HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2007
AGENDA
CITY OF MAPLEWOOD
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
6:00 P.M.
Council Chambers - Maplewood City Hall
1830 County Road BEast
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes: October 23, 2007
5. Unfinished Business: None Scheduled
6. Design Review:
a) Maplewood Business Center (1616 and 1730 Gervais Avenue) - Comprehensive
Sign Plan Amendment
7. Visitor Presentations:
8. Board Presentations:
9. Staff Presentations:
a. Sign Code Amendments:
1) Dynamic Display Signs
2) March 1, 2006, Draft Sign Code
10. Adjourn
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD BEAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2007
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Olson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Board member John Demko
Vice-Chairperson Matt Ledvina
Chairperson Linda Olson
Board member Ananth Shankar
Board member Matt Wise
Present
Present
Present
Present
Absent
Staff Present:
Shann Finwall, Planner
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the agenda as presented.
Board member Shankar seconded.
Ayes - all
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of the CDRB minutes for October 9,2007.
Board member Ledvina moved approval of the amended minutes of October 9,2007,
amending the last motion on page three, paragraph four under IXa. Staff Presentation to read
as "Board member Ledvina recommended the board work with the planning commission and
and city council to adopt the proposed changes to the prohibited signs and draft dynamic sign
language."
Board member Olson seconded.
Ayes - Olson, Demko, Ledvina, Wise
Abstention - Shankar
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-23-2007
2
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
a. Fragment Containment Structure - Police Department Shooting Range (2621
Linwood Avenue)
Planner Shann Finwall presented the staff report regarding the request by the St. Paul Police
Department to construct a new fragment containment structure at their outdoor shooting range
on Linwood Avenue.
John Linssen, representing the St. Paul Police Department, explained the request and said
building the containment structure would help contain some of the small bits of material from
the shooting by the officers.
Ann and George Anderson, 2670 Linwood Avenue, addressed the board. Ms. Anderson said
her family is impacted with a high level of noise from the range and asked if they could take
steps to lower the noise level. Mr. Anderson said that shooting at the range has increased over
the years and now is a daily occurrence. He said the noise from the shooting has increased
substantially over the years and has become a major problem. Mr. Anderson requested that a
barrier wall be erected to contain some of the noise.
Planner Finwall explained that this facility was built before the city requirement of a conditional
use permit with conditions in place to monitor noise to protect adjacent property owners. Ms.
Finwall said that city staff was not aware of the noise issue until now. At this point, staff should
become more involved to help address the noise problem. The noise issues need to be dealt
with separately from this design review request.
Chairperson Olson also suggested that the Andersons contact the city manager with this noise
complaint.
Board member Ledvina moved to approve the plans dated October 3,2007, for the new
fragment containment structure at the St. Paul Police Department Shooting Range at 2621
Linwood Avenue. This approval is subject to the applicant or the contractor meeting the
following conditions:
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this project.
2. Before the city issues a grading or building permit, the applicant must submit to staff for
approval the following items:
a. If necessary, a grading/drainage/utility plan that meets all city engineering
department requirements.
b. Any plan revisions or information requested by the city building official.
3. The applicant or contractor shall restore or replace any disturbed turf areas and
landscaping before using the new structure.
4. All works shall follow the approved plans. Maplewood city staff may approve minor
changes.
Community Design Review Board
Minutes 10-23-2007
3
Board member Demko seconded
Ayes - all
The motion passed.
VII. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
None
VIII. BOARD PRESENTATIONS
None
IX. STAFF PRESENTATIONS
Planner Shann Finwall said the next CDRB meeting is scheduled for November 13. Ms.
Finwall reported on the October 22 city council meeting and explained the city council's action
taken regarding the Clear Channel billboard.
After board discussion, it was suggested that the sign ordinance review be added as an
agenda item for the next CDRB meeting.
X. ADJOURNMENT
Board member Shankar moved adjournment of the meeting.
Board member Wise seconded
Ayes - all
The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
Greg Copeland, City Manager
Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
Comprehensive Sign Plan Amendment
Todd Balsiger, CPM, Steiner Development
Maplewood Business Center Nos. 1 and 2 -1616 and 1730 Gervais Ave.
November 8, 2007
INTRODUCTION
Steiner Development manages the two business centers located on the north side of Highway 36,
south of Gervais Avenue at 1616 and 1730 Gervais Avenue. Both centers were approved with
comprehensive sign plans when they were constructed. At this time Steiner Development is
proposing to update the signs on both buildings.
REQUEST
The city's sign code requires that all multi-tenant buildings with five or more tenants have an
approved comprehensive sign plan to ensure signs are consistent and compatible to the
architecture of the building. The code specifies that the Community Design Review Board
(CDRB) review comprehensive sign plans and major amendments to those plans. Steiner
Development is requesting an amendment to the Maplewood Business Center's two
comprehensive sign plans.
BACKGROUND
August 17, 1975: The CDRB approved a comprehensive sign plan for the Maplewood Business
Center No. 1 located at 1730 Gervais Avenue.
July 27, 1982: The CDRB approved a comprehensive sign plan for the Maplewood Business
Center No. 2 located at 1616 Gervais Avenue.
DISCUSSION
Maplewood Business Center No.1
Steiner Development's previous property manager had new wall signs installed on the
Maplewood Business Center NO.1 last year without the required comprehensive sign plan
amendment. The new property manager, Todd Balsiger, is requesting that the CDRB approve
those wall signs as well as one new sign wall sign for ReUse, a proposed new tenant in the
building. ReUse is a quasi-retail center which specializes in reclaimed building and finishing
materials. The applicant is therefore requesting the following amendment to the original
comprehensive sign plan (changes to the original comprehensive sign plan are underlined if
added and stricken if deleted):
1. Business identification 'A'Wall sign locations shall be limited to above each recessed areas
of the brick on the north and south elevations and above the loadinq dock doors on the
interior of the buildinqs.a 4 foot)( 1 €i foot space centered on the south wall of Building /\,
and on the north '....all of Building B in each recessed areas above the brick. Additional
signing is permitted on the center bricl( panels at the front ef the recessed entries.
2. Sign content is limited to tenant identification. Tenant and logos or trademarks may be
permitted upon staff review and approval. Logos must be proportional and compatible
with the total tenant signing program.
3. Siqns on the north and south elevations shall be non-illuminated cabinet stvle siqns which
are 48-inches bv 120-inches. Letter color shall be white with a blue backqround. The
ReUse Center or anv future similar tenant located at 1719-1731 Hiqhwav 36 shall be
allowed one individual channel letter and loqo. internallv illuminated wall siqn (Ioqo 58-
inches hiqh and letters 24-inches hiqh) to be located on the south elevation. brown on
yellow precast portion and white on brick with a maximum letter height of e inches. /\11
letters shall be of Helvetica medium type or such similar type style in keeping with the
existing building and identification sign as shown on the plan.
4. Siqns above the loadinq dock doors shall include the tenant address and name of the
tenant. Siqns shall be 1-foot bv 2-feet.Correction of the address portion oflhe building
identification sign from 1711 to 1740. /\, sign se placed at each entrance gi'Jing Gervais
address only signs subject to staff approval. Removal of all other individual say address
numbers. /'- plan may be submitted to the city clerk for re'Jiew and approval providing for
individual tenant addresses which will se independent of the street number syctem.
Location of came to se approved sy ctaff.
5. +fie One SQ.-foot tall x 12-foot wide. nonilluminated. freestanding sign to be located alonq
Gervais Avenue advertisinq the center. The ReUse Center or anv future similar tenant
located at 1719-1731 Hiqhwav 36 shall be allowed to advertise on the freestandinq siqn.
may se continued until Septemser 1, 1976. Thic time limit may be extended for additional
eO day periodc upon re'Jiew and appro'"al by claff of a reEjuect and justification sy the
property ownerc. 1\ $1,000 bond shall be pocted to assure compliance with the removal of
the cign within the approved time limit.
6. Business loqos. as well as additional identitfv. mav be located on the qlass entrv door to
each unit. /'-11 other cignc, bannerc and cimilar attention getting devicec are prehibited.
L. Citv staff mav approve minor chanqes to the comprehensive siqn plan.
Maplewood Business Center No.2
Earlier this year Steiner Development removed all wall signs on the Maplewood Business Center
NO.2 and painted the center. Mr. Balsiger is now proposing to update the sign package for the
center as follows:
1. Wall siqn locations Buciness name shall be centered on the copper fascia above each
entrv door on the north. south and east elevations. Wall siqns to be non-illuminated
cabinet-stvle siqns (32-inches hiqh x 6-feet wide).say, in no cace extending clocer than 12
inchec from the outcide edge of the faccia. Lettering chall se dimensional Helvetica,
upper cace' and chall be inctalled with dimensional adjuctable pads that extend the letters
one inch off the faccia, co that the vertical ridges on the copper fascia are not distursed.
Letters shall se high glocs gold in color and chall all be 12 inches tall.
2
2. Business logos, as well as additional identity, may be located on the glass entry door to
each unit.
3. Rear identity shall be located above the rear shipping doors to each unit, and shall consist
of individual letters 6 inches in height, and shall identify the company or companies
receiving delivers at each shopping door. Letters shall be placed on bronze background
plates 12 inches in height times the necessary length. Similar identity may be located
along side the recessed entry to the rear entry doors.
4. One 6-foot tall x 12-foot wide. nonilluminated. freestandinq siqn to be located alonq
Gervais Avenue advertisinq the center. No ccrews or anchorc will be permitted for any
attachment of cignage to the building. /\dhecive to be uced chall be clear cilicone and the
remo'Jal of the signage '....hen vacating shall be the owner's responcisility.
5. Citv staff mav approve minor chanqes to the comprehensive siqn plan.The proposed
ground cign to face Highway 36 shall be reviewed by e;taff and muct meet all requirementc
of the sign ordinance.
6. Tho exicting ground sign along Gervaic /'.venue is approved ac ic.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve the comprehensive sign plan amendment for the Maplewood Business Center Nos. 1
and 2 located at 1616 and 1730 Gervais Avenue as follows:
Maplewood Business Center No.1 (1730 Gervais Avenue)-
1. Wall sign locations shall be limited to above each recessed areas of the brick on the north
and south elevations and above the loading dock doors on the interior of the buildings.
2. Sign content is limited to tenant identification and logos or trademarks.
3. Signs on the north and south elevations shall be non-illuminated cabinet style signs which
are 48-inches by 120-inches. Letter color shall be white with a blue background. The
ReUse Center or any future similar tenant located at 1719-1731 Highway 36 shall be
allowed one individual channel letter and logo, internally illuminated wall sign (logo 58-
inches high and letters 24-inches high) to be located on the south elevation.
4. Signs above the loading dock doors shall include the tenant address and name of the
tenant. Signs shall be 1-foot by 2-feet.
5. One 6-foot tall x 12-foot wide, nonilluminated, freestanding sign to be located along
Gervais Avenue advertising the center. The ReUse Center or any future similar tenant
located at 1719-1731 Highway 36 shall be allowed to advertise on the freestanding sign.
6. Business logos, as well as additional identity, may be located on the glass entry door to
each unit.
7. City staff may approve minor changes to the comprehensive sign plan.
3
Maplewood Business Center No.2 (1616 Gervais Avenue)-
1. Wall sign locations shall be centered on the copper fascia above each entry door on the
north, south and east elevations. Wall signs to be non-illuminated cabinet-style signs (32-
inches high x 6-feet wide).
2. Business logos, as well as additional identity, may be located on the glass entry door to
each unit.
3. Rear identity shall be located above the rear shipping doors to each unit, and shall consist
of individual letters 6 inches in height, and shall identify the company or companies
receiving delivers at each shopping door. Letters shall be placed on bronze background
plates 12 inches in height times the necessary length. Similar identity may be located
along side the recessed entry to the rear entry doors.
4. One 6-foot tall x 12-foot wide, nonilluminated, freestanding sign to be located along
Gervais Avenue advertising the center.
5. City staff may approve minor changes to the comprehensive sign plan.
P:com-dev\sec10\maplewood business center no. 2\11-13-07 cdrb
Attachments:
1. Applicant's Statement
2. Location Map
3. Maplewood Business Center NO.1 Wall Signs
4. ReUse Wall Sign
5. ReUse Business Information
6. Maplewood Business Center NO.2 Wall Signs
7. Freestanding Signs
4
Attachment 1
Steiner
Development, Inc.
3610 County Road 101
Wayzata, MN 55391
10/19/2007
Ms. Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
City of Maplewood
Community Development Department
1830 County Road BEast
Maplewood, MN 55109
RE: Maptewood Business Center I and II
Dear Ms. Finwall:
Per your recommendation Steiner Development, Ine. is providing the attached documents
and the following signage narrative as a request to modifY the signage package existing
Comprehensive Plan on file with the City of Maplewood dated 7/17/1975. The attached
documents include photographs and specifications for the new signage installed at
Maplewood Business Center I - buildings A and B, as well as the signage package currently
in process for Maplewood Business Center I - buildings A and B.
File # 1- Signage specifications
Picture #1 - Sample of proposed signage at Maplewood Business Center II - buildings A & B
Picture #2 - .Additional sample of proposed signage at Maplewood Business Centcr II
Picture #3 - Design specifications for signage at :tvfaplewood Business Center II - buildings A & B
Picture #4 - Sample of current signage at Maplewood Business Centcr I - buildings A & B
Picture #S - Design specifications for signage at Maplewood Business Center I - buildings A & B
Picture #6 - Photograph of proposed signage for new client- ReUse
File #2 - Addresses within 500'
List of residence within 500' of both property addresses.
A new signage package was installed at Maplewood Business Center I - buildings A and B in
2006. The Property Manager at that time failed to submit a request for modification to the
Comprehensive Plan; therefore Steiner Development, Inc. (SDI) is providing the attached
documents for approval and update to the Comprehensive Plan dated 7/17/75. Pictures #4
-#5.
The current Property Manager for SDI is proposing new signage for Maplewood Business
Center II - buildings A and B. The attached files detail the specifications for tbis new sign
and include a picture of a sample sign currently installed at the property. Pictures #1 - #3.
