' !il L 9 't! N LOCATION MAP Attachment 4 - []1059 c:JCI ,I 2:J047 i I I I I I I I I I I I , " I , I , , I J f 00 01037 o 01029 ]G09 (]001 Om5 Qa7 J , , , 985 i , , ! , 977 i , , , , 967 ) I , } [l c D dO o 0 []a1 Q '" [j7 ]@J o Cd o ..... '" kJ ~ ..... '" o GJ u> ~ It'JD 10 '" ..[] to 10 '" [J 10 '" C;:J 10 10 f , , I I " --- ---...... , I , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , I , , ! HARVESTERAVE -- --- -- ~ ..,.---- --- ------ -- --- .-- --- --- -- --- -- --------- ------ -------- ---- ------- --~- -- --- --- \ { 0 ~ N -0 to N to ~ 0 "'\t I1J to ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~ to ~ I ~ 0 O&J)WLJ953 i i I] D [J I] , , , , , , , I I , I ! o 943 \J o 9400 32n D c!J o 935 o e 0\1' S Witnesses con?reaation. ............"..1 925 ADDRESS MAP 10 I I \ .(. , I , I I , , I , , , , , , , , , , I , , , J , , I , , ! I I , , , I i~ I ~ : 0 wi ~I ~i ",J ....' Z' w' ui , , , , , , , I I I , "- l I , 'fr N Attachment 5 AERIAL PHOTO \r N 11 Attachment 6 AERIAL PHOtO (ENLARGED) \I N 12 ~ CJ1 (33) Attachment 7 1 0-19 I I I I " I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I f / I --""...-/ ------------~-------------------------------~------------------- .---------------------------------------------------------~------~-, ~, \ \ I I I ) I I I I I I I I ! 'I' Ii' , ~~ I(l) I~ i~ 1(,1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ) (61) n I-~ o ~I 0"\ ~t GARAGE MIDVALE PL ~~ ~ ~'-Q ~ ",F"," HOUSE DRI vt=wAY e SITE PLAN 13 ~ ~'''1 34) 35) o ~-O 995 w ~ ~ ~ z w o j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .1 I I i I ) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 N Attachment 8 Maplewood Police Department Memo m, ift I,~ i~ iI.7iJ1 iiil.l7; lift: '-. '.' . ~~.~ ~ ~I". id . I,!, .!/!! lDit.p 2:5.!P@@f ~. To: Ken Roberts From: Lt. Michael Shortreed 'MPb:/llJ.i7 Date: October 25, 2007 Re: PROJECT REVIEW -1003 Century Avenue North ~~.<~~ After reviewing this project review application packet, I have no comments or suggestions regarding this project. By the applicant's own admission, he has been parking his commercial vehicle on his property for the past twelve years because he was not aware of the ordinance regarding commercial vehicles. In checking calls for service to this address, I find no complaints from the applicant's neighbors regarding the commercial vehicle. I would request that the conditional use permit be reviewed in one year to assure that the police department has received no complaints regarding the applicant's commercial vehicle in this time period. Please let me know if there any further questions or concerns. 14 Attachment 9 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION - HEAVY COMMERCIAL VEHICLE STORAGE AND PARKING WHEREAS, Mr. Thomas Tachney is requesting that Maplewood approve a conditional use permit (CUP) to store a heavy commercial vehicle (one enclosed delivery truck) on the property he owns at 1003 Century Avenue North. WHEREAS, this permit applies to the property at 1003 Century Avenue North. The legal description is: Midvale Acres, the east one-half of Lot 1, Block 2 (PIN 25-29-22-14-0034) WHEREAS, the history of this conditional use permit is as follows: 1. On November 5,2007, 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. The planning commission recommended that the city council approve the proposed permit. 2. The city council reviewed this proposal and considered the planning commission's recommendation on November _, 2007. The council gave everyone at the meeting a chance to speak and present written statements. The council also considered reports and recommendations of the city staff and planning commission. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city council approves the above- described conditional use permit based on the building and site plans. The city approves this 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, materials, equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous, hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any person or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke, dust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, water run-off vibration, general unsightliness, electrical interference or other nuisances. 5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access on existing or proposed streets. 15 6. The use would be served by adequate public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks. 7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public facilities or services. 8. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the site's natural and scenic features into the development design. 9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects. Approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The owner or operator of the truck doing the following: a. Residing on the property. b. Parking the truck on the existing driveway or on the gravel parking pad. c. Not parking the truck on a public street. d. Maintaining the driveway and parking pad in good condition. 2. The owner or operator shall not let the truck's engine idle for more than thirty (30) minutes in anyone (1) hour period. In no circumstances may the owner or operator idle the engine for more than two periods, lasting thirty (30) minutes each, in one twenty-four (24) hour period. There shall not be any engine idling that disturbs the neighbors between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. 3. The owner or operator shall not do any maintenance or repair of the truck or commercial equipment on the property. 4. The owner or operator shall not load or unload the truck on the property or on adjacent properties. 5. The city council shall review this permit in one year. The Maplewood City Council adopted this resolution on ,2007. 16 AMENDED AGENDA MAPLEWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION Mondav. November5,2007 7:00 PM City Hall Council Chambers 1830 County Road BEast 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes a. October 2, 2007 b. October 16, 2007 5. Public Hearings a. 7:00 Lot Width Variance and Lot Division (1805 Arcade Street) b. 7:20 Conditional Use Permit - Commercial Truck Parking (1003 Century Avenue North) 6. New Business None 7. Unfinished Business Ordinance Amendment - Dynamic Signs 8. Visitor Presentations 9. Commission Presentations October 22 Council Meeting: Mr. Martin November 12 Council Meeting: No Meeting November 26 Council Meeting: Mr. Boeser December 10 Council Meeting: Mr. YalWood ?? December 17 Council Meeting: Ms. Fischer 10. Staff Presentations a. Remember - November 6 is Election Day! 11. Adjoumment MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: City Manager Tom Ekstrand, Senior Planner Sign Code Amendment and Clear Channel Billboard Update November 1, 2007 INTRODUCTION At the October 16,2007 planning commission meeting, the city attorney presented suggested sign ordinance language revisions for billboards. The proposed change would delete, as a "prohibited sign" the descriptive language which identifies prohibited signs as signs that chanlle in brillhtness or color. Refer to the attached memo and materials from Alan Kantrud. These were submitted to the commission for the last meeting. Reason for the Proposed Revision Clear Channel's upgrades to their billboard on the west side of 1-494 by Carver General Repair (refer to the map) were being enforced by the city as a violation of the city's sign ordinance. This is because their new TV-style sign face changed in brightness and color. On October 22, 2007, the city council approved an agreement with Clear Channel to let them keep their sign, but the ordinance still needs to be changed to delete the language as described above. BACKGROUND On October 8,2007, the city council discussed the status of the Clear Channel billboard at Century Avenue and 1-494 and a proposed sign code amendment. After much discussion, the council directed staff to refer the proposed sign code change and the proposed settlement framework to the planning commission and CDRB for review and comment. On October 16,2007, the planning commission reviewed the proposed information about a proposed sign code amendment including a change to the current code and possible new code language about dynamic display signs. The commission, after much discussion with city staff and with representatives from Clear Channel, tabled action on the proposed sign code amendment to allow more time to study the matter. On October 22,2007, the city council approved a settlement agreement with Clear Channel that allows them to have two dynamic-style billboards in Maplewood (these are back to back sign panels totaling four sign faces) and requires their installation of a new dynamic-style sign for city use in front of the Maplewood Community Center. RECOMMENDATION Review the enclosed proposed ordinance change from the city attorney regarding billboards and forward a recommendation to the city council. The proposed change would delete, as a "prohibited sign" the descriptive language which identifies prohibited signs as signs that chanae in briahtness or color. p:miscellfSign Code Memo ClearChannel te 11 07 Attachments: 1. Address Map 2. Sign Code Ordinance and Clear Channel Dynamic Display Memorandum dated October 4, 2007 from Alan Kantrud 3. Dynamic Signage Research Report from SRF Consulting Group, Inc. dated June 7, 2007 Attachment \ -----........ 1 ."~,.....r ..-........... ............. 923 ~ ,/ ..... ....-- r) ...J ""I ....-....~--.. NEWCEN"tURVT I" - ; I r ' , , I I J , , I I , \ J 3 \ \ D "8 <' i \:i u C:J lJ = 10~ ~a I l\l NEMITZ AVE 1eJ 1~ f .' f , I .I r I f' " r r / / / r r / f f ,/ , / \:?o25 D A ~ " f / f " ; l ( // /' \ I I I I , , I I , , I I I I IW Ii( I l~l ':::II II-I " ~ ::l III C 0 0 :: I , f / I / " / -".....-/."" /---- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i , I I I I I r / I ~_J ( L.I , r I I I, II I I I I I I I I I I I I , I r I I : t ADDRESS MAP 'fr N Attachment 2 Agellda Item F4 Knaak & Kantrud. P .A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW OF COUNSEL: Tom Dailey Don Kohler t H. Alan Kantrud hakantrud@klaw.us direct: 612-743-4242 114 Qualified Neutral by the Minnesota State Bar Association MEMORANDUM DAlE: TO: RE: 4 October 2007 City Manager, Greg Copeland Sign Code Ordinance and Clear Channel Dynamic Display INTRODUCTION Clear Channel has operated a billboard sign at Highwood and 1-494 for many years on an ongoing legal non~conforming use status. Clear Channel, the sign-operator, conducted certain repairs and renovations of their sign located along 1-494 in February 2007 pursuant to a previously-submitted request to do so, but did so without specific authorization to expand the use of their sign to include the, "dynamic," changing sign- face that is now capable of doing. This expansion has been and continUes to be in violation of our general prohibition on signs that, "change in color or illumination," and therefore has been technically illegal upon its activation, by our interpretation of our Code. DISCUSSION While Clear Channel has not acknowledged that their billboard (sign) violates our ordinance, per se, they have acknowledged that their original application to perform maintenance on the sign did not include the addition of the, "dynamic," portion of the sign-face. This problem was immediately identified by planning staff and a letter informing the sign-operator was sent giving the operator a period of time to rectify the situation. Staff, including myself and the City Manager, met with the operators ofthe sign early on, following the receipt of the letter from our planning staff, and determined that we would try to work with them and resolve the issue. It was agreed at the time that since the matter was in litigation with the City ofMinnetonka, we would let that process continue = and that the Maplewood matter would be resolved in due course. We all agreed to disagree about the interpretation of the sign ordinance. The Minnetonka matter was handled by way of the City (Minnetonka) getting sued for, "unplugging," the sign Clear Channel activated. The LMCIT was then contacted and the matter referred to them. John Baker, of Greene Espel, was assigned the case and he worked with the City's attorney, Desyl Petersen, and, with the help of a Hennepin County District Court Judge, the matter was eventually resolved amicably and with the adoption of a new sign ordinance regarding Dynamic Displays as well as an Agreement with Clear Channel regarding future operations of such signs (see the attached Agreement and Ordinance). Incidentally, the Agreement acknowledged the benefit of such signage to the City and incorporated a lengthy analysis on the safety of the signs (see the attached study, Exhibit A). Many cities adopted, "moratoriums," on such signs as a result of the Minnetonka experience. One of which was Eagan. Eagan conducted an examination of the effects and consequences of having Dynamic Displays and has now concluded that they are a benefit and not a detriment to their citizens and have adopted an ordinance authorizing these types of displays (that vote was on October 2, 2007). At the time and for our purposes the decision was made not to engage Clear Channel with a battle in the courts for a couple of reasons: The first was, simply, that the strategy of just, "unplugging," the sign (like Minnetonka did) would not have been productive. Such a move would have resulted in litigation that would have undoubtedly triggered another, "defense of claim," file with the LMCIT. We had enough litigation pending with the League at that point to make that option unsavory. I'm confident that we would have received the benefit of League representation; but at what cost? Presumably, further, protracted, litigation at our expense--and to potentially no better or different end than that which Minnetonka eventually settled for-a settlement that all agreed was a good conclusion to the situation and the litigation. The second was to engage Clear Channel in a tortured process whereby we would find a way to somehow authorize their new display. This option included Clear Channel applying for a variance for their display. Your lawyer as well as Clear Channel's agreed that the standard of review for a, "variance," would not apply to their situation; you cannot, by variance, authorize that which is strictly prohibited. Again, we agreed to disagree, but this time with resolution in mind. Staff has suggested now that a special use permit may be a vehicle by which the City can both authorize the Dynamic Display being employed by Clear Channel as well as keep some measure of control on its effect in the community. The operators of the sign have agreed to be subject to that process and potential limitation that a permit would entail. It is my hope that the standards that have become policy in other suburban cities will prevail here based on the great weight of evidence and study that those cities have conducted. = The suggested move on the part of Council is to adopt a minimalist approach to the problem and strike-through the portion of the Code that, under strict interpretation, prohibits the Dynamic Display currently being operated by Clear Channel. This is a surgical removal to be sure and does not affect any other aspect of the sign code. In addition to the deletion of the language in the Code, this change will precipitate the presentation of the revisions to the sign code originally suggested by the CDRB back in 2006. The hope is that the Planning Commission will also take up a, "Dynamic Sign," code amendment consistent with that which other cities have now considered and adopted as well as bring to Council all the other modifications contemplated by that body. By written Agreement with Clear Channel, the operator knows that any future expansion of a billboard will be subject to the tenets of our presumably hereinafter adopted regulation of such, "Dynamic Displays," and limited in number. (See attached Exhibit B, the Ordinance adopted by Eagan that addresses these signs) In terms of a settling with the City, the operator has agreed to install another Dynamic Display, at a cost of $1 00,000.00, on the monument space of the Maplewood Community Center and turn that sign over to the City for complete control and use. This Agreement is and would be in lieu of citing the operator for the ongoing violation of our sign code; an ongoing violation worth about $240,000.00 that likely would be challenged and not imposed by a district court-which would have the ultimate authority to levy a fine--the revenue of which the City would get a mere portion of.. .(See attached Exhibit D for mock-up of the sign) This redaction does not in any way authorize the use or employment of any signs that otherwise would violate the City's prohibitions on other signs that employ movement in their regular operation; the signage at issue only offends that portion of the code that prohibits changes in color or illumination. Agreements with other parties regarding their signage would, of course, be honored. = RECOMMENDATION 1. That the City Council conduct a fIrst reading of the modification recommended below that includes the deletion of the words in the prohibited section of the sign code, specifically: Sec. 44-737. Prohibited signs generally. Signs that are not specifically permitted in this article are hereby prohibited. The following signs are specifically prohibited: (1) Balcony signs and signs mounted or supported on a balcony. (2) Any sign that obstructs any part of a doorway or fIre escape. (3) Signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights er that change in brigl1mes5 er 6eler. Signs that give public service information such as time and temperature are exempt. 2. That the City Council refer the change to the Planning Commission and/or the Community Design Review Board for their consideration and input and further recommendation regarding the Dynamic Display ordinance; 3. That the City Council review the framework for settlement with Clear Channel and approve it as to form. Attachment 3 "DYNAMIC" SIGNAGE: RESEARCH RELATED TO DRIVER DISTRACTION AND ORDlNANCE RECOMMENDATIONS Submitted by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. Prepared for City of Minnetonka . June 7, 2007 A1 = TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa2eNo. 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... I 2.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY AND METHODOLOGy.................................................... I 3.0 SELECTED RESEARCH FINDINGS...................................................................... 2 3.1 Expert Opinions .......m................................................................................... 3 3.2 Billboards: a Source of Driver Distraction?................................................... 4 3.3 "Dynamic" Billboards: an Additional Source of .......................................... 6 Driver Distraction? 3.3.1 Other Information .............................................................................. 9 3.4 How Much Distraction Is a Problem? ............................................................ 10 3.5 How Does "Brightness" Affect Driver Distraction?..................................... 15 3.6 Billboard and Other SignageRegulation: a .....................................m..m..... 16 Minnesota Perspective 3.7 Billboard and Other Signage Regulation: Other........................................... 16 Perspectives 4.0 SUGGESTED REGULATORY APPROACH..........................................m.............. 19 4.1 Definitions...... ........ .......................... ............ .................... ................:.... ..... m, 19 4.2 Types of Regulatory Measures ...................................................................... 19 4.2.1 Complete or Partial Prohibition of Electronic Signs.......................... 19 4.2.2 Size Limitations on Electronic Signs................................................. 20 4.2.3 Rate-of-Change Limitations on Electronic Signs .............................. 20 4.2.4 Motion, Animation, or Video Limitations on Electronic Signs......... 21 4.2.5 Sign Placement and Spacing.............................................................. 22 4.2.6 Text Size ............................................................................................ 22 4.2.7 Brighmess Limitations on Electronic Sigus....................................... 23 4.3 Public Review ................................................................................................ 24 5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 25 Appendix A - Current Sign Technologies Appendix B - Outdoor Advertising Sign Brightness Definitions Appendix C - Electronic Outdoor Advertising Device Visual Performance Definitions A,2 LIST OF TABLES Pal!e No. Table 1: FHW A Reanalysis ofFaustman's Findings...................................................... 5 Table 2: Crash Causation Summary......................n..............nn..................................n.. 11 Table 3: Percentage of CDS Crashes Involving lnattention- .......................................... 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 Pal!e No. Figure 1: VicRoads' Ten Point Road Safety Checklist.................................................... 18 ;'3 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. 2.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY AND MEmODOLOGY 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 playa 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 mistalces in judgment can lead to crashes. A4 = 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 dvnamic siP11~ 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. 3.0 SELECTED RESEARCH FINDINGS 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? AS = 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 MnlDOT. 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 FHW A Office of Safety Research and Development, in Washington, DC was involved in the 2001 FHW A 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 teclmical memorandum that addresses allowable changes for outdoor advertising devices. Mr. Robinson indicated that the memo was originally written in 1998 to establish a petmitted 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. ;"6 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 always new. Thus, the conclusion from the 1980 FHW A 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? I The purpose of a sigu 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 th,aJ. 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 s1llIllli.arized below. Minnesota Department of Transportation Field Study (1951) and Michigan state Highway Department Field study (1952) 2 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. }.7 = 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 oftime are Faus1:man's original analysis of California Route 40 and its re-examination by FHW A more than a decade later. The origll1al analysis tried to improve upon previous research by limiting variables, such as roadway geometric design and roadway access controls. The FHW A 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 I. Table 1. FHWA Reanalysis ofFaustman 's Findings. Expected No. of Accidents in a 5-year Period 5.92 6.65 7.38 8.11 8.84 9.57 No. of Billboards Cumulative Increase in Accident Rate o 1 2 3 4 5 12.3 24.2 37.0 49.3 61.7 Federal Highway Administration Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage (Wachtel & Netherton, 1980). 