Steiner
Development, Inc.
Picture #6 attached would be a variance to either sign package. SDI respectfully requests a
variance to the signage package specifications attached for either building to provide a new
level of marketability for the two properties visible from Hwy 36. SDI has been working
with ReUse for eight months on a Lease contract for suite 1719-1731 Hwy 36 at d,e
Maplewood Business Center I building. The proposed address of occupancy is 1719 -1731
Hwy 36. SDI has attempted to direct ReUse toward use of the "standard building signage"
currendy available at the property, but representatives from ReUse are adamant they have
their standard "brand" signage posted on the building. A Tenant of this size has a
significant impact on the leased square footage of the property and therefore the Landlord
has agreed to provide them with their request pending approval from the City. The ReUse
sign is approximately 2' tall and 25' in length. The proposed sign for ReUse would be a
lighted sign providing ReUse with visibility to passing traffic after dark, which is imperative
since their hours of operation run until 7:00 p.m.
SDI is excited about the opportuuity to have ReUse as a Tenant in Maplewood and strongly
believes that ReUse would be a great addition to Ramsey County and the City of
Maplewood. ReUse is an affiliate organization of the Green Institute and will provide
residence of the area with quality construction products at reasonable prices. I have attached
a letter from ReUse which explains more about their operation and how they contribute to
"green initiatives" in communities where they occupy leased space.
SDI respectfully requests that the City of Maplewood provide a variance for the ReUse
signage, thereby allowing SDI the ability to secure a Lease with ReUse and eliminate the final
outstanding concern of our client.
I can be contacted at 952-475-5108 to discuss this issue in greater detail. I would be happy
to present and discuss this item in greater detail with the City representatives responsible for
approving SDI's request. I look forward to your response.
Respectfully
-1/;{) It 1# i1rf Il--_
r~'~f/
I
Todd R. Balsiger
Vice President - Business Development
Steiner Development, Inc.
[tJo
o ID9
DB'
-
10
o
~'
f'l{J
'[!
:i ~ ~21
DO\)
f~
GRANDVIEW A E
" ro ro
"(l \0 01 l-
'D EEl (J)
z
"
"
....~cr lli
SERVICE R
"
Caref
Cotta
<;:]
2468 CI CJ
OClI2:JO
2452
o 0
24~jJ dJD cw ~ ~ 4D Ci
... ... ... ' ,
SEXTANT AVE
c!J[j
o
~D cf emU ~D 4J
i
"
C8' ~ ~D~
o
a
5
~
GER IS AV
g
~
g
~
o
rn
~
,
l
~o.o
~it'fi~i~: .....i .i~'i~'
"" . " -"
o
~[]
, ,
>--,\.-
/ /-
o
o McDonald's
o
ID
'"
SI:I~st-
j'~1illDI~io
a;
ro
Ii;
~
10
'"
~
cb
(J)
=>
c?
c
z
""
~
"-
COPE AVE
9
=
o
fl.'J
D
~c ~r' _ 0_ _0 0 L.l
I-OCATIt)~
:a. m z z Attachment 3
ffi~ 0 ":t4.
0 e o.
"-z:...... ~<n 0 ~~~ . ,
"':::;:.:.g 9~ ~~ ~" h
a: Iii:.. ="
~~~s ~ z ,,~ ~o :i!8l:! T'
~ . " z 8 ~p~
~ ,~. ~~ .~.
mg: ~ i CI g " <u" :'
~ ~:3~ ~Z :~- 1: <>.'Il ~ ~ G
" ~ ~.:;i '" .!l" . "'z~
z ~ , ~~~ . . "-,,,,if ~ !;it; ~n~ 1a ~!~.!1j
m~ g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 11J"- b::S: ~ ~~::<' 1i; o~
~ t\<( ....3 ~ ;, ..- ..-~ '~!i~i
0 ~ ~< . !;;ili~ zg zg: .~..~ 5l;!
. ~ ~5 lalC~ .3~~1'H
" 000. '" go:; '.l! ~
.
l:l
z
~
~
0
<
'" w
oJ r b
z z"
z ~ ~~ C
~ ~ u. "
" z <oo ;,;
g u ~" 32~
~ .
~ ~~ or ill
" ~ II) ~~ ~
~ ~~ zoo
~~ ~t <~
~ ~@ "0 ~~
0 <w ~fil
~ g~ 2~ ~~
N <:lit: q~ iiSif
~ ~
c..
~
~
~
LJ
."
LJ
,,9
II
"
.
<
,
w
.
.
~
z
"
\=
"
o
?;;
: I
"Zv
.g~
\>
~
"
~
~
~
~
u
~
~ ~
u
~
~
~ ~
"
w
> ~
z
" ~
;e ~
"
~
z
0
~
-
..
I
<i
~
c
8
'" Z 2 . Attachment 4
0 Ow
il '" " 5 ~o
" '" 'ii w ...g~ 8.0 ~
f~~ w " .... -~ ~f~]
.... w ~ z -0 ~8~
-. z t:: w ~2 jIlt
i~~~ w '" ~ u w~ G
2 " '" U ~ 0 -< W Z- Z-~
ill .. w '" w w .. :> '" _2 ...25
~!~~ ~ ~ ;;;" '" 'ii '" ~ ~ ill i2 ~ !<it; ~O~
'" '" - ~ " ~ .... z w 11 w z ow 0_> 2i8~
r~~~ ~ C e.in .... w w . irl " z w " 0 ~~ a/l"'::.l
z ill", ~ z ~ " Z 0 Z ;;; 2~ Z2:l
...-Z.... -., W ~ w i3 ~ -< 1* w 1: !~~i
~~Oi ~ ~Q ~~ .... -< I ~ ~ I I ,,~ ..~~
0" <:l :> '" :<~*...,
~l:il:... - ~ on .... - =' U - ~ ;;;0 . ;no....: .
l; +
i\l "
0
~
~
~
"
~
"
~
~
w
Z
Z
~
I
U
C
w
\'
z
~
~
~
"
0
~
u
"vZ
-{+"gg
1Tl
:::J
uJ
.9
~
c..
!
Kl
7i
rJ')
.sa
Cf.l
c
o
~
::;)
(I)
O:C
rJi
'l'il
'c....,
(1)(1)
........u
~.'.'~ ,
>::; dl (Il
(ll (Il dl
t;)6li
i~rJ')
~~;
'5luo
~~..
,"" c 15
.... 0 _
~~~
~ ~(ll
o;:,,c
Q, g ,!!
o gj ~
c75>~
."""" (l)
. O'l ;;-
~~ ~
Q~~
lftl_
[!'l'C ~
~ J!l .l:;
... ~ ==
~E':::
E.'. 0
~~J!l
"ai'$: .@
o.s.s
"\Ii - 6.
"0 ~ ::::/.
c"'"
~~"li'l
(I) go
:t:: ,E
2l~~
(llQ,g
~- fj'J
~ ,Q,
oKl81
:t::(il.:.::
~rJ')'t1l
"', (I). "9
..: cg- iIl
!Il ..
... 0
iOo
....1.1::
(ll 'C. c..
~ Q) fj'J
~tl;S
&ISo
(ll~aJW
.Il:lS,ciN
... E o:r
.s.@l(llql
(llClE~
~.~ (\l ~
U ,c O'l". ~..'
_ C
Q) ID ,.....
s:liB&iUl
Attachment 5
'iii
ril
'c
(I)
~
O'l
C
~
'C
"'"
'0
!i.l
~
:=
':;
,c
'0
(I)
E
'a:i
~
~
~
~
-
Q
1&
;:l
...
~
,5
~
~
~
'(jj
rJi
(\l
.e
'C
I
Q
O'l
c:
:'2
8
....J
Kl
1i
rJ')
J!lo;;>
..c:::'=N
tll rJ') "'"
,- cO)
'Co I
o -
C)~gj
~::;)N
:S~~
FSC Certified Wood Products
Green Institute
The Green Institute is pleased to otter sustainably harvested
wood products from local Minnesota producers. We're serving
the growing interest in certified wood in both new construction
and renovation projects. Our FSC-certified wood products are
sourced from small producers in Northern Minnesota and mar-
keted to contractors and the public through our reclaimed
building materials enterprise, the ReUse Center.
The increasing pressure on our forest resources requires more
responsible forestry practices, practices that protect local eco-
systems and respect local communities and their economies.
The international Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) provides a
rigorous certification system that ensures that FSC-Iabeled
products come from forests managed by strict environmental,
social and economic standards.
The Green Institute has partnered with the Upper Mississippi
Certified Group to provide chain-of-custody controlled FSC-
certified wood products to the Minnesota marketplace. Avail-
able products include hardwood flooring and hardwood and
softwood paneling, ail from local Minnesota sources. And best
of all, pricing is comparable to non-certified wood products!
~ The ReUse Center
~ DeConstruction Services
For FSC sales service, contact Jamie Heipel at 612-278-7160
or check us out on the web at www.thereusecenter.org.
Current Products (In Stock)
. Tongue & groove hardwood flooring
Maple
Birch
Black Ash
Oak
. Hard and sollwood paneling
Basswood
Pine
Oak
Custom Order Products
.
Flooring & paneling (custom spec)
Cabinetry
Trim and other millwork
.
.
Green Buildings
I Sustainabie Building Products
Community Energy
GreenSpace
I' ee> ,., ~
t~. z
'" ill Z
j~~8 , Z ~ ill
" 0 ~ ~ " Z
0
z Il~~ ffi Ji!o " C ~
0 !!1Hg~ z ~"o
!I 0 wC ~
.~E~@' ~ " 00 C~
"t" ~ _ u M" ~ 00
! ~~ z 0\ !l < Ww ~~~~
= -N " ~ Z~ ~Z~~
g~ aiO: ~ ~ 15ii1~ ~~ .-. %
m 0 alO::i' .i"< 0
:fUl ill' ~
"
tQ -~----
~
iii~
Q~0.6
wOo
~5~
:r1l1~
~.~o.
<OW
l:it-':;I:
.lAlJ'lm
?;~51
ul~~
.~~~
~l!I"f
"~~~
3~ul
..;( .11..;
~.~~~
ci~~~
g~;~~
Jlo(04~D
qf
~~
~~
~~
~5
,,~
<if
M~
o~
,ill
"I;;
a-
u"
98
02
=~
~~..
i<l6
~~
nn....,J.ill..~....,
UJ
:5
<(
Z
I--
Z
<(
Z
W
I--
,,6
~-L-I.~+)
,,6Z
d
~Iri
~~.
oZ
~l2
L ~ ~~
, r
oj Z
ill ;::
Q ;:
.
,J\:>
~
i
,
;
~
-t
2
o
5
~~
~8
.M
Z~
_2
,,-
O~
~.
zg
~5
II>
~
~
~
Q
~
Z
~
~
3
<
~
Z
o
t
o
r
~
_N
Attachment 6
"
2
o.
50
~;::l~
eig~
z~-
~~5
:3m~
~.w
%~:
~:.::t;:
mO'
o
;~ ~
~i~~1@
! K.:!l !;..~
~!~jl
fiil~
:U~i
ill
\<
~
"
ill
Attachment 7
((x[(
:1 \ ::,
{\ \
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Greg Copeland, City Manager
Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
Dynamic Display Signs
November 8, 2007 for the November 13 CDRB Meeting
INTRODUCTION
Clear Channel has operated a billboard sign at 1-494 and Highwood Avenue for many
years on an ongoing legal nonconforming use status. In December 2006 Clear Channel
installed an LED sign face to one of the faces on this billboard without specific
authorization from the city (Attachment 1).
On October 22, 2007, the city council approved a settlement agreement with Clear
Channel for the installation of the LED sign face, which the city attorney has indicated
may be in conflict with a provision of the Maplewood Code (Attachment 2). In summary
the agreement requires that the city waive it's right for future litigation of the sign, commit
to amend the sign code to allow for LED sign faces (dynamic displays) for off-premise
signs, commit to issuing a sign permit for the installation of a second dynamic display
sign face on the 1-494 and Highwood Avenue billboard sign, and commit to issuing a
conditional use permit to increase the height and install two dynamic display sign faces
on the Highway 36 and White Bear Avenue billboard sign. In return, Clear Channel will
install a dynamic display freestanding sign (Attachment 3) for the community center and
commit to allowing five hours per month of community and public service message to the
city on one of the four dynamic display sign faces.
REQUEST
The city council approved the settlement agreement and requested that the planning
commission and the community design review board (CDRB) review and make a
recommendation on the proposed dynamic display sign code amendment.
BACKGROUND
On March 1, 2006, the CDRB recommended approval of a draft sign code with the
following language pertaining to billboards:
1. Off-premise billboards shall only be permitted with a conditional use permit and
may only be located adjacent to a principal arterial street in the SC (shopping
center), BC (business commercial), M-1 (light manufacturing), and M-2 (heavy
manufacturing) districts.
2. Spacinq No billboard sign shall be located within (2,300) feet to another billboard
on the same side of the street, within (100) feet to a commercial, industrial,
institutional building, or an on-premises sign, and within (250) feet to a residential
district or (800) feet to a residence. Billboards shall maintain a setback of (50)
feet from any property line, (500) feet to a local park, and (300) feet from the
nearest intersecting street corner of two public roads.
3. Size. The maximum area of the sign face of a billboard shall not exceed (450)
square feet, including border and trim, but excluding base, apron supports, and
other structural members. The said maximum size limitation shall apply to each
side of a sign structure. Signs may be placed back-to-back or in a V-type
arrangement if there are no more than (2) sign faces, provided that the open end
separation shall not exceed (15) feet. A billboard may only display one message
at a time on any sign face. The maximum height for billboards shall be (35) feet.
July 11, 2006, the CDRB recommended additional language to the draft sign code to
address the new light-emitting diode (LED) sign technology. This type of sign is similar
to an outdoor television and has the capability of displaying millions of colors and video
displays on the screen. New language was recommended based on the city attorney's
opinion that the technology was different enough from anything that has come before
that it needed its own category in the sign code.
The definition for the new technology recommended by the board is as follows:
Video Board: A video board is any device designed for outdoor use which is
capable of displaying a video signal, including, but not limited to, cathode-ray
tubes (CRTs), light-emitting diode (LED) displays, plasma displays, liquid-crystal
displays (LCDs), or other technologies used in commercially available televisions
or computer monitors.
The board also recommended that video boards be prohibited in the city by including
language in the prohibited section of the draft sign code as follows:
Signs that have blinking, flashing, fluttering lights, make noise, or change in
brightness or color includinq, but not limited to. electronic messaqe board siqns,
flashinq siqns, and video board siqns as defined in this chapter; except for
electronic message boards that display only time and temperature or similar
public service messages according to the requirements specifically outlined in
this chapter.
December 2006: Clear Channel installed a dynamic display (video board) on one of the
sign faces on the 1-494 and Highwood Avenue billboard.
DISCUSSION
Other City's Response to Dynamic Display Signs
Clear Channel installed dynamic display sign faces on four other billboards throughout
the twin city area under the same circumstances as the Maplewood installation. The
City of Minnetonka and Eagan have settled with Clear Channel and have both amended
their sign codes to allow for dynamic displays.
Minnetonka's dynamic display code (Attachment 4) allows for the installation of one
dynamic display sign face (one side) on an existing billboard if an entire billboard is
removed. Eagan's dynamic display code (Attachment 5) allows the installation of one
dynamic display sign face (one side) on an existing billboard if one static sign face from
an existing sign is removed (one side plus supports) or if the applicant agrees to provide
the city with five hours per month of dynamic display sign time for community and public
service messages.
2
Both cities' ordinances restrict billboard dynamic display signs limited to changing a
minimum of once every eight seconds. Both cities' ordinances also allow for on-site
commercial dynamic display signs limited to changing over every 20 minutes.
Research Related to Dynamic Display Signs
SRF Consulting Group, Inc., conducted a study on dynamic display signs for the City of
Minnetonka (Attachment 6). The purpose of the study was to understand what existing
transportation research tells about the effects of dynamic display signs on motorists and
to explore regulatory measures enacted in other jurisdictions to address concerns
related to driver distraction. In the interest of promoting public safety, the report
recommends that dynamic display signs be viewed as a form of driver distraction and a
public safety issue. To properly address the issue of dynamic display signs, the report
further recommends several regulatory measures to consider (refer to page 29 through
31 of the report).
Maplewood's Existing Sign Code
Section 44-737 (Prohibited Signs) of the city's sign code states the following: "Signs are
not specifically permitted in this article are hereby prohibited. The following signs are
specifically prohibited: ... Signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that
change in brightness or color. Signs that give public service information, such as time
and temperature are exempt.
Section 44-735 (Sign Definitions) of the city's sign code states the following: "Public
service sign means any sign primarily intended to promote items of general interest to
the community."
Section 44-839 (Illumination of Billboards) of the city's sign code states the following:
"Billboards shall not be illuminated with flashing lights, except those giving public service
information, such as but not limited to time, date, temperature, weather or news.
Billboard lighting shall be effectively shielded so as not to impair the vision of any
operator of a motor vehicle."
Proposed Changes
Prohibited Sions
Based on the city attorney's strict interpretation of the sign code, in order for the dynamic
display signs to be permitted in the city, language from the prohibited sign code section
would need to be removed as follows: "Signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering
lights or that chango in brightness or color. Signs that give public service information,
such as time and temperature are exempt."
As the language stands today, any permitted sign is allowed an electronic message
board or dynamic displays (signs that have the capability of blinking, flashing, fluttering
or changing in brightness or color) if it is used primarily for a public service message.
Last year the CDRB had interpreted "primarily" to mean at least 31 minutes out of every
hour.
The amended language would allow any permitted signs (including billboards) to have
an electronic message board or dynamic displays, regardless of public service message,
as long as the sign did not blink, flash, or flutter (i.e., changed from one sign face to
3
another without rapid movement). Alternatively, any permitted sign would be allowed to
blink, flash, or flutter only if used primarily for public service message. In these two
examples, the Myth sign would conform to the new code if the sign message changed
from one sign face to another, without rapid movements. Or the sign could blink, flash,
flutter, etc., if used at least 31 minutes out of every hour for a public service message.
To ensure that the proposed sign code amendment only addresses off-premise dynamic
signs, city staff proposes the following amendment to the prohibited sign code: "On-
premise signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering lights or that change in brightness
or color. Signs that give public service information, such as time and temperature are
exempt." And further define on-premise sign as follows: "On-premise siQn means anv
siqn identifyinq or advertisinQ a business. person, activitv. Qoods. products. or services.
located on the premises where the siqn is installed and maintained." The sign code
already defines off-premise signs as follows: "Billboard means an off-premises sign
erected for the purposes of advertising a product, event, person, institution, activity,
business, service or subject not located on the premises on which the sign is located."
Dvnamic Display SiQns
The city attorney previously forwarded Eagan's dynamic display sign code to the city
council, planning commission, and CDRB for review and consideration. Eagan's off-site
dynamic display sign code would most closely match with the approved
MaplewoodfClear Channel settlement agreement. City staff proposes adopting
language from a portion Eagan's ordinance including item K.1. (Findings), K.2. (Dynamic
Display Definitions), K.4. (Incentives), and L. (Brightness Standards). (Refer to
highlighted areas on Attachment 5).
RECOMMENDATIONS
Approve amendments and additions to the Maplewood Sign Code as follows:
1. Section 44-737(3): "On-premise signs that have blinking, flashing or fluttering
lights or that change in brightness or color. Signs that give public service
information, such as time and temperature are exempt."
2. Section 44-735: "On-premise siQn means anv siQn identifyinQ or advertisinq a
business. person. activitv. qoods. products. or services. located on the premises
where the siqn is installed and maintained."
3. Dynamic display sign code language as specified in Attachment 5 (Eagan
Dynamic Sign Code), items K.1. (Findings), K.2. (Dynamic Display Definitions),
K.4. (Incentives), and L. (Brightness Standards).
p:ord\sign code\dynamic display
Attachment
1, 1-494 and Highwood Avenue Billboard
2. Ciear Channel Settlement Agreement
3. Community Center Sign
4. Minnetonka Dynamic Display Sign Code
5. Eagan Dynamic Display Sign Code
6. SRF Consulting Group Dynamic Display Sign Research
4
. I
Aft-. 1.
FOR PUBLIC SERVICE MESSAGING AND
COMMUNITY CENTER SIGN AGREEMENT AND SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES BY AND
BETWEEN CITY OF MAPLEWOOD AND CLEAR CHANNEL OUTDOOR, INC.
Agreement made this _ day of October, 2007 by and between the City of Maplewood ("City")
and Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Clear Channel").
WHEREAS, Clear Channel, Inc. acknowledges that it has erected, constructed or otherwise caused
to be operational a "Dynamic Display" sign face (as hereinafter defined) in the City of Maplewood; and:
WHEREAS, City staff has indicated to Clear Channel that it believes Clear Channel's dynamic
display sign face may be in conflict with a provision of the Maplewood Code; and:
WHEREAS, several cities in Minnesota have studied the effect of Clear Channel's installation of
so-called "Dynamic Displays" and:
WHEREAS, the City of Maplewood has determined that engaging in litigation regarding the
employment of these "Dynamic Displays" would be counterproductive based on the experience of other
cities similarly situated and which have settled and determined the presence of such "Dynamic Display(s)"
do not constitute a problem; and:
WHEREAS, the City does hereby commit to amend that portion of the Maplewood Sign (zoning)
Code to clarifY that off-premise billboards are not prohibited from incorporating a technology that allows
sign surfaces to change their sign faces in color or illumination with technology that may include
illumination manipulated through digital input or other methods that allow the sign surface to present a
series of images or displays that do not blink, flash or flutter but that do, by defmition, change in color
and/or illumination; signs that will fit the definition of "Dynamic Display(s)" as shall be further-defmed;
and:
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of utilizing Clear Channel's "Dynamic Displays" to display
community and public service announcements; and:
WHEREAS, Clear Channel is agreeable to displaying community and public service
announcements for the City and to further provide the City with a "Galaxy Pro 20mm LED Display" for the
Maplewood Community Center at Clear Channel's sole expense and cost as a condition precedent to the
City council's approval of a "Dynamic Display" ordinance in conformity with this agreement and
respective of Clear Channel's previously activated "Dynamic Display" located at Highwood and 1-494.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. Clear Channel agrees to reserve no less than five (5) hours (2250 eight-second spots) per
month per "Dynamic Display" in Maplewood for community and public service announcements, provided
that such announcements cannot be resold and cannot be used by or on behalf of any for-profit enterprise.
The City shall be solely responsible for the desigu and development of all advertising copy, which shall be
subject to Clear Channel's review and approval. The City must provide Clear Channel reasonable advance
notice for any requested announcement. Advertising time not used by the City in any month will be
forfeited, and will not carry into another calendar month. Clear Channel shall have discretion to deliver
this service on one or any combination of its "Dynamic Displays." The City may delegate to another
governmental entity a portion of the time for community and public service announcements, but such
delegation shall not make the delegatee a beneficiary of this paragraph or otherwise entitle that entity to
bring an action to enforce this paragraph. Such enforcement rights shall at all times remain with the City.
Clear Channel's obligations pursuant to this paragraph are contingent upon Clear Channel receiving the
permits described in paragraph 3 below.
2. Clear Channel agrees to purchase and install a Galaxy Pro 20mm LED Dynamic Display
for the Maplewood Community Center ("Galaxy Pro Sign"). The design and specifications of the Galaxy
Pro Sign are attached hereto as Exhibit A. Clear Channel agrees to pnrchase and install the Galaxy Pro
Sign no later than ninety (90) days after Clear Channel's receipt of the permits described in paragraph 3
below. Clear Channel agrees to remove and dispose of the existing City sign located at the Maplewood
Community Center. Upon installation of the Galaxy Pro Sign, Clear Channel shall transfer to the City all
warranties obtained from the manufactnrer. The City shall be solely responsible for all messaging
associated with the Galaxy Pro Sign, as well as all maintenance and upkeep. Clear Channel agrees to
provide adequate training for City Staff for operation of the Galaxy Pro Sign. Clear Channel makes no
warranties or representations whatsoever to the City regarding the Galaxy Pro Sign and the City shall look
only to the manufacturer for any claims or causes of action respecting the Galaxy Pro Sign. Clear Channel
agrees to provide the City with a three year maintenance contract for the Galaxy Pro Sign upon installation.
Clear Channel's obligations pursuant to this paragraph are contingent upon Clear Channel receiving the
permits described in paragraph 3 below.
3. It is the City's intention to proceed with a revision to the Maplewood Code clarifying that
Dynamic Displays are not prohibited. It is Clear Channel's intention to proceed with applications for sign
permits for three (3) additional Dynamic Display sign faces, one being located on the structure at
Highwood and 1-494 and two being located on the existing structure at Highway 36 and White Bear
Avenue. Clear Channel's application for the permits for the structnre at Highway 36 and White Bear
Avenue will require the City to grant conditional use pennits to increase the 35 foot height limitation in the
Code to 50 feet. The permit applicatious will also require that the Dynamic Display signs be permitted to
change no more frequently than once every 8 seconds operating up to 24 hours a day every day of the year.
4. Clear Channel agrees to incorporate its "Dynamic Display(s)" in Maplewood into the
State of Minnesota's "Amber Alert" network, and to operate such Dynamic Displays under the same
"Amber Alert" terms generally in place between Clear Channel and the State of Minnesota's Department of
Public Safety, which currently provides that Clear Channel will post timely messages within its digital
display network in the applicable area.
5. Upon adoption of the amendment to the City's Sign Code clarifying that Dynamic
Displays are not prohibited in the City of Maplewood, Clear Channel and the City agree to abide by the
following standards and procedures regarding the brightness and illumination on Clear Channel's
"Dynamic Displays" (Signs) in the City of Maple wood:
a. No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility.
b. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a motor
vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interrere with the driver's
operation of a motor vehicle.
c. No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
d. All "Dynamic Display(s)" operated by Clear Channel must be equipped with a
mechanism that automatically adjusts the brightness in response to ambient
conditions. The signs must also be equipped with a means to immediately turn
off the display or lighting if it malfunctions and the sign owner or operator must
immediately turn off the sign or lighting when notified by the City that it is not
complying with the standards in this section.
e. The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from one
static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects.
f. The images and messages displayed must be complete in themselves, without
continuation in content to the next image or message or to any other sign.
6. The City agrees it will not enforce against Clear Channel any future ordinance, rule,
regnlation or other law which limits the right of Clear Channel to operate its hereiubefore described
"Dynamic Display(s)" consistent with the terms of this Agreement, except to the extent such future
ordinance, rule, regulation or other law reasonably relates to safety.
7. The City further agrees that upon execution of this Agreement and performance on the
part of Clear Channel, pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Agreement, the City will not pursue any action,
criminal or civil, against Clear Channel for the operation of its sign face currently being operated at
Highwood and I-494 within the City of Maplewood.
8. This Agreement, including all rights and obligations provided for herein, shall be bindiug
upon the successors and assigns of the parties, whether by way of merger, consolidation, operation of law,
assignment, purchase or other acquisition, including subsequent purchasers from Clear Channel. 9. The City
and Clear Channel reserve all rights, remedies and defenses regarding "Dynamic Display" signage should
the City not grant to Clear Channel the permits referenced in paragraph 3 above. In such event, the City
shall be allowed to pursue any remedies available to it and Clear Channel shall be allowed any defenses
available to it. This Agreement shall not be used to establish or defend any legal action related to the
operation of Clear Channel's existing "Dynamic Display" should the City not revise its Ordinance as
indicated above.
City of Maplewood
Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation
By:
By:
Its:
Its:
I'::J:
~"",..',.,';',.,,
.-......... .. Y":
,\:." .'
Atf..3
c
.....