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. A8 Accident Research Unit, SchoOl of Psychology, University of Nottingham Attraction and distraction of attention with roadside advertisements (Crundall et al., 2005) 7 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 ofreasons: to enhance the sign's ability to attract attention, to facilitate display oflarger 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) · 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. A9 University of Toronto Impact of Video Advertising on Driver Fixation Patterns (Smiley et aI., 2001). Another study completed at the University of Toronto used similar eye fixation infonnation 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) I. 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 fraines 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. -4\10 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) 11 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 $:jfety 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 avirilable. This study thoroughly reviewed the literature seeking inforination regarding a potential link between CBVMS 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 insufficient 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 mayor may not be attributable to the presence of roadside advertising." . Human Facturs 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 ~11 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 wtrys 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 C01f\Jentional advertising signs. " Texas Transportation Institute for FHWA, Impacts of Using Dynamic Features to Display Messages on Changeable Message Signs (Dudek et al., 2005) 11 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 eMS 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 ~12 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) 1 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 iJfVolved, 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 How 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 perfonnance degradation was observed when the participant was under a critical load of stimuli. ~13 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration/ Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 10(}..Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data (Klauer et aI., 2006) 16 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 Administrationl Virginia Tech Transportation Institute Driver Inattention is a Major Factor in Serious Traffic Crashes (2001) 17 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 I 996-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 Percentage of Drivers Contributin2 to Causation 22.7 18.7 18.2 15.1 10.1 6.4 8.8 Causal Category Driver Inattention Vehicle Speed Alcohol Impairment Perceptual Errors Decision Errors Incapacitation Other Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine The Role of Driver Inattention In Crashes; New Statistics from the 1995 Crashworthiness Data System (Wang, 1996) 16 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. ~14 Table 3. Percentage of CDS Craahes Involving Inattention-Distraction Related Craah Causes . lhl' ~or Dam EftmeoIt Iliinn Cn$hes _O<lmo:l1&tr_ 46.6. 28.... Looked bot did not... 5.6. ~.7'5 Diauaolod hv ocher (<tIod6ed] O.Plli - l.6lli Di_bY movlM1 obieo'iJi Yobi"'" [~edl O.3lli 0.$$ DiItno:Ied wIdIo cIiolhqL la!kirlg, or IiJIOning 10 coIIuIor o.1lli@ o.t"cl: l1oJm-n;:;;,~ &lId..me o~..oe1lled] . wIdIo~cn-_Jo ... 0.1.l5@ 0.3,,@ ~ wIdIo' rorlio. __ CD 1.2" 2.llli Dm-d wldI. _1_ devloelobjootlD YehIo1e 0.1" o,u; 181..... or f.U uIeeo 1.5. 2.6'; IDr.a.ctod hv ..18ide--....n", olliOCi. or..em [opecifiodl 2.0. 3.2.'5 In..u.. Of driftkinE 0.1l5 O.~ 0.15 0.2 DioludOd/inatle11llve, <10_._ 1.5" 2.6'5 Olber ......1ioIl . 1.3'; 2.15 lJ~oDrlYer 3$.5. .0 IVelsf>bod- II - '.61.1.000 (7.943. ...,.ipedl, wdafltocI_l'l- M19.ooo (4,$36J: looftter fo< ......."'. .Iuslfied _..' .111nvolvod4rifttollo<110 b. oItBlllo<l_...... 1/1I . uti..... bOAd on 5-9 ...... University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center The Role of D..rJver Distraction in Traffic Crashes (Stutts et ai., 2001) ,. 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 t):rirteen 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 of Distraction Amon~ Drivers in Distraction-Related Craahes S lti D' tr ctI Percentage of pec IC: IS a on Drivers Out.ide person, object or event Adjusting radio, cassette, CD Other occupant in vehicle Moving object in vehicle Other device/object brought into vehicle Adjusting vehicle/climate controls Eating or drinking Using/dialing cell phone Smoking related Other distraction Unknown distraction Total 29.4 11.4 10.9 4.3 2.9 2.8 1.7 1.5 0.9 25.6 8.6 100.0 1}15 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) 2. 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 npon 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, Te/espot 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 pencit 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 .crashrates 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 Average Average Average per year per year Percent (1/1/19711- (1/1/1973- Chuge 12/31/1972 3/31/197 29.0 20.0 -31.0 39.0 15.6 -60.0 h-16 ~ Table 6. Telespot Sign Crash Rates - Expressway Northbound Average per year Average per year Average (1/1/1970- (1/1/1973- Percent 12/31/1972 3/311197 Chan e 46.3 42.7 -7.8 8.0 1.8 -77.5 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 (WisD01) 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. A1J 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 intruduction 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!' Federal Highway Administration Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction (2001)2' 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 &17 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 major 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 differences in age and driving experience may be important considerations in driver distraction, and are relevant to understanding driver responses to the external environment. Furthennore, 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 bpfween commuter and visiting drivers. " Based on these findings, the FHW A recommended additional research to further demonstrate how roadway characteristics, sign characteristics and legibility; driver characteristics and other potential driver distractions affuct traffic. safety. FHW A was contacted to see if any new information was available. Greg Davis, a Research psychologist with the FHWA Office of Safety R&D, indicated Ihat Ihe FHWA has not performed additional studies on Ihe topic since Ihe report was published. He stated Ihat Ihere 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 Ihat found no change in crash rates. He went on to say that the lack of a research finding that links signs wilh 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 signs/electronic billboards. He indicated that this is a timely and pertinent topic for many states due to Ihe increasing popularity and capabilities of electronic outdoor advertising devices, and he expects further research to be forlhcoming. 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 brightuess of any sign, static or dynamic, raises concerns with discomfort or disability glare to Ihe driver Ihat may arise when viewing any lighted object. Disability Glare occurs when a 1).18 = 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 concem 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 concems about sign brightness in areas where signs compete with regulatory traffic signs or signals. 3.6 Billboards and Other Sign age 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 oflight 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) 2& 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 A-19 c 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 ofless 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) 21 Although this survey is eight years old, it generated the following infonnation 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 ~d 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) .. 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. ~o ~ Figure 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: 1. 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. ~21 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 4.0 SUGGESTED REGULATORY APPROACH Local gove=ents 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 regnlations 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 quic1dy make a sign ordinance no longer applicable if the ordinance has been specifically written to address a certain type of sign technology. Performance based meas)!Tes 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 defme terminology. One possible resource in this effort is "Street Graphics and the Law," published by the American Planning Association (APA) Planning Advisory Service29. 4.2 Types of Regulatory Measures 4.2.1 Comt'lete or Partial Prohibition of Electronic SilIDs 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.1ocal /).22 c 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 Sil!l1S 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 Silrns 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 ~1 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 chai1ges 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. j23 Table 7. Number of New Messages Seen at Various Driver Speeds and Time lntervals Between Messaf!es I Number of Messae:es Seen I ! Time sign is Messuge Display Time (seconds) I 1 Speed clearly visible* 1800 3600 (mph) (seconds) 6 8 10 60 (30 minutes) (1 hour) i I 30 60 11 9 7 2 1 I I 45 I 40 8 6 5 2 1 I 55 33 I 7 5 4 2 1 I . Assuming 1he sign is clearly visible from one.half mile away. 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 FHW A in 2006 and by Beijer & Smiley in 2004, and Wachtel's analysis for Seattle of the Zeigamik 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 infotmlltion from the sign industry, for sequencing tu 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 metholls 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 Signs 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 ~24 maximum of lO 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 l,OOO square inches, with no single dimension greater than three feet, thus minimizing the effect of video images. 4.2.5 Sign Placement and Soacinl! Regulating the number of dynamic sign potentially visible to a driver at anyone 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 putpose 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 1 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. /)25 4.2.7 Brightness Limitations on Electronic Sims One of the main concerns about the me 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. Ruminance 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 med 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 (cande1as 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 coi:nmon nighttime limitation is 500 nits, although in areas that are extremely dark atnigh~ 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 ming 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 i26 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 pennits or special usepennits. 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 (Le. size, specific location with respect to the adjacent roadway, zoning district, proximity of sensitive uses). The recommended review process for pennitted dynamic signs should be the same as procedures already in place for administrative A.27 = review. For dynamic signs requiring a ConditionBl 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 POT study that examined crash rates before and after installation of an electronic sil!ll 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: si~s 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 advertisinl!: signs 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. ~28 For this reason, state deparlments 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 FHW A 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: 1. 