,<,
2:
!
"2.
I
g
A.
......'
I>
'"
tl
i
,~
'"
~
r:;
"
z
~
;;l
^'
~~~
~
r:
E
t:i'.
1:::'
~
~
Q
~;
:;~
.",
Qo
...
"
1.:'1
L;o
S
~
I":'
El
n
,.~
,.".
f:;l
i;%;j
C'
S
.".
'"
[
~III~
<::::.~' "
~.. =
~~1
n
~.
o
-
s:
III
"C
iD
:e
o
o
c..
"-
r
ro
Q
o
~.
"0
~
G)
w
"
.::!
"
a
'"
o
3
3
~
;J'
g-
ii'
~
;;I
"-
c
?
~
or
a
c
Q
5'
<0
""
Q
ro
n
~
M
~
".
ro
n
~
"0
~
r
o
<0
o
r
m
o
c
3
5'
~
;;I
Q
A*.~
ORDINANCE NO. 2007-21
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 300.30
REGARDING DYNAMIC SIGNS
The City of Minnetonka Ordains:
Section 1. City code 9300.30, subd. 1 is amended as follows:
1. Purpose and Findings.
The purpose and findings of the sign ordinance are as follows:
a) Purpose: the sign ordinance is intended to establish a comprehensive and
balanced system of sign control that accommodates the need for a well-maintained,
safe, and attractive community, and the need for effective communications including
business identification. It is the intent of this section, to promote the health, safety,
general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are
intended to communicate to the public, and to use signs which meet the city's goals by
authorizing:
1) permanent signs which establish a high standard of aesthetics;
2) signs which are compatible with their surroundings;
3) signs which are designed, constructed, installed and maintained in a
manner that does not adversely impact public safety or unduly distract motorists;
4) signs which are large enough to convey the intended message and to help
citizens find their way to intended destinations;
5) signs that are proportioned to the scale of, and are architecturally
compatible with, principal structures;
6) permanent signs which give preference to the on-premise owner or
occupant; and
7) temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an
opportunity for grand openings and occasional sales events while restricting signs which
create continuous visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections.
b) Findings: the city of Minnetonka finds it is necessary for the promotion and
preservation of the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community that
the construction, location, size and maintenance of signs be controlled. Further, the city
The stricl<on language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Ordinance No. 2007-21
Page 2
finds:
1) permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on and relationship
to the image of the community;
2) the manner of installation, location and maintenance of signs affects the
public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community;
3) an opportunity for viable identification of community businesses and
institutions must be established;
4) the safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and other users of public
streets and property is affected by the number, size, location and appearance of signs
that unduly divert the attention of drivers;
5) installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops
of buildings, walks or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods of high
winds and an obstacle to effective fire-fighting and other emergency service;
6) uncontrolled and unlimited signs adversely impact the image and aesthetic
attractiveness of the community and thereby undermine economic value and growth;
7) uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs which are
commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way or are located at
driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of
oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also adversely
impacts a logical flow of information;
8) commercial signs are generally incompatible with residential uses and
should be strictly limited in residential zoning districts; and
9) the right to express noncommercial opinions in any zoning district must be
protected, subject to reasonable restrictions on size, height, location and number.
Section 2. City code !'l300.02, subd. 2, is amended by the deletion of the following
definitions and the re-numbering of the remaining clauses consecutively.
"Message center/time and temperature display" a sign having electrically changing
oopy whioh aisplClYS ourrent time, temporaturo, and/or publio cervice
announcemente;.
"Publio corvioe announcement" any sign display intendod primarily to promoto
The stricl<on language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Ordinance No. 2007-21
Page 3
items of general inter-est to the community such as time, temperature, date,
atmospheric conditions, Do\\' Jones industrial average, news, etc. Thie; does not
include any information which '....ould be rolated to commercial pr{)ducts or services
locates at the display site.
"Readerboard sign" any ci€ln having a meGcage not permanently affixed to the cign
fuce and the copy is manually changed.
Section 3. City code S300.30, subd. 2, is amended by the addition of the following
definition which is to be inserted alphabetically and the following clauses renumbered
consecutively:
"Dynamic displav" -anv characteristics of a siqn that appear to have movement
or that appear te chanqe. caused by any method other than physically removinq
and replacinq the siqn or its compenents, whether the apparent movement or
chanqe is in the display, the siqn structure itself. or any other component of the
siqn. This includes a displav that incorporates a technoloqy or method allowinq
the siqn face to chanqe the imaqe without havinq to physically or mechanically
replace the siqn face or its components. This also includes any rotatinq,
revolvinq. movinq, flashinq. blinkinq, or animated display and any display that
incorporates rotatinq panels. LED Iiqhts manipulated throuqh diqital input, "diqital
ink" or any other method or technoloqy that allows the siqn face to present a
series of imaqes or displays.
Section 4. City code S300.30, subd 4(a) is amended as follows:
a) Monument identification signs:
1) one sign per development;
2) maximum copy and graphic area as follows:
width of adjacent
right-of-way
less than 100 feet
copy and graphic
area
100 feet or greater
36 square feet
50 square feet
3) maximum monument area is two times the potential copy and graphic
area;
The ctricl<en language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Ordinance No. 2007-21
Page 4
4) copy and graphic display limited to three items of information; (Figure 30-
16)
Figure 30-16
5) 15 foot maximum height; and
6) signs which are not internally illuminated shall have light fixtures and
sources screened from viewi-ffi'l€l
7) mossago contere;/time and tomporaturo displaye pormittod but tho
maximum aroa for die;play ie 50 porcont of tho potontial copy and graphic aroa of tho
monumont idontification sign.
Section 5. City Code 9300.30, subd. 10 is amended as follows:
10. Prohibited Signs.
The following types of signs are expressly prohibited in all districts:
a) roof signs including signs mounted on a roof surface or projecting above the roof
line of a structure if either attached to the structure or cantilevered over the structure;
b) revolving and moving eigne excopt electronic meseage center/time and
temperaturo display eigne according to subdivieion 4 and search lights accor-ding to
Gubdivision 8;
G~) flashing, blinking or animated signs including but not limited to traveling lights or
any other means not providing constant iIIumiAation except electronic meseage
center/time and temperature dieplay signs according to subdivision 4 and eearch lights
according to eubdivision 8siqns with dynamic displavs except search Iiqhts under
subdivision 8 and those allowed under subdivision 14;
€If) portable signs, except temporary signs that are specifically permitted in section
300.30;
69.) projecting signs. Wall signs shall be mounted parallel to the building and shall
not project more than 18 inches from the face of the building;
fg) painted wall signs including signs painted on the face of a structure. Works of art
The stricken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Ordinance No. 2007-21
Page 5
which are not commercial messages are exempt;
91) signs attached to trees and utility poles;
fig) signs within public right-of-way except for official traffic signs and those specified
in subparagraph 9(k) and (I);
in) signs which are designed to resemble official traffic signs except signs which are
used to control traffic on private property;
H) abandoned signs or signs other than outdoor advertising structures that advertise
an activity, business, product or service no longer available on the premises on which
the sign is located;
ki) signs attached to fences except athletic field fence panels according to
subdivision 1;
IJs) illuminated signs which exhibit any of the following:
1) external illumination that is determined to interfere with safe traffic
operations;
2) the sign is directly oriented to any residential district;-eF
3) illumination of a commercial siqn in a residential district. except a siQn
used for a conditionallv permitted use: or
4)
subd. 2.
the level of illumination exceed standards specified in section 300.28,
m!) signs that obstruct the vision of pedestrians, cyclists, or motorists traveling on or
entering public streets;
flm) exterior signs that obstruct any window, door, fire escape, stairway or opening
intended to provide light, air, ingress or egress for any structure;
en) signs that are in violation of the building code or the electrical code adopted by
the city;
l'Q) blank signs;
€I2) merchandise boxes or signs not affixed to a principal structure excluding signs
The Gtricken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Ordinance No. 2007-21
Page 6
permitted in subdivision 8(d);
fg) outdoor advertising signs are not permitted in any zoning district, except that the
provisions of this paragraph do not apply to temporary outdoor advertising signs
permitted under Subd. 9 (k) above. Outdoor advertising signs which exist on the
effective date of this section shall be considered as nonconforming signs and are
subject to standards contained in section 300.29. An outdoor advertising sign is a
principal use of property. No permitted or conditionally permitted use or any part of such
use may be located on the same parcel of property as such a sign. The parcel on which
such a sign is located may not be subdivided to segregate the sign from the remaining
property. For the purposes of this paragraph, "parcel of property" means any property
for which one property identification number has been issued by the county, or all
contiguous property in common ownership as of October 15,1997, whichever is
greater; and
sr) any sign not expressly permitted by the provisions in section 300.30.
Section 6. City code ~300.30 is amended by the addition of a new subdivision 14 to
read as follows:
14. Dvnamic Displavs.
a) Findinas. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displavs on
siqns and the distraction of hiqhwav drivers. Distraction can lead to traffic accidents.
Drivers can be distracted not only by a chanQinq messaqe. but also bY knowinq that the
siqn has a chanqinq messaqe. Drivers may watch a siqn waitinq forthe next chanqe to
occur. Drivers are also distracted bv messaqes that do not tell the full storv in one look.
People have a natural desire to see the end of the story and will continue to look at the
siqn in order to wait for the end. Additionallv, drivers are more distracted bv special
effects used to chanqe the messaqe, such as fade-ins and fade-outs. Finally. drivers
are qenerally more distracted bv messaqes that are too small to be c1earlv seen or that
contain more than a simple messaqe. Time and temperature siqns appear to be an
exception to these concerns because the messaqes are short. easilv absorbed, and
become inaccurate without frequent chanqes.
Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowinq new technoloqies
to easilv update messaqes. Except as prohibited by state or federal law. siqn owners
should have the opportunitv to use these technoloqies with certain restrictions. The
restrictions are intended to minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize
proliferation in residential districts where siqns can adverselv impact residential
character.
The Glrioken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Ordinance No. 2007-21
Page 7
Local spacina reauirements could interfere with the eaual opportunity to use such
technoloqies and are not included. Without those reauirements, however, there is the
potential for numerous dynamic displavs to exist alona any roadway. if more than one
dynamic displav can be seen from a qiven location on a road, the minimum displav time
becomes critical. If the displav time is too short, a driver could be subiected to a view
that appears to have constant movement. This impact would obviouslv be compounded
in a corridor with multiple sians. If dynamic displavs become pervasive and there are no
meaninafullimitations on each sian's abilitv to chanae freauentlv, drivers mav be
subiected to an unsafe dearee of distraction and sensorv overload. Therefore. a lonaer
displav time is appropriate.
A constant messaae is tvpicallv needed on a sian so that the public can use it to
identify and find an intended destination. Chanqina messaaes detract from this wav-
findina purpose and could adverselv affect drivina conduct throuah last-second lane
chanaes, stops, or turns, which could result in traffic accidents. Accordinqlv, dynamic
displavs aenerallv should not be allowed to occupv the entire cOPV and araphic area of
a sian.
In conclusion, the city finds that dynamic displavs should be allowed on sians but
with sianificant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public
safety.
b) ReQulations. Dvnamic displavs on sians are allowed subiect to the followinq
conditions:
1) Dvnamic displavs are allowed on Iv on monument and pvlon sians for
conditionallv permitted uses in residential districts and for all uses in other districts.
Dvnamic displavs may OCCUpy no more than 35 percent of the actual copv and araphic
area. The remainder of the sian must not have the capabilitv to have dvnamic displavs
even if not used. Onlv one, contiauous dvnamic displav area is allowed on a sian face;
2) A dynamic displav may not chanae or move more often than once every
20 minutes, except one for which chanaes are necessary to correct hour-and-minute,
date, or temperature information. Time, date, or temperature information is considered
one dynamic displav and mav not be included as a component of any other dynamic
displav. A displav of time, date, or temperature must remain for at least 20 minutes
before chanqina to a different displav, but the time. date, or temperature information
itself may chanae no more often than once everv three seconds;
3) The imaaes and messaaes displaved must be static. and the transition
The strickon language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Ordinance No. 2007-21
Page 8
from one static displav to another must be instantaneous without anv special effects:
4) The imaqes and messaqes displaved must be complete in themselves,
without continuation in content to the next imaqe or messaqe or to anv other siqn:
5) Everv line of COpy and qraphics in a dynamic displav must be at least
seven inches in heiqht on a road with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per hour. nine
inches on a road with a speed limit of 35 to 44 miles per hour, 12 inches on a road with
a speed limit of 45 to 54 miles per hour. and 15 inches on a road with a speed limit of 55
miles per hour or more. If there is insufficient room for COpy and qraphics of this size in
the area allowed under clause 1 above, then no dynamic displav is allowed;
6) Dvnamic displavs must be desiqned and equipped to freeze the device in
one position if a malfunction occurs. The displavs must also be equipped with a means
to immediately discontinue the displav if it malfunctions, and the siqn owner must
immediatelv stop the dynamic displav when notified bv the city that it is not complvinq
with the standards of this ordinance:
7) Dvnamic displavs must complv with the briqhtness standards contained in
subdivision 15:
8) Dvnamic displavs existinq on (insert the effective date of this ordinance)
must complv with the operational standards listed above. An existinq dvnamic displav
that does not meet the structural requirements in clause 1 may continue as a non-
conforminq development subiect to section 300.29. An existinq dynamic displav that
cannot meet the minimum size requirement in clause 5 must use the larqest size
possible for one line of COpy to fit in the available space.
c) Incentives. Outdoor advertisinq siqns do not need to serve the same wav-
findinq function as do on-premises siqns. Further, outdoor advertisinq siqns are no
lonqer allowed in the city, and there is no potential that they will proliferate. Finallv,
outdoor advertisinq siqns are in themselves distractinq and their removal serves public
safety. The city is extremelv limited in its abilitv to cause the removal of those siqns.