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 ~29 d. Full animation and video. 3. If one of the fOnDS 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 l!Pproval 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 road.way 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. ~30 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 nitlfootcandle 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. 11. 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. ~31 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CITY OF MINNETONKA Further changes are anticipated following Signage Workshop **Preliminary Report is specifIC to City ofJrmnetonka issues and may not be suffJCient to address concerns in other communities** APPENDICES A32 = PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CTIY OF MINNETONKA Further changes are anticipated following Signage WorkShop **Preliminary Report is specific to City of Minnetonka issues and may not be sufficient to address concerns in other communities** Appendix A Current Sign Technologies A33 = PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CITY OF MINNETONKA Further changes are anticipated following Signage Workshop **Prelimmary Report is specific to City of Minnetonka issues and may not be sufficient to address concerns in other communities** Appendix A - Current SUm Technoloeies Roadside signage has long been used to alert and direct travelers to retail businesses, lodging, attractions and other destinations. Until the 20th century much of this image was "static" in nature, presenting a single image that could only be altered by repainting or otherwise removing an image and replacing it with another. With the advent of motorized travel, signage became more "dynamic" or active in its efforts to attract the traveler's attention as they moved at ever increasing speeds. Initially, motion was created by flashing bulbs or alternating sets of neon tubes. Today's technologies allow for an increasingly sophisticated display of images that can be manipulated by a few strokes of a keyboard. Simpler forms of signs capable of displaying multiple images include ''tri-vision'' signs which present a series of images through mechanical rotation of multi-sided vertical strips. The rotation occurs at regnlar intervals presenting a series of static images. Other forms are electronically produced, allowing for a wide range of colors, messages and images depending on the level of technology, and typically produced by light emitted by the sign face. Basic levels of technology present letters or numbers in a single color of light, such as "time and temperature" signs or gas pricing signs. Many of these signs can present longer images in a scrolling fashion, or can provide simple animations. -. Recent advances have introduced a variety of technologies to the outdoor advertising arena. The largest impact has been made with LED signs which offer an inexpensive yet powerful approach that combines full motion, brilliant colors and a readable display. Other technologies are in development, including "digital ink" signs that offer a changeable medium on a surface that looks like a normal vinyl billboard. These signs manipulate ink on the surface, allowing for a dynamic presentation of images without being internally illuminated. The various sign technologies are referenced by a wide array of terms: "changeable message signs," "electronic billboards," "animated signs." In general, this report focuses on the broad range of signage types which are capable of displaying multiple images through electronic manipulation, which we will refer to as "dynamic" signing. Reference to specific signage types is made when necessary to discussion of specific issues (e.g. the brightness of LED signage). J\~4 = PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CITY OF MINNETONKA Further changes are anticipated following Signage Workshop **Preliminary Report is specific to City of Minnetonka issues and may not be sufficient to address concerns in other communities** Appendix B Outdoor Advertising Sign Brightness Definitions A35 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CITY OF MINNETONKA . Further changes are anticipated following Signage Workshop **Preliminary Report is specific to City of Minnetonka issues and may not be sufficient to address concerns in other communities** Annendix B - Outdoor Advertisinl!: Sil!:n Bril!:htness Definitions This appendix defines various technical terms that are used to describe the operational aspects of electronic billboards. Billboard Illuminance Billboard illumination is typically discussed using two terms: illuminance and lwninance. Because this section includes some technical jargon, a glossary that further defines terms used in outdoor advertising is provided in Appendix C. illuminance: The amount of light that is incident to the surface of an object. This is the method for describing ambient light levels or the amount of light that is projected onto a front-lit sign. This parameter is typically measured in lux. (footcandles x meters). For the purposes of dimming, illuminance is discussed to describe the ambient light that hits the photocell. Luminance: The amount of light that emanates from an internally illwninated sign. This parameter is measured in nits. The nit levels necessary for the sign to be legible vary with the ambient light Gonditions. On a sunny day, the nit levels must be very high, while at night, the levels must be very low to prevent the image from distorting and to prevent glare. Billboard Luminance (Brightness) Luminance is measured in nits (candelas/square meter) and describes how bright the image is. In essence, it is the amount oflight that is radiated from the sign divided by the amount of surface area of the sign. No matter how big the sign is, -the luminance of the sign is consistent. For example, the brigh1ness of computer monitors is also measured in nits. The European standard "EN 12966" specifies that at certain ambient light levels, -the sign should output a given number of nits. There are different tables for each color due to the properties of how the human eye interprets each color. The color that is most often used to set dimming levels is white. The FHW A has developed recommended practices for dynamic message signs installed within the roadway right-of-way. The standard is NEMA's TS-4 "Hardware Standards for Dynamic Message Signs (DMS) With NTCIP Requirements." Note that these standards were prepared for message signs deployed within -the roadway right-of-way and should not be taken as recommended luminance levels for advertising signs. Table A-I provides a simplified version of the NEMA TS-4 standard for -the color white. ~6 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEWBY CI1Y OF MINNETONKA Further changes are anticipated following Signage Workshop **Preliminary Report is specijic to City of Minnetonka issues and may not be sufficient to address concerns in other communities** Table A-I - Luminance Standards Ambient Light (lux) 40,000 Sunlight 10,000 Cloudy 4,000 Overcast 400 Sunrise/Sunset 40 Candlelight less than 4 Moonlight Source: NEMA TS-4 (2005) Approximate Light Minimum Luminance (nits ) 12,400 12,400 2,200 600 250 75 Maximum Luminance (nits) 62,000 11,000 3,000 1,250 375 Billboard Resolution Billboards require far less resolution than print advertisements. For example, Clear Channel's LED "Digital Outdoor Network" LED bulletin-size (14' x 48') billboards require dimensions of only 208 pixels high by 720 pixels wide. If this image were to be printed at 300 dots per inclJ _ (dpi), a typical print resolution, the entire image would be less than 1.7 square inches. Therefore, it is ideal to keep the message on these signs simple and clear because they do not currently allow resolutions similar to printed images. Dimming To maintain readability, the brightness of a sign must be adjusted to match ambient light conditions. If this is not done, the image will appear too bright and can even degrade the image quality through a phenomenon called "blooming." If the image blooms, the brightest areas of the image bleed over into darker parts and the image clarity is degraded. Dimming is typically controlled by a photocell, which measures the ambient light conditions and varies the light output of the sign based on preconfigured settings. As ambient light conditions darken, the photocell senses the decrease and lowers the light output of the sign. Some sign manufacturers do not incorporate photocells in their electronic signs. Electronic billboard dimming can also be controlled by schednled dimming according to time of day or manual dimming. On-premise signs may use any of these methods, but most, if not all, off-premise standard size electronic billboards are auto dimmed by photocell. Some signs include user-defined dimming curve capability allowing total control over sign brightness and adjustability to accommodate local brightness ordinances. AA7 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CITY OF MINNETONKA Further changes are anticipated following Signage Workshop **Preliminary Report is specific to City of Minnetonka issues and may not be suffteient to address concerns in other communities** Appendix C Electronic Outdoor Advertising Device Visual Performance Definitions A38 PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CITY OF MINNETONKA Further changes are anticipated following Signage Workshop **Preliminary Report is specijic to City of Minnetonka issues and may not be suffzcient to Mdress concerns in other communities** Appendix C - Electronic Outdoor Advertisinl! Device Visual Performance Defmitions Consnicuitv Conspicuity is the property that related to the contrast between a sign and its background and its ability to stand out from its surroundings. This is a subj ective property that depends on many factors of both the environment and the viewer. Contrast Contrast is the property that defines the relationship between the brightness of the brightest color possible to the darkest color possible on a sign. In times when ambient conditions are very bright, such as a sunny day, the darkest color may still be very bright due to the sun's reflection off the sign. In these cases, the lighter colored areas of the billboard's image must be much brighter than the contrasting dark areas. Legibilitv The ability of the driver to read a sign is related to its legibility. 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 wait until the sign is very close. State departments of transportation use NEMA's TS-4 document for this criterion. This document specifies many characteristics related to legibility including character height, resolution and color. Glare Disability Glare The first form of glare is disability glare. This 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. DUicomfort Glare Discomfort glare is 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. ~9 c PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CITY OF MINNETONKA Further changes are anticipated following Signage Workshop **Preliminary Report is specifu: to City of Minnetonka issues and may not be sufficient to address concerns in other communities** Frequencv of Chang:e The frequency of change is determined by ilie interval of time between sign image changes. The rate of change can usually be adjusted by ilie owner and operator of the sign. Frequency of change is highly variable, wiili some on-premise signs changing faster than once per second. While no standard is generally accepted, local government agencies have used ordinances to limit the frequency to anywhere from 5 seconds to 24 hours. Interactive signs Interactive signs change ilieir message based on the person viewing it. For example, ilie carmaker MINI has installed variable message signs that display a customized message to car owners who have special key dongles containing a radio frequency identification (RFID) chips when ilie dongle is in close proximity to the sign. Another example is a microphone system iliat identifies ilie radio stations passing drivers are listening to and displays a specific message for that station. .