This clause is intended to provide incentives for the voluntary and uncompensated
removal of outdoor advertisinq siqns in certain settinqs. This removal results in an
overall advancement of one or more of the qoals set forth in this section that should
more than offset any additional burden caused bv the incentives. These provisions are
also based on the recoqnition that the incentives create an opportunity to consolidate
outdoor advertisinq services that would otherwise remain distributed throuqhout the
community.
The Gtricken language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Ordinance No. 2007-21
Page 9
1 I A person mav obtain a permit for an enhanced dvnamic display on one
face of an outdoor advertisinq siqn if the followinq requirements are met:
(al The applicant aqrees in writinq to permanently remove. within 15
days after issuance of the permit, at least two other faces of an outdoor advertisinq siqn
in the city that are owned or leased by the applicant. each of which must satisfy the
criteria of parts (b) throuqh (d) of this subsection. This removal must include the
complete removal of the structure and foundation supportinq each siqn face. The
applicant must aqree that the city may remove the siqn if the applicant does not timely
do so. and the application must be accompanied by a cash deposit or letter of credit
acceptable to the city attorney sufficient to pay the city's costs for that removal. The
applicant must also aqree that it is removinq the siqn voluntarily and that it has no riqht
to compensation for the removed siqn under any law.
(b) The city has not previously issued an enhanced dynamic display
permit based on the removal of the particular faces relied upon in this permit
application.
(c) Each removed siqn has a COpy and qraphic area of at least 288
square feet and satisfies two or more of the followinq additional criteria:
(1) The removed siqn is located adiacent to a hiqhway with
more than two reqular lanes and with a qeneral speed limit of 45 miles per hour or
qreater, but that does not have restrictions on access equivalent to those of an
interstate hiqhway;
(2) All or a substantial portion of the structure for the removed
siqn was constructed before 1975 and has not been substantiallY improved;
(3) The removed siqn is located in a noncommercial zoninq district:
(4) The removed siqn is located in a special planninq area
desiqnated in the 1999 comprehensive plan: or
(5) The removed COpy and qraphic area is equal to or or qreater
than the area of the COpy and qraphic area for which the enhanced dvnamic display
permit is souqht.
(d) If the removed siqn face is one for which a state permit is required
by state law~ the applicant must surrendered its permit to the state upon removal of the
siqn. The si n that is the subiect of the enhanced dynamic display permit cannot beqin
The strickon language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Ordinance No. 2007-21
Page 10
to operate until proof is provided to the city that the state permit has been surrendered.
(e) The applicant must aqree in writinq that no dynamic displays will
ever be used on one additional outdoor advertisinq siqn that has a COpy and qraphic
area of at least 288 square feet in size. This aqreement will be bindinq on the applicant
and all future owners of the siqn. If the siqn is subsequently removed or destroyed and
not replaced, the holder of the enhanced dynamic display permit is not required to
substitute a different siqn for the one that no lonqer exists.
2) If the applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above. the
city will issue an enhanced dynamic display permit for the desiqnated outdoor
advertisinq siqn. This permit will allow a dynamic display to OCCUpy 100 percent of the
potential COpy and qraphic area and to chanqe no more frequently than once every
eiqht seconds. The desiqnated siqn must meet all other requirements of this ordinance.
Section 7. City code ~300.30 is amended by the addition of a new subdivision 15 to
read as follows:
15. Briahtness Standards.
a) All siqns must meet the followinq briqhtness standards in addition to those in
subdivision 10:
1) No siqn may be briqhter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility.
2) No siqn may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a
motor vehicle driver with averaqe eyesiqht or to otherwise interfere with the driver's
operation of a motor vehicle.
3) No siqn may be of such intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
effectiveness of an official traffic siqn. device or siqnal.
b) The person owninq or controllinq the siqn must adiust the siqn to meet the
briqhtness standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adiustment must be
made immediately upon notice of non-compliance from the city. The person owninq or
controllinq the siqn may appeal the city's determination throuqh the followinq appeal
procedure:
1) After makinq the adiustment required by the city, the person owninq or
controllinq the siqn mav appeal the city's determination by deliverinq a written appeal to
the city clerk within 10 davs after the city's non-compliance notice. The written appeal
The Gtrickon language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Ordinance No. 2007-21
Page 11
must include the name of a person unrelated to the person and business makinq the
appeal. who will serve on the appeal panel.
2) Within five business days after receivinq the appeal. the city must name a
person who is not an official or employee of the city to serve on the appeal panel. Within
five business days after the citv names its representative, the city's representative must
contact the siqn owner's representative, and the two of them must appoint a third
member to the panel. who has no relationship to either party.
3) The appeal panel may develop its own rules of procedure, but it must hold
a hearinq within five business davs after the third member is appointed. The city and the
siqn owner must be qiven the opportunity to present testimony, and the panel may hold
the hearinq, or a portion of it. at the siqn location. The panel must issue its decision on
what level of briqhtness is needed to meet the briqhtness standards within five business
days after the hearinq commences. The decision will be bindinq on both parties.
c) All siqns installed after (insert the effective date of this ordinance) that will have
illumination bY a means other than naturalliqht must be equipped with a mechanism
that automatically adjusts the briqhtness in response to ambient conditions. These siqns
must also be equipped with a means to immediately turn off the display or Iiqhtinq if it
malfunctions, and the siqn owner or operator must immediately turn off the siqn or
lightinq when notified by the city that it is not complyinq with the standards in this
section.
Section 8. A violation of this ordinance is subject to the penalties and provisions of
Chapter XIII of the city code.
Section 9. This ordinance is effective upon adoption.
Adopted by the city council of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, on June 25, 2007.
~ 0. ~...::
&s A. Callison, Mayor
The strickon language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Ordinance No. 2007-21
Page 12
ATTEST:
=-~1 ~~/
David E. Maeda, City Clerk
ACTION ON THIS ORDINANCE:
Date of introduction:
Date of adoption:
Motion for adoption:
Seconded by:
Voted in favor of:
June 4, 2007
June 25. 2007
Schneider
Wiersum
Allendorf, Callison, Ellingson, Schneider, Thomas, Wagner,
Wiersum
Voted against:
Abstained:
Absent:
Ordinance adopted.
Date of publication:
CERTIFIED COPY:
I certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of an ordinance adopted by the city council
of the City of Minnetonka, Minnesota, at a meeting held on June 25, 2007.
David E. Maeda, City Clerk
The e;tricl<on language is deleted; the underlined language is inserted.
Aii-. S-
ORDINANCE NO. 416 2ND SERIES
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EAGAN, MINNESOTA REGARDING EAGAN CITY
CODE CHAPTER ELEVEN ENTITLED "LAND USE REGULATIONS (ZONING)" BY
AMENDING SECTION 11.70, SUED. 28 ENTITLED REGARDING PLACEMENT,
ERECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF SIGNS; AND BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
EAGAN CITY CODE CHAPTER 1 and 11.99.
The City Council of the City of Eagan does ordain:
Section 1. Eagan City Code Chapter 11 is hereby amended by revising Section 11.70,
ubd. 28, to read as follows:
Placement, erection and maintenance of signs.
A.
e, construction and definitions.
1. ose. The purpose of this section shall be to regulate the placement, erection and
maintenance 0 igns in the city so as to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the
residents of the Cl .
2. Construct! . All terms and words used in this section shall be given their
commonsense meaning onsidered in context, except as hereinafter specifically defined.
3. Definitions. The ollowing terms, as used in this section, shall have the meanings
stated:
(a) Business sign mans any sign upon which there is any name or designation
that has as its purpose busine ,professional or commercial identification and which is
related directly to the use of the emises upon which the sign is located.
(b) Freestanding ground si means a business sign erected on freestanding
shafts, posts or walls which are solidly fixed to the ground and completely independent
of any building or other structure. Any b iness freestanding ground sign which projects
more than seven feet above ground level is nsidered a pylon sign.
(c) Governmental sign means any sig maintained by a
governmental entity or agency for identification or directions to a public facility or
street or for traffic control or general public services.
(d) Local street means a street within the Cl , which is not functionally
classified within the City's Comprehensive Guide Plan as rincipal arterial, "A" minor
arterial, "B" minor arterial, major collector or minor collector.
(e) Nonbusiness sign means any sign such as a p sonal nameplate or
designation as for residences, churches, schools, hospitals, traffic or oad signs, which do
~
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.
J. 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.
K. Dynamic Display Signs.
1. Findin~s. Studies show that there is a correlation between dynamic displays on
signs and the distraction of highway drivers. Distraction can lead to traffic accidents. Drivers can
be distracted not only by a changing message, but also by knowing that the sign has a changing
message. Drivers may watch a sign waiting for the next change to occur. Drivers are also
distracted by messages that do not tell the full story in one look. People have a natural desire to
see the end of the story and will continue to look at the sign in order to wait for the end.
Additionally, drivers are more distracted by special effects used to change the message, such as
fade-ins and fade-outs. Finally, drivers are generally more distracted by messages that are too
small to be clearly seen or that contain more than a simple message. Time and temperature signs
appear to be an exception to these concerns because the messages are short, easily absorbed, and
become inaccurate without frequent changes.
Despite these public safety concerns, there is merit to allowing new technologies to easily
update messages. Except as prohibited by state or federal law, sign owners should have the
opportunity to use these technologies with certain restrictions. The restrictions are intended to
minimize potential driver distraction and to minimize proliferation in residential districts where
signs can adversely impact residential character.
Local spacing requirements could interfere with the equal opportunity to use such
technologies and are not included. Without those requirements, however, there is the potential
for numerous dynamic displays to exist along any roadway. If more than one dynamic display
can be seen from a given location on a road, the minimum display time becomes critical. If the
display time is too short, a driver could be subjected to a view that appears to have constant
movement. This impact would obviously be compounded in a corridor with multiple signs. If
dynamic displays become pervasive and there are no meaningful limitations on each sign's
ability to change frequently, drivers may be subjected to an unsafe degree of distraction and
sensory overload. Therefore, a longer display time is appropriate.
A constant message is typically needed on a sign so that the public can use it to identify
and find an intended destination. Changing messages detract from this way-finding purpose and
could adversely affect driving conduct through last-second lane changes, stops, or turns, which
could result in traffic accidents. Accordingly, dynamic displays generally should not be allowed
to occupy the entire copy and graphic area of a sign.
(
In conclnsion, the city finds that dynamic displays should be allowed on signs but with
significant controls to minimize their proliferation and their potential threats to public safety.
2. Dvnamic disvlav sizn means any sign, except governmental signs, with dynamic
display characteristics 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
surface to change the image without having to physically or mechanically replace the sign
surface or its components. This also includes any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking,
or animated display and any display that incorporates rotating panels, 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. Dynamic display signs are allowed subject to the following conditions:
(a) Dynamic display signs are subordinate to off-premises signs, monument and
pylon signs, and business signs. Dynamic displays must not be the predominant feature
of the sign surface. The remainder of the sign must not have the capability to have
dynamic displays even if not used. Dynamic display signs are allowed only on
monument and pylon signs for conditionally permitted uses in residential districts and for
all uses in other districts, subject to the requirements of this Section 11.70. Only one,
contiguous dynamic display area is allowed 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 display.
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 information itself may
change no more often than once every three seconds;
(c) The images and messages displayed must be static, and the transition from
one static display to another must be instantaneous without any special effects;
(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;
(e) Every line of copy and graphics in a dynamic display must be at least seven
inches in height on a road with a speed limit of 25 to 34 miles per hour, nine inches on a
road with a speed limit of 35 to 44 miles per hour, 12 inches on a road with a speed limit
of 45 to 54 miles per hour, and 15 inches on a road with a speed limit of 55 miles per
hour or more. If there is insufficient room for copy and graphics of this size in the area
allowed under clause (a) above, then no dynamic display is allowed;
(t) 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 by the city that it is not complying
with the standards of this ordinance;
(g) Dynamic display signs must comply with the brightness standards contained
in subdivision L below;
(h) Dynamic 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 subject 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.
(i) Exceptions. Recognizing that some dynamic displays, such as those used in
point of sale dispensers, interactive vending machines and ATMs, often need to change
images more frequently than defined by this ordinance in order to perform their intended
function and that such image changes can occur in a manner in which they do not create
distractions for drivers, dynamic displays with a total area of less than 160 square inches
at any point of sale dispenser, interactive vending machines or A TM may be fully
animated, provided they do not flash or blink in a manner clearly visible from the
roadway and provided they either meet or exceed the building setbacks for the zoning
district in which they are located or are at least 30' from the public right of way,
whichever is greater.
4. Incentives. Off-premises signs do not need to serve the same way-finding function as
do on-premises signs; they are restricted in number by the city; and they are in themselves
distracting and their 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 offset any additional burden caused by the incentives. These
provisions are also based on the recognition that the incentives create an opportunity to
consolidate outdoor advertising services that would otherwise remain distributed throughout the
community and expand the function of off-premises signs to serve a public purpose by providing
community and public service messages.
A. Incentive Option A - Reduction of Sign Surfaces
(a) A person may obtain a permit for an enhanced dynamic display sign on one
surface 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
by one by permanently removing, within 15 days after issuance of the permit, one
surface of an off-premises sign in the city that is owned or leased by the applicant
and is depicted in table A (which follows this section), which sign surface must
satisfy the criteria of parts (ii) and (iii) of this subsection. This removal must
include the complete removal of the structure and foundation supporting each
removed sign surface. The applicant must agree that the city may remove the sign
surface if the applicant does not timely do so, and the application must identify
the sign surface to be removed and be accompanied by a cash deposit or letter of
credit acceptable to the city attorney sufficient to pay the city's costs for that
removal. The applicant must also agree that it is removing the sign surface
voluntarily and that it has no right to compensation for the removed sign surface
under any law. Replacement of an existing sign surface of an off-premises sign
with an enhanced dynamic display sign does not constitute a removal of a sign
surface.
(ii) The city has not previously issued a dynamic display sign permit
based on the removal of the particular sign surface relied upon in this permit
application.
(iii) If the removed sign surface is one for which a state penmt IS
required by state law, the applicant must surrendered its permit to the state upon
removal of the sign surface. The sign that is the subject of the dynamic display
sign permit cannot begin to operate until proof is provided to the city that the state
permit has been surrendered.
(b) If the applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above, 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 frequently than once every eight seconds. The
designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance.
B. Incentive Option B - Provision of Community and Public Service Messaging
(a) 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 enhanced dynamic display sign replaces an existing surface of an
existing off-premises sign;
(ii) The city has not previously issued a dynamic display 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 display sign in the city for community and public service messages at
such times as shall be determined by the city.
(b) If the applicant complies with the permit requirements noted above, 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
(
;eL
graphic area and to change no more frequently than once every eight seconds. The
designated sign must meet all other requirements of this ordinance.
Brightness Standards.
.
1. All signs must meet the following brightness standards:
(a) No sign may be brighter than is necessary for clear and adequate visibility.
(b) No sign may be of such intensity or brilliance as to impair the vision of a
motor vehicle driver with average eyesight or to otherwise interfere with the driver's
operation of a motor vehicle.
(c) No sign may be of snch intensity or brilliance that it interferes with the
effectiveness of an official traffic sign, device or signal.
2. The person owning or controlling the sign must adjust the sign to meet the brightness
standards in accordance with the city's instructions. The adjustment must be made immediately
upon notice of non-compliance from the city. The person owning or controlling the sign may
appeal the city's determination through the following appeal procedure:
(a) After making the adjustment required by the city, the person owning or
controlling the sign may appeal the city's determination by delivering a written appeal to
the city clerk within 10 days after the city's non-compliance notice. The written appeal
must include the name of a person unrelated to the person and business making the
appeal, who will serve on the appeal panel.
(b) Within five business days after receiving the appeal, the city must name a
person who is not an official or employee of the city to serve on the 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 may develop its own rules of procedure, but it must hold a
hearing within five business days after the third member is appointed. The city and the
sign owner must be given the opportunity to present testimony, and the panel may hold
the hearing, or a portion of it, at the sign location. The panel must issue its decision on
what level of brightness is needed to meet the brightness standards within five business
days after the hearing commences. The decision will be binding on both parties.
3. All signs installed after (insert the effective date of this ordinance) that will have
illumination by a means other than natural light must be equipped with a mechanism that
automatically adjusts the brightness in response to ambient conditions. These signs must also be
equipped with a means to immediately turn off the display or lighting if it malfunctions, and the
sign owner or operator must immediately turn off the sign or lighting when notified by the city
that it is not complying with the standards in this section.
TABLE A
TABLE INSET:
Surfaces SF/ SF
Ref Address (PID #) 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 of Hwy. 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 of Hwy. 13 2 378 756
8 Hwy.
(107550001000)
Soo Line right-of-way, 480 480
1181 Trapp Rd. south of 1-494 and west of 1
9 (beyond NE Corner) Hwy. 55 {I } {20} {20}
(102250005108) (added 9/5/99)
1255 Trapp Rd. 1-494, junction of 1-35E 2 378 756
10 (1022250014001)
2750 Eaganda1e
Blvd. Soo Line right-of-way, 2 360 720
11 (beyond NW Hwy. 55, west ofI-35E
Corner)
(102250014307)
Section 2. Ordinance No. 412 as adopted June 19, 2007 is hereby rescinded in its
entirety.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its adoption and
publication according to law.
ATTEST:
CITY OF EAGAN
City Council
Maria Petersen
Its: City Clerk
By:
Mike Maguire
Its: Mayor
By:
Date Ordinance Adopted: October 2, 2007
Date Ordinance Published in the Legal Newspaper: October 6, 2007
Date of Advisory Planning Commission Hearing: September 25, 2007
"DYNAMIC" SIGNAGE:
A.\-. ~
RESEARCH RELATED TO DRIVER DISTRACTION
AND
ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Submitted by
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Prepared for
City ofMinnetonka
June 7, 2007
A1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Plll!cNo.
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PURPOSE OF STUDY AND METHODOLOGY.................................................... 1
3.0 SELECTED RESEARCH FINDINGS...................................................,.................. 2
3.1 Expert Opinions ............................................................................................. 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 Signage Regulation: a.................................................. 16
Minnesota Perspective
3.7 Billboard and Other Signage Regulation: Other........................................... 16
Perspectives
4.0 SUGGESTED REGULATORY APPROACH.......................................................... 19
4.1 Definitions........... ........................................................... ....................... ......... 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 Brightness Limitations on Electronic Signs....................................... 23
4.3 Public Review ................................................................................................ 24
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 25
Appendix A - Cun-ent Sign Technologies
Appendix B - Outdoor Advertising Sign Brightness Definitions
Appendix C - Electronic Outdoor Advertising Device Visual Performance Definitions
1\2
LIST OF TABLES
Pa2e No.
Table 1: FHWA Reanalysis ofFaustman's Findings...................................................... 5
Table 2: Crash Causation Summary................................................................................ 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
Faee No.
Figure 1: VicRoads' Ten Point Road Safety Checklist.................................................... 18
iA3
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 rotatihg 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 Leagne of Minnesota Cities, expressed lllterest 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 METHODOLOGY
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 mistakes in judgment can lead to crashes.
/,.4
Increasingly complex traffic and roadway environments require greater attention to and focus on
the driving task.
The purpose of this study is to understand what existing transportation research tells us about the
effects of dynamic sims 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 Minnetoulca 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 dri:ver 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 MnJDOT. 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 FHWA study on electronic billboards. He
was interviewed to gain a deeper understanding of this critical study and to learn of
recent research in this area. Davis stated that while no research has established a direct
cause and effect relationship between electronic outdoor advertising signs and crash rates,
the lack of such a research finding does not preclude a causal relationship between
electronic billboards and crashes. He advocated for a new study that can control all
variables and determine if a cause and effect relationship exists.
Scott Robinson, an outdoor advertising regulator for MnJDOT, wrote the 2003 technical
memorandum that addresses allowable changes for outdoor advertising devices. Mr.
Robinson indicated that the memo was originaIly written in 1998 to establish a permitted
rate of change for tri-vision signs and that the application to electronic billboards was not
considered. The minimum change rate of 4.9 seconds for 10 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 oftbis 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 bis preference
for a goal to have any given driver experience only one, or a maximum of two, messages
from an individual roadside sign.
3.2 Billboards: a Source of Driver Distraction? '
The purpose of a sign is to attract the attention of passersby so that a message is conveyed. To
the degree signs attract the attention of vebicle 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 oftbis 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~t the correlation between crash rates and roadside advertising is strongest
in complex driving environments. For example, higher crash rates were found at intersections
(generally considered a complex environment) that have advertising than those intersections that
do not have advertising. A few of the studies that are important in this field are summarized
below.
Minnesota Department of Transportation Field Study (1951) and
Michigan State Highway Department Field Study (1952) 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 Micbigan 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)4 and Federal Highway
Administration, Reanalysis of Faustman Field Study (1973)'
Two studies that appear to have stood the test of time are Faustman's original analysis of
California Route 40 and its re-examination by FHW A more than a decade later. The
original analysis tried to improve upon previous research by limiting variables, such as
roadway geometric design and roadway access controls. The 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 ofthe regression coefficients found that the
number of billboards on a section was statistically significant. The reanalysis found a
strong correlation between the number of billboards and crash rates as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. FHWA Reanalysis ofFaustman's Findings.
Expected No. of
Accidents in a
S.year Period
5.92
6.65
7.38
8.11
8.84
9.57
No. of Billboards
Cumulative lucrease
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 Slgnage (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
aI., 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 slidy 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 fealires 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. AB 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 dumtion 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 slidy:
. 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.
""9
University of Toronto
Impact of Video Advertising on Driver Fixation Patterns (Smiley et aI., 2001) 9
Another study completed at the University of Toronto used similar eye fixation
information in urban locations to show that drivers made roughly the same number of
glances at traffic signals and street signs with and without full-motion video billboards
present. This may be interpreted to mean that while electronic billboards may be
distracting, they do not appear to distract drivers from noticing traffic signs. This study
also found that video signs entering the driver's line of sight directly in front of the
vehicle (e.g., when the sign is situated at a curve) are very distracting.
City of Seattle Report (Wachtel, 2001) I.
The City of Seattle commissioned a report in 2001 to examine the relationship between
electronic signs with movinglflashing 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 sigit from very close distances when they are at a large angle from the face of
the sign.
. Signs with a visual story or message that carries for two or more frames are
particularly distracting because drivers tend to focus on the message until it is
completed rather than the driving task at hand.
. Research has shown that drivers expend about 80 percent of their attention on driving
related tasks, leaving 20% of their attention for non-essential tasks.
. The Seattle consultant suggests a "10 second rule" as the maximum display time for a
video message.
The expanded content of a dynamic sign also contributes to extended distraction from the
driving task. The Seattle Report examined how this may be due in part to the Zeigarnik
effect which describes the psychological need to follow a task to its conclusion. People's
attention is limited by the ability to only focus on a small number of tasks at a time, and
by the tendency to choose to complete one task before beginning another. In a driving
environment, drivers' attention might be drawn to the sign rather than the task of driving
because they are waiting to see a change in the message. This loss of attention could lead
to unsafe driving behaviors, such as prolonged glances away from the roadway, slowing,
or even lane departure.
~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 tlte viewer to concentrate as tlte message is revealed.
Based on tlte size and resolution of tlte sign, and tlte lengtlt of the message, tltis could
range from less titan one second to many seconds.
. A sequence of images or messages that tell a story, during which tlte driver's
attention may be captured for tlte 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 tltis 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 infonnation 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 S~fety Considerations
The link between changing messages tltat attract drivers' attention and crashes has
been an issue of concern since the earliest forms of electronic signage became
available. This study thoroughly reviewed the literature seeking information
regarding a potential link between CEVMS and crashes:
''Although a trend in recent fmdings 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 Factors Considerations
Human factors relate to all the elements that explain driver behavior, such as eye
glances and driver responses to a variety of driving-related stimuli. The study makes
the point that simple driving-related tasks consume relatively little information
processing capacity. However, when other conditions, such as congestion,
complicated roadway geometries, or weather are also considered, the marginal extra
(1,11
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 wcrys that can attract
drivers' attention at greater distances, hold their attention
longer, and deliver a wider variety of information and
image stimuli than is possible by the use of conventional
advertising signs. II
Texas Transportation Institute for FHWA, Impacts of Using Dynamic Features to
Display Messages on Changeable Message Signs (Dudek et al., 2005) 12
This study examined the comprehension times for three different scenarios for
DOT -operated changeable message signs. The scenarios evaluated were:
. Flashing an entire one-phase message
. Flashing one line of a one-phase message while two other lines ofthe 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
f.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 involved, such
as flicker or movement in the visual periphery, that this is
more likely to capture a driver's attention. We actually are
hwd-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) 15
This research used five experiments to test whether drivers could maintain efficient
performance in their driving tasks while being subjected to content that was information
rich, but irrelevant to driving. The findings were that a small, but statistically significant
amount of performance degradation was observed when the participant was under a
critical load of stimuli.
~13
National Highway Traffic Safety Administrationl Virginia Tech Transportation
Institute
Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-CrashlCrash Risk: An Analysis Using the
tOO-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data (Klauer et aI., 2006) ,.
This study analyzed the data from a driving database developed by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. This database contained exhaustive data recorded by
instrumeuted 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 A.dministration 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 (NABS) from
A.priI1996-ApriI1997 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
Contributing to Cansation
22.7
18.7
18.2
15.1
10.1
6.4
8.8
Cansal 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)"
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 Crashes Involving Inattention-Distraction
Related Crash Causes
. 'hi %of
llaa Element llrl'vm CrOl$b..
_"" or not dlstracOld 46.616 28.4%
I.ooked but did not s.. 5.6% 9.7%
DI""'..... bv other o""~""'.t l..eolfiedj 0.9% 1.6%
Di......Old bv llIovl... ob;."t I. vehiolo [specified] 0.3% 05%
Distracted wWe dialinB, talking, or liSlOlllng to ..nular O.I%@ 0,116@
ph"""llaosli"" and tvil. or:;:;,.. -ecifledl
DistraoOld wWe adlu..... oIimoIe OOIllI'OJa 0.216@ 0.3%@
Distracted wbile. . radio, oas_ CD J 1.216 2.1%
Disttooted wblle ...ing other devlo>elobject in vohicle 0.1% O-Ul>
81...,y or fel1..leen 1,5% 2.6%
Distracted bv outside 0"""., obiecl. or ""Ml r""""ified] 2.0% 3.2%
Ilatina or drlokin. 0.116 0.2%
Sm.kJnlM<llated 0.1% 0.2%
lllstraoOldlinaltenti... dotaiis unknown l.slll Z.611i
Olher diII.....Ii.. r"'ecllle.n~ t.311i 2.2%
lJokI\ow1!iNo Driver 38.516 #.0%
W'ighooddriv"," If ~ 4,621.QOI) (7,943. ."""Iabled): wdllflted....b If. Ml?OOO (4.5)6);
In order for II crash: tot) classified ";auemiv.," ;1E Involved <Irivtti hid to. btl (llt...lfi.ed "'-attenUve-."
@ _ estimate based on $.9 Olles.
University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center
The Role of Drjver Distraction in Traffic Crashes (Stutts et aL, 2001) 1s
A study prepared by the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center
for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety examined the sources of driver distraction in
traffic crashes. The data came from the CDS from 1995-1999. Of the thirteen specific
sources of distraction tracked by the study, the greatest source 'of distraction was an
outside person, object or event. While the study does not break down the sources of
outside distraction, it does show that distractions outside the vehicle are the largest factor
in distraction-related crashes. The results of this study are presented in Table 4.
Table 4. Specific Sources of Distraction Amonl,f Drivers in DL~traction-Related Crashes
Percentage of
Drivers
29.4
11.4
10.9
4.3
2.9
2.8
1.7
1.5
0.9
25.6
8.6
100.0
Specific Distraction
Outside 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
/}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
(eMS) (Harder, 2004) ~~
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" wanTIng and an AMBER Alert (child abduction information). The
research found that just over half of the participants used the "crash ahead" message and
60 percent could recall the AMBER Alert with scores of Good or Better. Over one fifth
of the participants slowed down by at least 2 mph upon seeing the AMBER Alert,
demonstrating that messages relevant to drivers are associated with changes in at least
some drivers' travel speed.