\40 I B. Wallace, "Driver Distraction by advertising: genuine risk or urban myth?" Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Municipal Engineer 156,2003. 2 J. Wachtel, and R. Netherton. "Safety and Environmental Design Consideratioos in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage. Report No. FHW A-Rl)..8o-051," Washington, D.C., 1980. 3 A.R. Lauer and J.e. Mcmonagle, "Do Road Signs Affect Accidents?" Eno Tnmsportation Foundation, 1955. · D. Faustman, "A study of the relationship between advertising signs and traffic accidents on U.S. 40 between Vallejo and Davis." San Francisco: California Roadside Council, ReportCRCNo. 165, 1961. , S. Weiner. "Review of report." Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Design and Control Division, August 1973. · J. Wachtel, and R. Netherton. "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage. ReportNo. FHWA-RD-80-051," Washington, D.C., 1980. 7 D. Crundall et al., "Attraction and Distraction of Attention with Roadside Advertisements," Elsevier, 2006. · D. Beijer and A. Smiley, "Observed Driver Glance Behavior at Roadside Advertising Signs," Transportation Research Record, 2005. , A. Smiley et aI., ''Impoct of Video Advertising on Driver Fixation Patl2rns. Transportation Research Record, 2004. 10 O. Wachtel, The Veridian Group, "Video Signs in Seattle ~ Final Report." 2001. ., J. Wachtel, and R. Netherton. "Safety and Enviromnental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic Variable-Message Signage. Report No. FHW A-Rl)..80-051," Washington, D.C., 1980. 12 C. L. Dudek et al., "Impacts of Using Dynamic Features to Display Messages on Changeable Message Signs," Operations Office of Travel Management: Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.e., 2005. 13 "NlITSA Driver Distraction Forum: Summary and Proceedings," <hl1p:/Iwww-nrd.nhtsa.dOl.govlpdf/ nrd-13/FinaIIntemetForumReport.pdf.>, accessed on February 14, 2007. ""Report of the Road Safety Committee on tbe Inquiry into Driver Distraction," Parliament of Victoria, Australia, Victoria, Australia, 2006, p. 11 O. " A. W. Johnston and BL. Cole, "Investigations of Distraction By Irrelevant Information," Australian Road Research Board, 1976. .. S.O. Klauer et aI., "Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 1 OO-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Daln," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2006. - - 17 Driver Inattention Is A Major Factor In Serious Traffic CraBbes," <hl1p:/lwww.nhtsa.dot.govlpeople/ outreacbltraftecbfI'T243.blm>, accessed on FebrullI)' 14, 2007. " J. Wang, "Role of Driver Inattention in Crashes; New Statistics from the 1995 Crashworthiness Data System, 40th Annual Proceedings, Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, Vancouver, British Columbia, 1996. " University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, 'The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic Crashes,"2oo1. '" K. Harder, "The Effectiveness and Safety of Traffic and Non-Traffic Related Messages Presented on Changeable Message Signs (CMS)", Minnesota Department of Transportation, Sl. Paul, Minnesota, 2003. 21 "Decision of the Outdoor Advertising Board in the Matter of John Donnelly & Sons, Permltee, Telespot of New England, [nc., Intervenor. and Department of Public Works, Intervenor, with Respect to Permit Numbered [9260 as Amended," The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising Division, 1976. 22 Wisconsin Department of Transportation (1994). Milwaukee County Stadium Variable Message Sign Study. Wisconsin, USA: Internal Report, Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 23 T. Szymkowski, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Interviewed on February 20, 2007. "Federal Highway Administration, "Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction," 2001. 2S O. Davis, FHW A Office of Safety Research and Development, Interviewed on February 23, 2007. 2. CTC & Associates LLC, "Electronic Billboards and Highway Safety, <"hl1p:/Iwww.dOl.wisoonsin.govllibrary/ researcbldocsltsrsltsrelectronicbillboards.pdf>, accessed on FebrullI)' 14, 2007. A41 27 Federal Highway Administration, ''Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver Attention and Distraction," 2001. 2& ''Report of the Road Safety Committee on the Inquiry into Driver Distraction," Parliament of Victoria, Australia, Victoria, Australia, 2006. 20 D. Mandelker, A. Bertucci and W. Ewald. "Street Graphics and the Law," APA Planning Advisory Service, 2004, pp. 51- 55. A42 _\,0, ;' 1(/.0 V Chapter 11 LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)* Sec. 11.70. Performance Standards. Subd. 28. Placement, erection and maintenance of signs. A. Purpose, construction and defmitions. 1. Purpose. The purpose of this section shall be to regulate the placement, erection and maintenance of signs in the city so as to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the residents of the city. 2. Construction. Ail terms and words used in this section shall be given their commonsense meaning considered in context, except as hereinafter specifically defined. 3. Definitions. The following terms, as used in this section, shall have the meanings stated: (a) Business sign means any sign upon which there is any name or designation that has as its purpose business, professional or commercial identification and which is related directly to the use of the premises upon which the sign is located. (b) Freestanding ground sign means a business sign erected on freestanding shafts, posts or walls which are solidly affixed to the ground and completely independent of any building or other structure. Any business freestanding ground sign which projects more than seven feet above ground level is considered a pylon sign. (c) Governmental sign means any sign placed, erected or maintained by a governmental entity or agency for identification of or directions to a public facility or street or for traffic control or general public services. (d) Local street means a street within the city, which is not functionally classified within the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan as a principal arterial, "A" minor arterial, "B" minor arterial, major collector or minor collector. (e) Nonbusiness sign means any sign such as a personal nameplate or designation as for residences, churches, schools, hospitals, traffic or road signs, which do not contain advertising and are directly related to the premises upon which they are located. (f) Off-premises sign means a sign which directs attention to a business, commodity, service or entertainment conducted, sold or offered somewhere other than on the property upon which the sign is located. (g) Product sign means any sign upon which there is any brand name, trademark, logo, distinctive symbol, designation or advertising which has as its purpose the promotion of any business, product, goods, activity or service. Product signs shall be subordinate to business signs. (b) Public right-ol-way or public rights-ol-way means the surface, air space above the surface and the area below the surface of any public street, highway, lane, path, alley, sidewalk, trail, avenue, boulevard, drive, court, concourse, bridge, tunnel, park, parkway, skyway, waterway, dock, bulkhead, wharf, pier, easement or similar property or waters within the city owned by or under control of the city, or dedicated or otherwise conveyed to the city for general public use. (i) Pylon sign means a business sign erected on freestanding shafts, posts or walls which are solidly affixed to the ground, and which projects more than seven feet above ground level. Pylon signs, when authorized, are considered a conditional use, as defined in the zoning chapter, and are subject to all conditions, regulations and fees required for conditional uses. G) Sign means any surface, facing or object upon which there is printed, painted or artistic matter, design or lighting. (k) Sign area means the gross area, exclusive of supportive frame, which contains copy or identifying features such as a logo, character or identifying figure. The gross area shall be calculated as an enclosed area bounded by no more than 12 straight lines. (I) Sign height means the distance from the lowermost ground point to which the sign is attached, to the highest point on the sign. (m) Trail means any paved surface within the public right-of-way, outside of the paved street surface, used by pedestrians and cyclists. B. Permitted uses. 1. Location of business signs. Business signs are permitted on property zoned business, industrial, agricultural, public facilities, RD or PD only in conjunction with an approved business, industrial or agricultural use. 2. Location of business signs in residential areas. Business signs are permitted in residentially zoned areas or areas ofPD designation for residential use only under the following cases: (a) "For sale" or "for rent" signs, four feet by four feet or smaller, advertising the premises upon which such sign is located. (b) Real estate "for sale" signs, not over 100 square feet, of a land developer, which are located upon the premises offered for sale. (c) Area identification signs for major apartment complexes. C. General Sign Standards. 1. Construction and erection of signs. All signs shall be constructed and erected in a good and workmanlike manner of sound and sufficient materials so as to ensure the safety of the public and in accordance with all reasonable standards employed by professional signmakers. 2. Location on private property. No sign shall be erected, placed or located upon private property without the permission of the property owner or the lessee. 3. Location to property line. No business sign shall be located nearer than ten feet from any property or dividing line. 4. Location on public property. No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be placed upon any city owned public property, or railroad right-of-way. No sign, other than governmental signs, shall be affixed to any utility pole. 5. Moving parts, lights. No signs are allowed which contain moving sections or intermittent or flashing lights, except for intermittent display oftime and temperature, governmental signs. and dvnamic displav signs allowed under subdivision K below. 6. Obstruction of vision. No sign shall be erected or maintained in such place and manner as obstructs driver vision or is noxious, annoying or hazardous because of method oflighting, illumination, reflection or location. 7. Painted signs on buildings. No signs are allowed which are painted directly upon the walls of a building. 8. Placement within public right-of-way. No sign other than governmental signs, shall be located within any city owned public right-of-way, except as follows: (a) Residential name and address signs may be located within the public right-of-way when such signs are attached to mail boxes, private lampposts or the like. (b) Non-business signs may be placed in the public right-of-way of a local street only if the sign is located more than ten feet from the back of the street curb where no trail exists or more than 25 feet from the back of the curb where a trail exists. 9. Source of lighting. No signs are permitted for which the source of light is directly visible to passing pedestrians or vehicle traffic. D. Off-premises signs. 1. No off-premises sign shall be permitted in any zone within the city except as permitted under this sub-paragraph. 2. The owner of an existing off-premises sign may construct a new off-premises sign pursuant to a conditional use permit issued in accordance with the provisions of chapter 11 of the City Code, and under the following criteria: (a) No sign will be permitted which increases the number of signs beyond the number of signs depicted in table A (which follows this section), as amended from time to time. . (b) No sign shall be permitted which increases the total square footage of all signs beyond the number of total square feet depicted in table A (which follows this section), as amended from time to time. (c) No sign shall be permitted which increases the total number of sign surfaces beyond the total number of sign surfaces depicted in table A (which follows this section), as amended from time to time. (d) The maximum square footage of a sign shall be 250 square feet; however, the city may allow a sign in excess of250 square feet upon (i) the reduction of the total number of signs, square footage or surface areas depicted in table A (which follows this section), as amended from time to time, and (ii) amendment to said table A to reflect such reduction, and (iii) further, so long as the total square footage of all signs is not increased beyond the total of sign square footage depicted in said table A, at the time of application for a new sign. (e) No sign shall be located nearer to any other off-premises sign than 1,500 lineal feet on the same side of the street or 300 lineal feet on the opposite side of the street. (f) No sign shall be located on a platted lot which contains a business sign. (g) No sign shall be located within 300 feet of any freestanding ground sign or pylon sign. (h) No sign shall be located within 200 feet of any residentially zoned district. (i) No sign or any part thereof shall exceed 40 feet in height as measured from the land adjacent to the base of the sign. 3. Any new off-premise sign permitted under this paragraph, shall not be placed upon any property upon which a building or structure already exists. 4. Any new off-premise sign permitted under this paragraph, above, shall be located only on property zoned for business or industrial use. 5. Any off-premise sign now existing or permitted to be constructed shall be removed prior to the city approving the platting of the property upon which the sign is located or prior to the city issuing a building permit for the construction of a structure upon the property upon which the sign is located, whichever occurs earlier. 6. Any new off-premise sign pursuant to a conditional use permit issued hereunder shall be subject to the provisions governing conditional use permits as set forth elsewhere in this chapter. E. Building-mounted, window/door and temporary business signs, standards. 1. Building signs on single-tenant buildings and end units in multi-tenant buildings. On single-tenant buildings, no more than three total signs, distributed on up to two elevations, are allowed in the following combinations, not to exceed the allowed sign area based on zoning: (a) One elevation displaying a business name sign, and one elevation displaying a business name and a product name sign for a total of three signs; or (b) One elevation displaying a business name sign, and one elevation displaying either a business name or a product name sign for a total of two signs; or (c) One elevation displaying a business name sign or a product name sign for a total of one sign; or (d) Two signs, each displaying a separate business name if two tenants are occupying one unit space for a total of two signs on one elevation. 2. Building signs on interior units of multi-tenant buildings. On multi-tenant buildings, no more than two signs per tenant on one elevation are allowed in the following combinations, not to exceed the allowed sign area based on zoning: (a) One sign displaying a business name, and one sign displaying a product name for a total of two signs on one elevation; or (b) Two signs, each displaying a separate business name if two tenants are occupying one unit space for a total of two signs on one elevation; or (c) One sign displaying a business name for a total of one sign on one elevation; or (d) One sign displaying a product name for a total of one sign on one elevation. 3. Design similarity. All business signs mounted on a building shall be similar in design. 4. Multi-tenant building signage. Building facade signage on multi-tenant buildings shall be evenly distributed between all tenants. 5. Product name signs. Product name signs shall be subordinate to business name signs. 6. Roof signs. No sign mounted upon a building is allowed to project above the highest outside wall or parapet wall. 7. Roof signs in BP and RD districts. In BP and RD districts, no roof signs shall be allowed. 8. Sign area. No signs or combination of signs mounted upon a building shall cover in excess of ten perc!lnt of the gross area of a side in the RD and BP zoning districts, and 20 percent of the gross area of a side in all other zoning districts, where business signs are allowed. A sign displayed on or in any window shall not occupy more than 25 percent of the area of the windows and/or doors on the side of the building on which the window sign is displayed. The area of a window/door sign shall be included in the calculation of the sign area allowed for building-mounted signs provided herein and shall not exceed the applicable sign area permitted. Window/door signs shall be allowed only on the building facade that has building-mounted signage. No window or door sign, in whole or in part, shall be displayed in the area of the window or door that is higher than four feet and less than six feet, as measured vertically, from the finished interior floor elevation. Any sign not exceeding a two square feet area that depicts Open/Closed or hours of operation shall be exempt from permit and permit fee requirements. The permit fee for a window or door sign shall be required only with the first window or door sign displayed by the applicant unless additional signs or signs in new locations are displayed. 9. Sign projection. No sign mounted upon a building is allowed to project more than 18 inches from the vertical surface of the building. 10. Temporary signsfor special business sales. Any commercial use may have up to three signs for the purpose of promoting a special sales event, provided the signs may not be displayed for no more than ten days within a 60-day period. The 60-day period shall commence on the first day of posting a temporary sign and conclude 60 days thereafter. The temporary signs shall not exceed an aggregate total area of 25 square feet. The sign permit application shall specify the days, not to exceed ten, on which the temporary sign will be displayed. 11. Canopy signage. Canopy signage is limited to the business name and/or logo, and shall not exceed 20 percent of the canopy facade, excluding corporate color raceway. No more than one canopy sign for each street frontage shall be permitted on a canopy for the business located upon the property; iIlunllnation is limited to business name and/or logo. F. Freestanding business signs, standards. 1. Freestanding ground signs. Up to one allowed per building. Such signs shall be limited to seven feet total height, with four-foot maximum height of sign area. 2. Pylon signs. Up to one allowed per building. When used, a pylon sign is allowed in lieu of a freestanding sign. No pylon sign may be located within 300 feet of any other pylon sign, measured on the same side of the street. No pylon signs shall project more than 27 feet above the lot level, roadway level, or a specified point between the two levels as determined by the council. The level used shall be based upon visibility factors from the adjacent roadway(s). The applicant shall submit diagrams, drawings, pictures and other information requested by the city prior to action by the council upon the application. No pylon sign shall exceed 125 square feet in area per side except pylon signs authorized under subparagraph C, below. In the RD and BP districts, no pylon signs shall be allowed. 3. Major complex. When an area identification is required, such as for a shopping center, major apartment complex, or major industrial building, up to one freestanding or pylon sign may be allowed for each major adjacent street. The council shall determine the maximum size after reviewing the applicable conditions including terrain, safety factors, etc. 4. Freeway locations. An on-premises pylon sign for identification purposes is allowed for a business sign located directly adjacent to a freeway within the city. Any business that acquires a permit to erect a pylon sign for freeway identification may be allowed an additional freestanding ground sign to be located on the side of the property opposite of the freeway. All signs must comply in all other respects with the provisions of this section. A freeway shall be defined as a principal arterial highway as defmed in the comprehensive plan. 5. Multi-lot developments. In multi-lot developments, the design and placement of monument and directional signs shall be coordinated through an overall signage plan. G. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other provisions ofthis section, the following signs are exempt from the permit or fee provisions of this section. No exempt sign shall exceed 16 square feet of area except where stated below: 1. For sale, lease, or rent signs of real estate when located on the property advertised, and when under 16 square feet in total copy area. 2. Church, hospital, or school directional signs, less than six square feet in total copy area. 3. One on-property church sign for each church site. 4. Signs warning of hazardous conditions. 5. Simple information signs, such as "exit," "loading dock," etc. 6. Simple nameplate signs on or over the entrance to a place of business or used to identify the parking area of a place of business. Not to exceed three square feet in gross area. 7. Signs erected by a recognized unit of government having jurisdiction in the city, or a school district within the boundaries of the school district. 8. Political signs for a period of up to ten days after an election, provided such signs contain the name and address of the individual responsible for erecting and removing the sign. 9. Temporary signs for special civic events or garage or neighborhood sales, for a period not to exceed 20 days. H. Nonconforming signs. 1. The protective inspections department shall order the removal of any sign erected or maintained in violation of the law as it existed prior to the effective date of this section. Removal shall be in accordance with this subdivision. 2. Other signs existing on the effective date of this section and not conforming to its provisions, but which did conform to previous laws, shall be regarded as nonconforming signs which may be continued if properly repaired and maintained as provided in this section and if in cOnformance with other provisions of the City Code. If said signs are not continued with conformance of above, they shall be removed in accordance with this subdivision. 1. Sign permits and fees. 1. Sign permits. No signs, except those specified in this subdivision, above, shall be erected or maintained anywhere in the city without first obtaining a sign permit. 