Decision of the Outdoor Advertising Board in the Matter of John Donnelly & Sons,
Permitee, Te/espot of New England, Inc., Intervenor, and Department of Public
Works, Intervenor, with Respect to Permit Numbered 19260 as Amended (1976) ~1
This proceeding documents the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Outdoor Advertising
Board's ruling regarding one of the first changeable signs. This sign was located near an
arterial road in Boston and used magnetic discs to portray a message that changed every
30 seconds. The original sign permit was rejected based on four criteria, one of which
was safety. Upon appeal, the Massachusetts Department of Public Works allowed the
permit based on the fact that the sign would give the public a benefit. However, they
ultimately determined that the sign was a safety hazard based on crash rates before and
after the sign was installed. Tables 5 and 6 show the change in crash rates.
Table 5. Telespot Sign Crash Rates - Expressway Southbound
Average Average Average
per year per year Percent
{1/l/1970. (t/l/1973- Change
12/31/1972) 3/31/1975)
Crash.. where
the sign was viewable 29.0 20.0 -31.0
(north ohi"o)
Crashes where ,
the sign was not viewahle 39.0 15.6 -60,0
(south of sien)
~16
Table 6. Telespot Sign Crash Rates - Expressway Northbound
Average per year Average per year Average
(1/1/1970- (1/111973- Percent
12/31/1972' 3/31/1975' Cban!!e
Crashes where
tbe sign was viewable 46.3 42.7 -7.8
(soutb of sion.
Crasbe..~ where
tlte sign was not viewable 8.0 1.8 -77.5
(north ofsi~n'
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)ll
A study prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) examined
crash rates before and after an advertising variable message sign was installed in 1984 on
the Milwaukee County Stadium, home of the Milwaukee Brewers professional baseball
team. Crash statistics were analyzed for the three years before and the one and three
years after the sign was installed. As they are often associated with driver distraction,
side-swipe and rear-end crashes, as well as total crashes, were examined for both the
eastbound and westbound directions. The sign was much more visible to eastbound
traffic due to the stadium's proximity to the roadway and the amount of visual
obstructions for westbound traffic.
The analysis found an increase in crash rates for all crash types in the eastbound direction
after the sign was installed. Most pronounced was an 80 percent increase in side-swipe
crashes after the first year of installation. Results in the westbound direction were mixed,
with a 29 percent decrease in crashes the first year the sign was in place and a 35 percent
increase in the three years the sign was in place. Although no control roadway sections
were studied, an interview with the study author revealed that the introdnction 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)24
The Federal Highway Administration published a comprehensive report in 2001 that
consisted of a literature search, literature review and a description of research needs for
~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. Furthermore, research regarding
driver familiarity of their route demonstrated that visual
fixations on roadway signs decreases as route familiarity
increases. This research may show that there is a difference
between commuter and visiting drivers. "
Based on these findings, the FHW A recommended additional research to further
demonstrate how roadway characteristics, sign characteristics and legibility, driver
characteristics and other potential driver distractions affect 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 that the FHWA has not
performed additional studies on the topic since the report was published. He stated that
there is "no direct correlation between electronic outdoor advertising signs and crash
rates". He referred to a before/after study of electronic signs installed along a freeway in
Las Vegas that found no change in crash rates. He went on to say that the lack of a
research fmding that links signs with crash rates does not mean that a causal relationship
does not exist. He indicated that he has been contacted by several law enforcement
agencies regarding the link between driver distraction and dynamic message
signs/electronic billboards. He indicated that this is a timely and pertinent topic for many
states due to the increasing popularity and capabilities of electronic outdoor advertising
devices, and he expects further research to be forthcoming. He advocates for a new study
that can control for all variables and determine if a cause and effect relationship exists. 25
3.5 How Does "Brightness" Affect Driver Safety Concerns?
The brightuess of any sign, static or dynamic, raises concerns with discomfort or disability glare
to the driver that may arise when viewing any lighted object. Disability Glare occurs when a
~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 concern in
cases where a bright sign is located in the same line of sight as a traffic sign, signal or another
vehicle.
While concerns about gLrre are not unique to dynamic signs, newer sign technologies, which
often include dynamic components, have the technical capability to emit more light and/or
respond to ambient light conditions, raising additional concerns about sign brightness in areas
where signs compete with regulatory traffic signs or signals.
3.6 Billboards and Other Signage Regulation: a Minnesota Perspective
Roadside signage is governed by policies and laws at the federal, state and local levels.
Minnesota Statute, Chapter 173 seeks to "reasonably and effectively regulate and control the
erection or maintenance of advertising devices on land adjacent to such highways." The statute
requires adherence to federal statutes with respect to interstate and primary systems of highways.
Minnesota Statute Ch. 173.16 Subd. 3. regulates lighting of signs. Signs which are "illuminated
by any flashing light or lights, except those giving public service information" (time, date,
temperature, weather or news) are prohibited. This section also states:
(b) Advertising devices shall not be erected or maintained which are not effectively
shielded so as to prevent beams or rays of light from being directed at any portion of the
traveled way of an interstate or primary highway, of such intensity or brilliance as to
cause glare or impair the vision of the operator of any motor vehicle; or which otherwise
interfere with any driver's operation of a motor vehicle are prohibited.
and
(c) Outdoor advertising devices shall not be erected or maintained which shall be so
illuminated that they interfere with the effectiveness of or obscure any official traffic
sign, device or signal.
3.7 Billboard and Other Signage Regulation: Other Perspectives
During the course of this study, several articles were found which summarize regulation of
dynamic signage in other states:
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
Electronic Billboards and Highway Safety (2003) 26
The Wisconsin Department of Transportation also published a literature review report to
further explain the current state of EBB research. Although much of the information is
h-19
mentioned in other sections of this report, the Wisconsin reVieW did summarize
Wisconsin's regulations for electronic billboards.
. No message may be displayed for less than one-half second;
. No message may be repeated at intervals of less than two seconds;
. No segmented message may last longer than 10 seconds;
. No traveling message may travel at a rate slower than 16 light columns per second or
faster than 32 columns per second (light column defmed 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) 27
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 had no regulations on tri-vision signs, and
. Six states and Washington, DC, prohibited tri-vision signs.
An investigation into state outdoor advertising regulations was also conducted.
. Thirty-six states had prohibitions on signs with red, flashing, intermittent, or moving
lights,
. Twenty-nine states prohibited signs that were so illuminated as to obscure or interfere
with traffic control devices, and
. Twenty-nine states prohibited signs located on interstate or primary highway outside
of the zoning authority of incorporated cities within 500 ft of an interchange or
intersection at grade or safety roadside area.
Parliament of Victoria, Australia, Report of the Road Safety Committee on the
Inquiry into Driver Distraction (2006) "
This report, cited earlier for its driver distraction opinions, identifies road sigus and
advertising as one of the largest sources of driver distraction. VicRoads, the state's road
and traffic authority, has implemented the following regulations.
~20
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; Of
8. is within 100 metres of a fU1'al 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 governments regulate electronic outdoor advertising devices in widely varying degrees.
Some cities completely prohibit the use of all electronic signs (sometimes specifying LED signs),
while others have no regulations specific to electronic signs. Between those two extremes, there
are many levels and types of control that can be applied.
The primary concerns to keep in mind when considering sign regulations are 1) First
Amendment rights, which can be affected by regulations that affect the content of a sign's
message, and therefore should be avoided, and 2) changing technology, which can quickly make
a sign ordinance no longer applicable if the ordinance has been specifically written to address a
certain type of sign technology. Performance based measJlfes 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)
Phuming Advisory Service29.
4.2 Types of Regulatory Measures
4.2.1 Complete or Partial Prohibition of Electronic Siens
Some cities have completely prohibited the use of electronic outdoor advertising devices. For
example, the City of Maple Valley, WA prohibits all types of electronic outdoor advertising
devices including animated signs, electronic changeable message signs, flashing signs or
displays, moving signs, scrolling displays, and traveling displays. This applies to both on-
premise and off-premise signs.
Other cities are very selective about where electronic signs are allowed, allowing them only in
certain zoning districts. There are very few "standard" approaches. For the most part, each local
~22
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!lls
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 Signs
Many communities that allow electronic signs also regulate the rate at which the messages on the
signs can be changed. Research on sign codes has shown this to range from as little as four
seconds to as long as 24 hours.
The Interstate 394 sign between Ridgedale Drive and Plymouth Road is visible for
approximately 45 seconds at free flow traffic speeds. Depending on text size, the message may
not be readable by drivers during this entire duration, but the message changes can attract
attention from long distances. Depending on how often the message changes occur and the
speed of traffic, drivers on this segment could see a varying number of discrete messages. Table 7 provides the number of message changes a driver would see at different change durations and
traffic speeds.
Jh.23
Table 7. Number of New Messages Seen at Various Driver Speeds and
Time Intervals Between MessafIes
I I Number of Messal!es Seen I
I I Message Display Time (seconds) I
, Time sign is 1
Speed clearly visible* 1800 3600
(mph) (seconds) 6 8 10 60 (30 minutes) (1 hour)
I 30 60 11 9 7 2 1 1
I 45 I 40 8 6 5 2 1 1
55 33 I 7 5 4 2 1 1
. AS81lIIling the 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 information from the sign industry, for sequencing to
be effective in a marketing sense, a brief rate-of-change (1-2 seconds) is generally used before
transitioning into the next screen.
Some codes specify how an image changes, while other codes prohibit the use of transitions.
The change from one image to another can be accomplished by various techniques: no transition
_ simply a change from one screen to another, or fading or dissolving one image into the next.
Flashing, spinning, revolving, or other more distracting transition methods can be prohibited,
allowing businesses to l.lSe 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 10 seconds. This time frame was established based upon careful calculations of the
streets from which these signs could be seen, speed limits and traffic volumes in addition to the
community's concern over the extent to which moving images could distract drivers. However,
Seattle also limits the size of their electronic signs to a maximum of 1,000 square inches, with no
single dimension greater than three feet, thus minimizing the effect of video images.
4.2.5 Sign Placement and Suacing
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 purpose of facilitating sequenced messages or if animation and
video imaging is allowed. Closely spaced signs attempting to convey sequenced messages may
simply create visual overload and an over-stimulated driving environment. Research conducted
to date has not yielded infonnation 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 talce 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 Shms
One of the main concerns about the use of electronic signs, regardless of whether they consist of
changeable text, animation, or video, is the brightness of the image. The brightness of an object
can be characterized in two ways. I/uminance is the total brightness of all the light at a point of
measurement. Illuminance often describes ambient light and can be measured with a standard
light meter such as is used in photography. Luminance is the measure of the light emanating
from an object with respect to its size and is the tenu is used to quantify electronic sign
brightness. The unit of measurement for luminance is nits, which is the total amount of light
emitted from a sign divided by the surface area of the sign (candelas per square meter).
Many, but not all, LED-type signage can be time-programmed to respond to day and nighttime
light levels. Higher-end signage types are equipped with photo cells to respond to ambient light
conditions. Despite these controls, LED signs have been observed that are considered to be
excessively bright. Sign industry representatives indicate that excessive brightness can be the
result of 1) sign malfunction or improper wiring, 2) lack of photo cell and/or dimming
mechanism, or 3) operator error or lack of understanding that brightness is not necessarily an
advantage, especially if it makes a sign unreadable or unpleasant to look at. They also maintain
that the intent of the electronic sign industry is to establish a brightness level that is similar to a
traditional internally or externally lit sign. Recent observations of sign technicians calibrating
the Interstate 394 LED billboard noted that the brightness controls are not calibrated to specific
nit levels, but rather vary in proportion to a set maximum level, like a volume control dial on a
typical car radio.
To control the extent to which electronic signs are a distraction or the extent to which they are
readable, many local governments have adopted regulations that limit nit levels. At this time,
ordinances that use nit level limitations typically differentiate between day time and night time
nit levels. A common daytime nit limitation ranges from 5,000 to 7,000 nits. A common
nighttime limitation is 500 nits, although in areas that are extremely dark at night, with very little
in the way of ambient light levels, less than 500 nits may be appropriate. Other communities
have taken this faIther, such as Lincoln, Nebraska, whose sign code incorporates a graph of
varying ambient light levels ranging from night time to a bright sunny day and all conditions
between those two extremes, and has correlating nit limitations for the various ambient light
levels.
Enforcement of these types of regulations is challenging as luminance of electronic signs is very
difficult to measure in the field. Typically, sign luminance is measured and calibrated in a
controlled factory setting using a spectral photometer to measure the light output. This
calibration setting is then used in conjunction with a photo cell to control the brightness of the
sign. The higher the ambient light levels, the brighter the sign. There are different nit thresholds
for various colors. White is most often used to set dimming levels because at a constant nit level,
white has the most intensity as perceived by the human eye.
Lincoln uses a light meter to conduct testing on electronic signs and found a wide range of
luminance levels. One small electronic sign had luminance levels of 13,000 nits. The process
that Lincoln uses to check luminance levels is to hold a luminance meter close to the face of the
sign so that it captures only the light emitted from the sign. They have not had any requests t.o
~26
measure the brighmess 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 ofbrighmess.
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 brighmess accordingly, is optimal.
Over time, the LEDs used in electronic signs have a tendency to lose some of their intensity, and
an owner may choose to have the sign adjusted and calibrated, which involves adjusting the level
of electrical current in a manner that affects the brightness of the sign. This occurs over the
course of two or three years. Having maximum nit levels established would ensure that the sign
company has upper limits to work with as far as adjusting the sign is concerned.
4.3 Public Review
Most communities establish rules within their sign code and do not create opportunities for
electronic signs to be approved through conditional use permits or special use permits. Some
communities with special overlay districts, or areas that are oriented toward entertainment and
night life, have established a review process for electronic signs, or for various functions of
electronic signs such as animation and video.
Other commuuities take the opposite approach, where they allow electronic signs with no
controls whatsoever, except in certain special areas, such as a historic overlay district, or a
historic downtown district, where the signs are prohibited. Each community needs to tailor their
application of electronic signs to meet their needs.
As of the writing of this report, no ordinances have been discovered that have a special review
committee just for the purpose of electronic signs. Typically, sign regulations established in the
zoning ordinance would be reviewed in accordance with existing review and approval processes.
As with other development features, dynamic signage should be either prohibited, permitted, or
conditional depending upon the zoning district and/or the specific features of the sign as
established within the city's regulations (i.e. size, specific location with respect to the adjacent
roadway, zoning district, proximity of sensitive uses). The recommended review process for
pennitted dynamic signs should be the same as procedures already in place for administrative
bt.27
review. For dynamic signs requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the standard process for
public notification and a public hearing before the planning commission should apply.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Driver distraction plays a significant role in traffic safety. Driver distraction is a factor in one in
four crashes, and of those crashes involving driver distraction, one in four involves distractions
outside the vehicle. The extent to which dynamic signage contributes to traffic safety has been
examined in this study. Following are some of the major findings from a review of available
research.
. Drivers that are subjected to information-rich content that is irrelevant to the driving task
(such as digital advertising) may be temporarily distracted enough to cause a degradation in
their driving performance. This degradation could lead to a crash.
. The unlimited variety of changing content allows dynamic signage to attract drivers'
attention at greater distances and hold their attention longer than traditional static billboards.
. Several studies have found a correlation between crashes and the complexity of the driving
environment. For example, crash rates are higher at intersections because the difficulty of
the driving task is increased by the roadway's complexity. Complex driving environments
place a high demand on drivers' attention. Introducing a source of distraction in an already
demanding driving environment is more likely to result in crashes. This is illustrated by the
1994 Wisconsin DOT study that examined crash rates before and after installation of an
electronic sign on a high-volume curving roadway. Introduction of this sign was identified
as a likely factor of the 80 percent increase in side-swipe crashes that was experienced.
. Many studies have noted a correlation between outdoor advertising signs and crash rates, but
have not established a causal relationship between the signs and crash rates. Driving is a
complex task influenced by multiple factors. It is not necessary to establish a direct causal
relationship between outdoor advertising signs and crash rates to show that they can make the
driving task less safe. While the research shows that driver distraction is a key factor in
many motor vehicle crashes, this often includes many interacting factors that distract drivers.
The specific driver distraction danger that advertising signs contribute is difficult to quantify.
A study that could control for multiple variables (human factors, vehicle, enforcement and
the roadway environment) would be needed to provide a definitive statement on the level of
driver distraction that signs produce. Such a study would likely find that not all advertising
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 lmowledge 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 departments of transportation have carefully studied the design and location
of dynamic signs within the highway right-of-way. Their goal is to convey a message to the
traveling public in a manner that is as straight-forward and readable as possible without being a
visual "attraction". The goal of the outdoor advertising sign is to be a visual attraction outside
the right-of-way, possibly making it a source of driver distraction. Nevertheless, the actual
change in crash rates influenced by the presence of any specific device has not been quantified in
a manner that fully isolates the impacts of an electronic sign. Recent studies conducted by
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 brighmess 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. tile size of electronic sifPls), 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. entertaimnent 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
l)29
d. Full animation and video.
3. If one of the forms of static display is identified as the preferred operational mode, a
minimum display time should be established. This display time should correspond to the
operation roadway speed (rather than posted speed limit), allowing at most one image
transition during the time that the sign if visible to a driver traveling at the operational
speed.
If a shorter minimum display time is considered, the effects of message sequencing
should be considered. Wait intervals of more than 1-2 seconds between sequenced
messages have the potential to become more of a distraction as viewers wait impatiently
for the next screen, in an effort to view the complete message.
4. If the community wishes to accommodate animation or video in some or all locations
where dynamic are permitted, a minimum and maximum duration of a video image
should be established. The purpose for establishing a time limit is to ensure that the
message is conveyed in a short, concise time frame that does not cause slowing of traffic
to allow drivers to see the entire message. Given the creativity of advertising, these video
images may be seen as a form of entertainment, and people 1ypically like to see an
entertaining message through to the end.
Differentiate between zoning districts where dynamic signs are permitted by right, and
zoning districts, overlay districts, or special districts where they should only be allowed
through the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A CUP would involve public
notification and review and approval by the Planning Commission. Other options would
include a design review board or other dispute resolution process.
5. Consider the establishment of minimum distance requirements between electronic
outdoor advertising devices in relation to the zoning district or roadway context in which
the signs are allowed.
6. Consider size limitations on dynamic signs for zoning district~ 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 of Minnetonka issues and may not be sufficient to
address concerns in other communities**
APPENDICES
A32
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 A
Current Sign Technologies
A33
PRELIMlNARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CITY OF MlNNETONKA
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**
Aupendix A - Current Sil!D Technolol!ies
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 regular 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 nonnal 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 displayiug 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).
A.~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 Defmitious
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**
Appendix B - Outdoor Advertisinfl: Sil!n Brightness 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 luminance.
Because this section includes some technical jargon, a glossary that further defines terms
used in outdoor advertising is provided in Appendix C.
lllnminance: 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. TIlls 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 amonnt of light that emanates from an internally illuminated sign. This
parameter is measured in nits. The nit levels necessary for the sign to be legible vary with
the ambient light conditions. 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 of light 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 brightness 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 (OMS) 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 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**
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 tms image were to be printed at
300 dots per inch (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 incorporatc photocells in their electronic signs.
Electronic billboard dimming can also be controlled by scheduled 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 followmg Signage Workshop
**Preliminary Report is specific to City of Minnetonka issues and may not be sufficient to
address concerns in other communities**
Appendix C
Electronic Outdoor Advertising Device
Visual Performance Def"mitions
A38
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 C - Electronic Outdoor Advertising Device Visual Performance Definitions
Conspicuitv
Conspicuity is the property that related to the con1:r:lst between a sign and its background and
its ability to stand out from its surroundings. This is a subjective property that depends on
lDany 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 lDay still be very bright due to the sun's
retlection 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.
Discomfort 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
PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR REVIEW BY CITY OF MINNETONKA
Further changes are anticipated following Signage Workshop
**Preliminary Report is specifIC to City ofMinnetonka issues and may not be suffICient to
address concerns in other communities**
Frequencv of Chang:e
The frequency of change is determined by the interval of time between sign image changes.
The rate of change can usually be adjusted by the owner and operator of the sign. Frequency
of change is highly variable, with 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 their message based on the person viewing it. For example, the
carmaker MINI has installed variable message signs that di6'Play a customized message to car
owners who have special key dongles containing a radio frequency identification (RFID)
chips when the dongle is in close proximity to the sign.
Another example is a mit.'Tophone system that identifies the radio stations passing drivers are
listening to and displays a specific message for that station.
~o
I B, Wallace, "Driver Distraction by advertising: genuine risk or urban myth?" Proceedings of the lnstitution of Civil
Engineers, Municipal Engineer 156, 2003.
2 J. Wachtel, and R. Netherton. "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic
Variable-Message Signage. Report No. FHWA-RD-8D-051," Waabington, D.C., 1980.
3 A.R. Lauer and J.C. Mcmnnagte, "Do Road Signs Affect Accidents?" Eno Transportation 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, Report CRC No. 165, 1961.
, S. Weiner. "Review of report." Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Administration, Environmental Design and Control
Division, August 1973.
6 J. Wachtel, aud R. Nethmton. "Safuty and Environmental Design Considerations in the Use of Commercial Electronic
Variable-Message Signage. Report No. FHW A-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 a!., "Impact of Video Adverrising on Driver Fixation Patterns. TranspOltation Research Record, 2004.
10 G. Wachtel, The Veridian Group, "Video Signs in Seattle - Final Report." 2001.
11 J. Wachtel, and R. Netherton. "Safety and Environmental Design Considerations In the Use of Commercial Electronic
Variable-Message Signage. Report No. FHW A.RD-80-051," Washington, D.C., 1980.
12 C. L. Dndek et al., "Impacts of Using Dynamic Features to Display Messages on Changeable Message Signs,"
Operations Office of Travel Management: Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2005.
13 "NHTSA Driver Distraction Forum: Summary and Proceedings," <http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/
md-13/FinalInternetForumReport.pdl>, accessed on Februmy 14, 2007.
1'''Report ofthe Road Safety Committee on the lnquiry into Driver Distraction," Parliament of Victoria, Australia, Victoria,
Australia, 2006, p. 1I O.
" A.W, Johnston and B.L. Cole. "Investigations of Distraction By Irrelevmlt Information," Australian Road Research
Board, 1976.
" S.G. Klauer et al., "Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 1 OO-Car Naturalistic
Drivtng Study Data," National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2006.
17 Driver Inattention Is A Major Factor In Serions Traffic Crashes," <-http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/
outreachltraftechITT243.htm>, accessed on February 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.
!9 University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, "The Role of Driver Distraction in Traffic
Crashes,''200 1.
20 K. Harder, "The Effectiveness and Safety of Traffic and Non-Traffic Related Messages Presented on Changeable
Message Signs (CMS)", Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Panl, Minnesota, 2003.
21 "Decision of the Outdoor Advertising Board in the Matter of John Donnelly & Sons, Permitee, Telespot of New England,
lnG" Intervenor, and Department of Public Works, Intervenor, with Respect to Permit Numbered 19260 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.
24 Federal Highway Administration, "Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver
Attention and Distraction," 2001.
2' G. Davis, FHW A Office of Safety Research and Development, Interviewed on February 23, 2007.
2< CTC & Associates LLC, "Elecll'Onic Bil1boards and Highway Safety, <''http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/
researchldocs/tsrs/tsrelectronicbil1boards.pdf.>, accessed on February 14,2007.
A41
27 Federal Highway Administration, "Research Review of Potential Safety Effects of Electronic Billboards on Driver
Attention and Distraction," 2001.
28 ''RepOlt of the Road Safety Committee on the Inquiry into Driver Distraction," Parliament of Victoria, Allstralia,
Victoria, Australia, 2006.
29 D. Mandelker, A. Bertucci and W. Ewald "Street Graphics and the Law," APAPlllllllingAdvisory Service, 2004, pp. 5t-
55.
A42
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Greg Copeland, City Manager
Shann Finwall, AICP, Planner
Draft Sign Code
November 7,2007 for the November 13 CDRB Meeting
INTRODUCTION
At the October 22, 2007, city council meeting the city council approved a settlement
agreement with Clear Channel over the installation of an LED sign face on a billboard
along Interstate Highway 494. The city council's motion included the caveat that the
settlement agreement was approved "with the understanding that the city council will
soon see a resurrection of the proposed sign ordinance amendment that was brought
before the council over one year ago."
BACKGROUND
February 14, 2003: The community design review board (CDRB) recognized in their
annual report (2002) the need to review and make recommendations on potential
modifications and updates to the city's sign code.
February 2, 2004: The CDRB recognized in their annual report (2003) that the sign code
is outdated and allows for excessive signage within the commercial and industrial zoning
districts. The CDRB also recognized the time and effort that was involved in the sign
code design criteria they worked on and the city council approved for the mixed-use
zoning district.
June 2004: The CDRB began phase 1 of the sign code revision which included
researching and comparing various sign codes from the following cities: Woodbury,
Oakdale, Roseville, White Bear Lake, Brooklyn Center, and Edina. The sign codes were
compared based on style and format of written code, quantitative data associated with
written code, definitions of sign types, and associated terminology and restrictions based
on zoning districts. The comparison illustrated that on average Maplewood has the
fewest number of prohibited types of signs, allows above average sign sizes, and allows
the greatest number of temporary signs without permits.
August 2004: With the comparative research complete and the results that showed
room for improvement within the Maplewood sign code, the CDRB began phase 2 of the
sign code revision which included involvement of the local business associations, the
chamber of commerce, and residents and business owners of the general public.
September 2004: Staff created the first online opinion survey published on the City of
Maplewood's website. Educational materials on the website informed the survey takers
of the types and sizes of signs allowed by the code as well as information on the current
sign code revision process. To market the survey, an advertisement ran for two months
in the Maplewood City News. In addition, staff sent the survey to a randomly selected
group of 200 business owners in Maplewood.
October 2004: The city received 50 survey responses from the online survey and
mailings. The responses were coded and input into a statistical database for
comparison and interpretation. The general opinion of the residents and business-
related individuals that took the survey is in favor of sign code writing, enforcement, and
the proposal to revise the sign code. In general, the main types of signs the
respondents expressed concern over were billboards and temporary signs.
November 2004 - September 2005: The CDRB began phase 3 of the sign code revision
which included review and revision to all areas of the sign code.
October - November 2005: City staff published the draft sign code and again requested
public feedback. City staff created a document which outlined the major changes in the
code. This document was mailed to 200 random business owners within Maplewood. In
addition, city staff advertised the sign code revision process and requested feedback in
the Maplewood Review, City News, and on the city's website.
December 2005 - February 2006: Based on public feedback received, the CDRB made
modifications to the draft sign code.
March 1, 2006: The CDRB recommended approval of the draft sign code.
May 2006: City staff presented the draft sign code to the city council during a workshop.
DISCUSSION
No action has been taken on the draft sign code since May 2006. Based on the city
council's motion to resurrect the sign code, city staff is attaching the draft sign code for
review once again by the CDRB.
Minnesota statute requires that the planning commission make a recommendation on
amendments to the city's zoning code, including sign codes. For this reason, once the
CDRB completes their review of the draft sign code, city staff will present the code to the
planning commission for their review and recommendation to the city council. Any major
changes requested by the planning commission will be brought back to the CDRB for
comment and then onto the city council for their review.
RECOMMENDATION
Review and discuss the attached draft sign code for any additional modifications
needed.
Attachments:
Major Changes Proposed in the Maplewood Sign Code
Draft Sign Code
2