2. Application, permit and fees. A formal application together with accompanying documents prescribed by the city shall be submitted to the city to obtain a sign permit. Permit fees are as adopted by resolution of the city council and shall accompany the permit application. If any sign is placed, erected, or installed without first obtaining a sign permit, then the permit fee shall be the amount equal to two times the permit fee. 3. Review of applications. The community development department shall consider approval of all sign permit applications, except that applications for approval of permits for advertising signs, pylon signs and any sign requiring a variance shall be submitted to the council for final approval. Freestanding signs exceeding seven feet in height shall require a footing and foundation inspection by the protective inspections division and all building code requirements shall be met. 4. Return of the .fees. In the event said application shall be denied, the city shall return the applicant's permit fee, less a reasonable amount determined by the council which shall be retained as an administrative cost. 1. Removal. All signs which have not been removed within the designated time period may after due notice be removed by the city, and any expense incurred thereof may be charged to the sign owner or assessed against the property on which they are located. t K. Dvnamic Displav Signs. \. Findines. Studies sh signs and the distraction of hi Drivers can be distracted not sign has a changing message. occur. Drivers are also distra People have a natural desire t sign in order to wait for the e effects used to change the me generally more distracted bv more than a simple message. these concerns because the m without frequent changes. Despite these public s to easilv update messages. E should have the opportunity t restrictions are intended to m' proliferation in residential dis character. , Local spacing require technologies and are not incl potential for numerous dvna dynamic displav can be seen becomes critical. If the displa appears to have constant mov corridor with multiple signs. meaningful limitations on eac subiected to an unsafe degree displav time is appropriate. A constant message is identify and fmd an intended finding purpose and could ad changes. stops. or turns. whic displavs generally should not sign. In conclusion. the city with significant controls to m public safety. ow that there is a correlation between dynamic displavs on ghwav drivers. Distraction can lead to traffic accidents. onlv bv a changing message. but also bv knowing that the Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to cted bv messages that do not tell the full stOry in one look. o see the end of the stOry and will continue to look at the nd. Additionallv. drivers are more distracted bv special ssage. such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Finallv. drivers are messages that are too small to be clearly seen or that contain Time and temperature signs appear to be an exception to essages are short. easily absorbed. and become inaccurate afetv concerns. there is merit to allowing new technologies xcept as prohibited by state or federal law. sign owners o use these technologies with certain restrictions. The mimize potential driver distraction and to minimize tricts where signs can adverselv impact residential ments could interfere with the equal opportunity to use such uded. Without those requirements. however. there is the mic displavs to exist along any roadway. Ifmore.than one from a given location on a road. the minimum displav time v time is too short. a driver could be subiected to a view that ement. This impact would obviously be compounded in a If dynamic displavs become pervasive and there are no h sign's ability to change frequently. drivers may be of distraction and sensorv overload. Therefore. a longer typically needed on a sign so that the public can use it to destination. Changing messages detract from this wav- verselv affect driving conduct through last-second lane h could result in traffic accidents. Accordinglv. dynamic be allowed to occupy the entire COPy and graphic area of a fmds that dynamic displavs should be allowed on signs but inimize their proliferation and their potential threats to 2. Dvnamic display sim means any sign. except governmental signs. with dynamic display characteristics that appear to have movement or that appear to change. caused bv any method other than phvsically removing and replacing the sign or its components. whether the apparent movement or change is in the display. the sign structure itself, or anv other component of the sign. This includes a displav that incOlJ'orates a technology or method allowing the sign surface to change the image without having to physicallv or mechanicallv replace the sign surface or its components. This also includes any rotating. revolving. moving, flashing, blinking, or animated display and anv displav that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input. "digital ink" or any other method or technology that allows the sign surface to present a series of images or displays. 3. Dvnamic displav signs are allowed subiect to the following conditions: ( a) Dvnamic display signs are subordinate to off-premises signs. monument and pvlon signs. and business signs. Dvnamic dis\llavs 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 displav signs are allowed only on monument and pylon signs for conditionally permitted uses in residential districts and for all uses in other districts, subiect to the requirements of this Section 11.70. Onlvone. contiguous dynamic displav area is allowed on a sign surface: (b) A dynamic display may not change or move more often than once every 20 minutes. except one for which changes are necessary to correct hour-and-minute. date. or temperature information. Time, date. or temperature information is considered one dynamic display and may not be included as a component of any other dynamic displav. A display of time, date. or temperature must remain for at least 20 minutes before changing to a different display. but the time, date. or temperature informationitselfmav 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: (d) 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: Eve line of co and a hics in a d namic dis la must be at least seven inche eight on a road with a speed limit of25 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. Ifthere is insufficient room for COpy and graphics of this size in the area allowed under clause (a) above. then no dynamic displav is allowed: (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 if it malfunctions. and the sign owner must immediately stop the dynamic display when notified bv tbe city that it is not complying with the standards of this orclinance; (g) Dvnamic display signs must comply with the brightness standards contained in subdivision L below; (h) Dvnamic display signs existing on (insert the effective date of this ordinance) must comply with the operational standards listed above. An existing dynamic display that does not meet the structural requirements in clause (b) may continue as a non- conforming development subiect to section (insert ordinance section number). An existing dynamic display that cannot meet the minimum size requirement in clause (e) must use the largest size possible for one line of COpy to fit in the available space. (n Exceptions. Recognizing that some dynamic displays. such as those used in point of sale dispensers. interactive vending machines and A TMs. often need to change images more frequentlv than defined bv 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 of less than 160 square inches may be fullv 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 or are at least 30' from the public right ofwav. whichever is greater. 4. Incentives. Off-premises signs do not need to serve the same way-finding function as do on-premises silms; they are restricted in number bv the city; and they are in themselves distracting and their removal serves 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 removal results in an overall advancement of one or more of the goals set forth in this section that should more than offsetanv additional burden caused bv 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 bv providing community and public service messaf!:es. A. Incentive Option A - Reduction of Sign Surfaces (a) A person may obtain a permit for an enhanced dynamic display sign on one surface of an existing off-premises sign if the following requirements are met: (i) The applicant agrees in writing to reduce its off-premises sign surfaces bv one bv permanentlv removing. within 15 days after issuance of the permit. one surface of an off-premises sign in the city that is owned or leased bv the applicant and is depicted in table A (which follows this section). which sign surface must satisfy the criteria of parts (in 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 timelv do so. and the application must identify the sign surface to be removed and be accompanied bv 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 voluntarilv 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 an enhanced dynamic displav sign does not constitute a removal of a sign surface. (ii) The city has not vreviouslv issued a dynamic displav sign permit based on the removal of the particular sign surface relied upon in this permit application. (Hi) If the removed sign surface is one for which a state permit is required bv 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 displav sign permit cannot begin to operate until proof is provided to the city that the state permit has been surrendered. (b) lfthe applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above. the city will issue an enhanced dynamic displav sign permit for the designated off-premises sign. This permit will allow a dynamic displav to OCCUpy 100 percent of the potential COPy and graphic area and to change no more frequentlv than once every eight seconds. The designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance. B. Incentive OPti<;n B - Provision of Community and Public Seryice Messaging (a) A person may obtain a permit for an enhanced dynamic displav sign on one surface of an existing off-premises sign if the following requirements are met: (i) The enhanced dynamic display sign replaces an existing surface of an existing off-premises sign: (m The city has not previouslv issued a dynamic displav sign permit based on the replacement of the particular sign surface relied upon in this 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 displav sign in the city for community and public service messages at such times as shall be determined by the city. (b) lfthe applicant complies with the permit requirements noted aboye. the city will issue an enhanced 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 frequentlv than once eyery 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 in addition to those in subdivision (a) No sign mav be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibilitv. (b) No sign mav be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor vehicle driver with average evesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's operation of a motor vehicle. (c) No sign mav 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 adiust the sign to meet the brightness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adiustment must be made immediatelv upon notice of non-compliance from the city. The person owning or controlling the sign mav appeal the city's determination through the following appeal procedure: ( a) After making the adiustment required bv the citv. the person owning or controlling the sign mav appeal the citv's determination bv delivering a written appeal to the city clerk within 10 davs after tbe citv'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 on the appeal panel. (b) Within five business davs after receiving the appeal. the city must name a person who is not an official or emplovee of the city to serve on the appeal 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 to the panel. who has no relationship to either party. (c) The appeal panel mav develop its own rules of procedure. but it must hold a hearing within five business davs after the third member is appointed. The city and the sign oWner must be given the opportunity to present testimonv. and the panel mav 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 davs after the hearing commences. The decision will be binding on both parties. 3. All signs installed after (insert the effective date ofthis ordinance) that will have illumination bv a means other than natural light must be equipped with a mechanism that automaticallv adiusts the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be equipped with a means to immediatelv turn off the displav or lighting if it malfunctions. and the sign owner or operator must immediatelv turn off the sign or lighting when notified bv the city that it is not complving with the standards in this section. TABLE A TABLE INSET: Surfaces SF/ SF Ref Address (pill #) Location Surface Total # 2750 Sibley Mem. 1-494 between Hwy. 13 & 2 624 1,248 1 Hwy. Pilot Knob Rd. (103288501001) 2750 Sibley Mem. 1-494 between Hwy. 13 & 2 672 1,344 2 Hwy. Pilot Knob Rd. (103288501001) 2950 Hwy. 55 Hwy. 55, junction with 2 250 500 3 (100010001055) Hwy. 149 3875 Sibley Mem. Hwy. 13, between Cedar 2 250 500 4 Hwy. Ave. & Rahn Rd. (100190001102) 4151 Sibley Mem. Hwy. 13, between Cedar 1 250 250 5 Hwy. Ave. & Diffley Rd. (100190001356) 3700 Cedar Ave. Hwy. 77, north ofHwy. 13 2 378 756 6 (100180001156) (on railroad) 2196 Cedar Ridge Hwy. 77, between Diffley 2 378 756 7 Court Rd. and Cliff Rd. (101682102001) 3801 Sibley Mem. Hwy. 77, north ofHwy. 13 2 378 756 8 Hwy. (107550001000) 1181 Trapp Rd. Soo Line right-of-way, 1 480 480 south ofI-494 and west of 9 (beyond NE Corner) Hwy. 55 {I} {20} {20} (102250005108) (added 9/5/99) 1255 Trapp Rd. 1-494, junction ofI-35E 2 378 756 10 (1022250014001) 2750 EagandaIe Soo Line right-of-way, 360 720 Blvd. 2 11 (beyond NW Hwy. 55, west ofI-35E Corner) I I (102250014307) I I I I (Ord. No. 366, 2nd series, eff. 10-7-03; Ord. No. 384, 2nd series, 91, eff. 10-28-04; Ord. No. 390, 2nd series, 99 1--4, eff. 7-16-05; Ord. No. 396, 2nd series, 9 1, eff. 2-7-06; Ord. No. 398, 2nd series, 9 1, eff. 2-7-06; Ord. No. 396R, 2nd series, 9 1, eff. 8-6-06; Ord. No. 402, 2nd series, 9 1, eff. 9-26-06; Ord. No. 407, 2nd series, 9 1, eff. 12-4-06) State law references: Advertising devices, Minn. Stat. ch. 173. Sees. 11.71--11.98. Reserved. 1~#P: 1 E " ~ ~ 1 -. ... II !11 '3 1\ ~ ... ... ..' 1 ~ ! ,. .21 ,~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ :i ;;; '" ~. :i CI ... ~ '.... 'a I "I. i o b C . . . Page 1 of 1 Tom Ekstrand From: Greg Copeland Sent: Friday. November 02,200712:16 PM To: Tom Ekstrand Cc: 'HAK' Subject: 2007 -digital - fhwa policy 9-25.pdf Attachments: 2007 -digital - fhwa policy 9-25.pdf Tom: Please include the attached item for the Planning Comission agenda for Nov. 5, 2007 as it will be helpful in providing more information for the members about the federal government's guidance to state DOTs on dynamic sign standards. Thanks. Greg 11/2/2007 . . . 1 o Memorandum US-Department of"ta1spor1otiat Federal Highway Admlnts.tmtlon Subject: INFORMATION: Guidance on Off-Premise Changeable Message Signs Date: September 25, 2007 Original signed by: From: Gloria M Shepherd Associate Administrator for P1Rnnin& Environment, and Realty In:Reply Refer To: HEPR -20 To: Division Administrators Attn: Division Realty Professionals Puroose The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance to Division offices concerning off- premises changeable message signs adjacent to routes subject to requirements for effective control under the Highway Beautification Act (HBA) codified at 23 U.S.C. 131. It clarifies the application of the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) July 17, 1996 memorandum on this subject. This office may provide further guidance in the future as a result of additional information received through safety research, stakeholder input, and other sources. Pmsuant to 23 CFR 750.705, a State DOT is required to obtain FHW A Division approval of any changes to its law~ regulations. and procedures to implement the requirements of its outdoor advertising control program. A State DOT should request and Division offices should provide a detennination as to whether the State should allow off-premises changeable electronic variable message signs (CEVMS) adjacent to controlled routes, as required by our delegation of responsibilities under 23 CPR 750.7050). Those Divisions that already have fonnally approved CEVMS use on HBA controlled mutest as well as those that have not yet issued a decision, should re--eva1uate their position in light of the following considerations. The decision of the Division should be based upon a review and approval of a State~s affinnation and policy that: (1) is consistent with the existing Federal/State Agreement (FSA) for the particular Statet and (2) includes but is not limited to consideration of requirements associated with the duration of messaget transition time, brightness. spacing. and location, submitted for FHW A approvalt that evidence reasonable and safe standards to regulate such signs are in place for the protection of the motoring public. Proposed Jaws, regulations, and procedures that would anow permitting CEVMS subject to acc:eptable criteria (as described bdow) do not violate a prolUbitiOD against "iDtennittent" or "flashing" or "moving" lights as those terms are used iD. the various FSAs that have been entered into during the 1960. and 19705. 2 . This Guidance is applicable to conforming signs, as applying updated technology to nonconforming signs would be considered a substantial change and inconsistent with the requirements of 23 CFR 750.707(d)(5). As noted below, all of the requirements in the HBA and its implementing regulations, and the specific provisions of the FSAs, continue to apply. Baekt!round The HBA requires States to maintain effective control of outdoor advertising adjacent to certain controlled routes. The reasonable, orderly and effective display of outdoor advertising is permitted in zoned or unzoned commercial or industrial areas. Signs displays and devices whose size. lighting and spacing are consistent with customp,Iy use determined by agreement between the several States and the SecretaJy. may be erected and maintained in these areas (23 U.S.C. fi 131(d)). Most of these agreements between the States and the SecretaIy that determined the size, lighting and spacing of conforming signs were signed in the late 1960's and the early 1970's. . On July 17, 1996, this Office issued a Memorandum to Regional Administrators to provide guidance on off-premise changeable message signs and confirmed that FHW A has "always applied the Federal law 23 U.S.C. 131 as it is interpreted and implemented under the Federal regulations and individual FederaVState agreements.". It was expressly noted that <<in the twenty-odd years since the agreements have been signed, there have been many technological changes in signs, including changes that were unforeseen at the time the agreements were executed. While most of the agreements have not changed, the changes in technology require the State and FHW A to interpret the agreements with those changes in mind". The 1996 Memorandum primarily addressed tri-vision signs, which were the leading technology at the time, but it specifically noted that changeable message signs "regardless of the type of technology used" are permitted if the interpretation of the FSA allowed them. Further advances in tedmology and affordability of LED and other complex electronic message signs.. unanticipated at the time the FSAs were entered into, require the FHW A to confirm and expand on the principles set forth in the 1996 Memorandum. The policy espoused in the 1996 Memorandum was premised upon the concept that changeable messages that were fixed for a reasonable time period do not constitute a moving sign. If the State set a reasonable time period. the agreed-upon prohibition against moving signs is not violated. Electronic signs that have stationary messages for a reasonably :fixed time merit the same considerations. Discussion Changeable message signs, including DigitaIlLED Display CEVMS, are acceptable for conforming off-premise signs, if found to be consistent with the FSA and with acceptable and approved State regulations, policies and procedures. . 3 . This Guidance does not prohibit States from adopting more restrictive requirements for permitting CEVMS to the extent those requirements are not inconsistent with the HB~ Federal regulations, and existing FSAs. Similarly, Divisions are not required to conwr with State proposed regulations, policies, and procedures if the Division review determines, based upon all relevant information, that the proposed regulations, policies and procedures are not consistent with the FSA or do not include adequate standards to address the safety of the motoring public. If the Division Office has any question that the FSA is being fully complied with, this should be discussed with the State and a process to change the FSA may be considered and completed before such CEVMS may be allowed on HBA controlled routes. The Office of Real Estate Services is available to discuss this process with the Division, ifrequested. If the Division accepts the State's assertions that their FSA permits CEVMS, in reviewing State-proposed regulations, policy and procedures for acceptability, Divisions should consider all relevant information, including but not limited to duration of message, transition time, brightneSf\ spacing, and location, to ensure that they are consistent with their FSA and that there are adequate standards to address safety for the motoring public. Divisions should also confirm that the State provided for appropriate public input, consistent with applicable State law and requirements, in its interpretation of the tenns of their FSA as allowing CEVMS in accordance with their proposed regulation~ policies, and procedures. . Based upon contacts with all Divisions, we have identified certain ranges of acceptability that have been adopted in those States that do allow CEVMS that will be useful in reviewing State proposals on this topic. Available information indicates that State regulations, policy and procedures that have been approved by Divisions to date, contain some or all of the following standards: . Duration of Message o Duration of each display is generally between 4 and 10 seconds - 8 seconds is recommended. . Transition Time o Transition between messages is generally between 1 and 4 seconds - 1-2 seconds is recommended. . Brightness o Adjust brightness in response to changes in light levels so that the signs are not unreasonably bright for the safety of the motoring public. . Spacing o Spacing between such signs not less than minimum spacing requirements for signs under the FSA, or greater if determined appropriate to ensure the safety of the motoring public. . Locations o Locations where allowed for signs under the FSA except such locations where determined inappropriate to ensure safety of the motoring public. . . . . 4 Other standards that States have found helpful to ensure driver safety include a default designed to freeze a display in one still position if a malfunction occurs; a process for modifYing displays and lighting levels where directed by the State DOT to assure safety of the motoring public; and requirements that a display contain static messages without movement such as animation, flasbing, scrolling. intermittent or full-motion video. Condusion This Memorandum is intended to provide infonnaUon to assist the Divisions in evaluating proposals and to achieve national consistency given the variations in FSAs, State law, and State regulations, policies and procedures. It is not intended to amend applicable legal requirements. Divisions are strongly encouraged to work with their State in its review of their existing FSAs and, if appropriate, assist in pursuing amendments to address proposed changes relating to CEVMS or other matters. In this regard, our Office is currently reviewing the process for amending FSAs, as established in 1980, to determine appropriate revisions to streamline requirements while continuing to enSW'e there is adequate opportunity for public involvement. For further information, please contact your Office of Real Estate Point of Contact or Catherine O'Hara (Catberine.O'Hara@dot.gov).